PDA

View Full Version : Abortion - an issue in Australia?



chesslover
02-02-2004, 09:19 PM
in the USA, one of the biggest issues in terms of politics in abortion. Ever since the Roe vs Wade judgement by the US Supreme Court, the debate over abortion has been a big factor in US presidential and congressional races.

I am open on this issue, and if anything lean to the pro-choice lobby as I think that it is a women's right to choose and that a child becomes a child after birth - not at the time of conception.

Yet is US, the war over abortion is really that - a war. Millions of dollars are spent in state and federal elections over this issue, and in trying to ensure that "their" political candidates win.

The recent years has seen the conservative right take control in a lot of US states, and they have brought in laws that whilst they do not restrict the rights given by Roe vs Wade (which they cannot ever do, as it is a US supreme court judgment) curtails and makes it difficult for a woman to have abortion. In addition there has been lot of judges elected with anti-abortion views, and the Congress also has an anti-abortion majority. President Bush also is against abortion (something that I disagree with him)

The US government now stops funding for anti-abortion programmes world wide and funds planned parenthood initiatives. The US government has repeatedly condemned china for it's abortion policies - something that our very own Tassie Brian haridane also did.

The only thing that stops Roe vs wade being overturned in the USA is now the US supreme court

Currently in the US supreme court, there are 5 conservatives and 4 liberals - the same 5 who voted for Bush over the 4 who voted for Gore in the decision on election 2000. However only 3 of the 5 supreme court judges (teh chieg Justice, Clarence Thomas and Scullia) are anti-abortionist. However it is expected that at least 2 (maybe 3) of the Supreme Court judges will retire within the next 4 years - which means that should Bush win, and given the pro_bush majority in the House and Senate, he will appoint anti-abortion judges that will roll back teh advances women made since the early 70s as a result of Roe vs wade.

Thus over the next 4 years, especially if President Bush wins in 2004, abortion will loom as the biggest domestic political issue in USA

However whilst abortion is such a trigger and emotional issue in the US, it does not seem to be a big issue here. The right to abortion is recognised and accepted by the Australian mainsrtream, and other than people like Fred Niles and Brian Haridane, by most of the poltical mainstream as well...

Cat
02-02-2004, 11:27 PM
Abortion is illegal in Queensland. The term 'abortion on demand' is misleading. In fact, anyone requesting a termination within the mainstream western medical system would generally be counselled and assessed by their medical attendants before any decisions are made. Medical factors are considered and any pressures that are being placed on the mother are explored. Essentially this is a clinical process where the best medical interests of the patient are sort.

Most individuals do not undergo this decision lightly and seek medical advice in order that they arrive at an appropriate decision. In my experience, most individuals or couples attend with the expectation to be counselled. The term 'abortion on demand' impunes the integrity of every individual or couple that has wrestled with what is often the most difficult decision of their lives.

chesslover
02-02-2004, 11:31 PM
huh? how come?

I know that under Sir Joh Queensland was very rightwing in it's law, but with Goss and Beattie I would have thought that they woudl have changed the law by now

I know any woman who wants to abort can go to another australian state, but why has there been no pressure to make it legal in Queensland?

Cat
02-02-2004, 11:44 PM
huh? how come?

I know that under Sir Joh Queensland was very rightwing in it's law, but with Goss and Beattie I would have thought that they woudl have changed the law by now

I know any woman who wants to abort can go to another australian state, but why has there been no pressure to make it legal in Queensland?

It's too hot a potato for any contemporary politician risk their delicate neck over. Its easier for them to be made to travel to NSW.

Oepty
03-02-2004, 10:07 AM
It is my belief that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder under every and any possible circumstance. NOTHING justifies it.
Scott

arosar
03-02-2004, 11:47 AM
This is not an acceptable position Scott. You must change it immediately. What about women who've been raped? If they choose to abort - so be it.

AR

PHAT
03-02-2004, 02:27 PM
This is not an acceptable position Scott. You must change it immediately. What about women who've been raped? If they choose to abort - so be it.

AR

Oh, come off it. This is a good christian country for full good christian women who ar e just dieing to have the children of their rapists. Family Planning clinics never do good business even when they are marketed properly with catchy jingles like, "You Rape 'em, We Scape 'em", or "No Feotus Can Beat Us."

Around 50% of zygotes (fertilised eggs) do not implant in the endometrium. Since these poor little buggers have a sole, and are just lost in down the S-bend riding the blue tailed mouse, the government should be trying to save them for reimplantation. Not to do so is tantamount to manslaughter. The scheme could involve a monthly collection service, donor programs, and even a Christian Recipient of the Year comp for the woman who has the largest number of implanted humans born in one go.

What concerns me is that those few evil women who use abortion as an excuse to chuck a sicky, don't even get to put the products of conception to good use. Can't they be given a doggy bag to feed Fido?

Oepty
03-02-2004, 02:39 PM
This is not an acceptable position Scott. You must change it immediately. What about women who've been raped? If they choose to abort - so be it.

AR
It is not the resulting humans fault that it was concieved as a result of a rape, it shouldn't be killed. I am not changing my opinion on this issue. I am going to stay completely closed minded about this. Don't waste your time trying to convince me. I don't think I will post in this thread again
Scott

PHAT
03-02-2004, 02:52 PM
I am not changing my opinion on this issue. I am going to stay completely closed minded about this. Don't waste your time trying to convince me.


Dangerous [censored].

antichrist
03-02-2004, 04:07 PM
This is not an acceptable position Scott. You must change it immediately. What about women who've been raped? If they choose to abort - so be it.

AR

I had this debate eight years ago which co-incided when nuns were raped in a civil war somewhere. The Pope allowed them to have abortions. I even have the newspaper clipping of it somewhere.

Was it Gough Whitlam when challenged on his position on this replied: "And in your case it should be carried out retrospectively"?

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 04:08 PM
It is not the resulting humans fault that it was concieved as a result of a rape, it shouldn't be killed.

Firstly, I simply don't agree, because it isn't alive until it's born.

Secondly - it's not the mother's fault she was raped (by definition) so she shouldn't have to suffer the consequences.

Would you at least concede that if abortion was to be completely banned, a woman who is raped and forced to carry the child to term should be paid immense compensation for the physical hardship, disgust, embarrassment and opprobrium she may suffer as a result? Frankly I don't think a million dollars would cover it.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 04:12 PM
I dont think money could cover it because of the embarrassment, hardship and disgust.

arosar
03-02-2004, 04:29 PM
Firstly, I simply don't agree, because it isn't alive until it's born.

Interesting statement - one that I don't necesarrily agree with. Whatever the merits of what you say Kevo, I'm not sure that it has any relevance to whether a rape victim should be permitted to abort or not. In other words, alive or not, person or not - a product of rape should be allowed to be aborted if the victim so wishes. That's my position.

AR

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 04:34 PM
Interesting statement - one that I don't necesarrily agree with. Whatever the merits of what you say Kevo, I'm not sure that it has any relevance to whether a rape victim should be permitted to abort or not. In other words, alive or not, person or not - a product of rape should be allowed to be aborted if the victim so wishes. That's my position.

What if the fruit of this crime was not discovered until the second trimester?

PHAT
03-02-2004, 04:41 PM
Firstly, I simply don't agree, because it isn't alive until it's born.


It most certainly alive. It isn't a scentient being and the law in some states do not recognise it as a "person", and therefore killing it is not murder. But it is alive.

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 04:46 PM
It most certainly alive. It isn't a scentient being and the law in some states do not recognise it as a "person", and therefore killing it is not murder. But it is alive.
Though what is your point?

Even vegetables are alive.

PHAT
03-02-2004, 05:05 PM
Though what is your point?

Even vegetables are alive.

KB said that the foetus is not alive because it hasn't yet been born. I argued that it was alive nonetheless. That was my point. :wall:

I was not suggesting thta being alive is sufficient to attract the benefit of being granted human rights.

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 05:09 PM
Interesting statement - one that I don't necesarrily agree with. Whatever the merits of what you say Kevo, I'm not sure that it has any relevance to whether a rape victim should be permitted to abort or not. In other words, alive or not, person or not - a product of rape should be allowed to be aborted if the victim so wishes. That's my position.

AR

Mine too actually, I should have been clearer. My position is that even if you consider the unborn baby to be "morally" equivalent to a living adult human being, the victim should still be allowed to abort.

However, further to that, I do not consider the unborn baby to be living anyway. The latter is not my primary reason for my position, it was simply my rebuttal to Scott's reason.

antichrist
03-02-2004, 05:11 PM
Interesting statement - one that I don't necesarrily agree with. Whatever the merits of what you say Kevo, I'm not sure that it has any relevance to whether a rape victim should be permitted to abort or not. In other words, alive or not, person or not - a product of rape should be allowed to be aborted if the victim so wishes. That's my position.

AR

Agreeing with the victim's right to have an abortion is a test if we have any humanity or just consider the woman an incubator for any rudy sperm that happens to get in there. Make her have the baby and never let her forget the rape as she will see it's product every day and have to care for it. Thats right -- send her to the looney bin for a stupid male-ego principle.

I think they should make the rapist eat the aborted foetus uncooked!

(surely that line deserves a prize)

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 05:12 PM
:eh: :(

So basically you were trying to correct him, even though it doesn't make a difference whether its alive or not.

:owned:

antichrist
03-02-2004, 05:15 PM
:eh: :(

So basically you were trying to correct him, even though it doesn't make a difference whether its alive or not.

:owned:

It would be better if it is alive and crying - that will teach the a-s-s-hole

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 05:16 PM
It most certainly alive. It isn't a scentient being and the law in some states do not recognise it as a "person", and therefore killing it is not murder. But it is alive.

A matter of definition really.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 05:29 PM
:eh: :(

So basically you were trying to correct him, even though it doesn't make a difference whether its alive or not.

:owned:
You really need to quote otherwise people like antichrist will assume since your post follows theirs that you must mean them. :rolleyes:

antichrist
03-02-2004, 05:35 PM
You really need to quote otherwise people like antichrist will assume since your post follows theirs that you must mean them. :rolleyes:

What a classic stuff up!

(over and out, going home)

skip to my lou
03-02-2004, 05:37 PM
You really need to quote otherwise people like antichrist will assume since your post follows theirs that you must mean them. :rolleyes:
Oops, I leave like 1000 tabs open and I come back to it 15 minutes later... yeh should quote :doh:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 06:48 PM
It is my belief that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder under every and any possible circumstance. NOTHING justifies it.
Scott

I beg to differ. Even though I agree with you on God and Jesus and religion, on abortion I think that stating that abortion is murder in EVERY circumstances is wrong

There should be limited circumstances - what if the woman is
a. raped
b. is a victim of incest
c. mentally retarded
d. life is in danger due to the complications of giving birth
e. is going to give birth to a child with a serious/ fatal disease

Thus even if you believe that a baby is born at conception, you still have to think about the above circumstances which may justify abortion

chesslover
03-02-2004, 06:51 PM
Oh, come off it. This is a good christian country for full good christian women who ar e just dieing to have the children of their rapists. Family Planning clinics never do good business even when they are marketed properly with catchy jingles like, "You Rape 'em, We Scape 'em", or "No Feotus Can Beat Us."

What concerns me is that those few evil women who use abortion as an excuse to chuck a sicky, don't even get to put the products of conception to good use. Can't they be given a doggy bag to feed Fido?

disgust thy name is Matt :mad: :wall:

chesslover
03-02-2004, 06:54 PM
Firstly, I simply don't agree, because it isn't alive until it's born.

Secondly - it's not the mother's fault she was raped (by definition) so she shouldn't have to suffer the consequences.



well made post, and I agree with you 100% on your points above :)

Rincewind
03-02-2004, 09:59 PM
Secondly - it's not the mother's fault she was raped (by definition) so she shouldn't have to suffer the consequences.

Would you at least concede that if abortion was to be completely banned, a woman who is raped and forced to carry the child to term should be paid immense compensation for the physical hardship, disgust, embarrassment and opprobrium she may suffer as a result? Frankly I don't think a million dollars would cover it.

Does anyone know if this has actualy happened. For example in a country, or state where abortion is outlawed, has the mother of a child resulting from rape successfully sued her assaillant for damages?

BTW I'm not convniced by the argument that abortion is either right or wrong based on rape victims should not be forced to have the child resulting from the rape. There is a lot of collateral damage in many crimes, so what? I believe the expression is "stuff happens" - but abortion is not right or wrong on that basis.

The whole rape scenario is really a red herring to make so-called pro-lifers consider the consequences of their irrational position. But if abortion is murder than it is obviously wrong to do it even in the rape scenario (you cannot commit a crime to "correct" a previous crime), and if it is not murder then it is OK to do it regardless of whether there has been a rape or not. Where is the middle ground here?

Cat
03-02-2004, 11:03 PM
Does anyone know if this has actualy happened. For example in a country, or state where abortion is outlawed, has the mother of a child resulting from rape successfully sued her assaillant for damages?

BTW I'm not convniced by the argument that abortion is either right or wrong based on rape victims should not be forced to have the child resulting from the rape. There is a lot of collateral damage in many crimes, so what? I believe the expression is "stuff happens" - but abortion is not right or wrong on that basis.

The whole rape scenario is really a red herring to make so-called pro-lifers consider the consequences of their irrational position. But if abortion is murder than it is obviously wrong to do it even in the rape scenario (you cannot commit a crime to "correct" a previous crime), and if it is not murder then it is OK to do it regardless of whether there has been a rape or not. Where is the middle ground here?

This is exactly right Barry I couldn't agree more. There are about 16 000 children dying from starvation every day in Africa, millions of kids suffering from neglect and absent parenting world-wide and it would take a planet 21/2 times the size of the Earth to support everybody in the way we're accustomed. Raising children carries an enormous weight of responsibility and nobody should be blindly encouraged into parenthood unless they are fully prepared and commmitted to that responsibility. Opting for an abortion is a difficult decision for any potential parent and when an individual chooses this option, with full consideration of their circumstances, they deserve our respect not our condemnation.

There is also a responsibility at issue than none of the posters on this thread can ever experience and that is the responsibility of motherhood. How can any man judge any woman making such a decision when he will never know the burden of pregnancy, labour and mothering? Judgement in this domain should be the ultimate preserve of the female gender.

Garvinator
04-02-2004, 12:15 AM
david, a point that also seems to have been missed is, by medical definition, when is an unborn child regarded as being 'alive'?

Rincewind
04-02-2004, 12:16 AM
david, a point that also seems to have been missed is, by medical definition, when is an unborn child regarded as being 'alive'?

It is not so much what the medical definition is, but why the medical definition is what it is.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 12:21 AM
The whole rape scenario is really a red herring to make so-called pro-lifers consider the consequences of their irrational position.

More like a thin end of the wedge than a red herring. But yes, it's only effective on flat-out "pro-lifers" because a less absolute opponent will just say "sure, if it's rape then let there be an abortion" without conceding any more ground than that. So yes, it's not very relevant, because the main bulk of the issue is where the foetus was a product of consensual sex.


But if abortion is murder than it is obviously wrong to do it even in the rape scenario (you cannot commit a crime to "correct" a previous crime), and if it is not murder then it is OK to do it regardless of whether there has been a rape or not. Where is the middle ground here?

An issue here is that the pro-lifers tend to emotively equate "killing" with "murder" even though the law already recognises plenty of types of "killing" which are not murder because they are "justified". One of the amazing ironies is that some people who are radically anti-abortion also support "just killing" in cases like home invasion. So the whole "abortion=murder" thing can be tackled in two ways, firstly by arguing that it's not killing at all (nothing alive to kill), second by arguing that it's justified killing. Most anti-abortionists use a circular argument that because it was killing it couldn't be justified therefore it isn't justified killing. Some of the brighter ones will attempt to explore the concept of justified killing vs murder at length. Not very convincingly to my way of thinking.

PHAT
04-02-2004, 02:10 PM
This whole abortion debate seems to revolve around the difference between 'killing' and 'murdering'. Except for animal libbers, the varse majority would concede that 'murder' only relates to human beings. Therefore, all we need to do is to define what is and is not a human being.

This is where is becomes sticky. Does a human being start from: sperm or ova; zygote; communicating nurons; first heart beat; first learned response inutero; viability with best medical care (~24 weeks); viability with no medical care (~36 weeks); first breath; first concept of "I" and sentiance; self sufficiency (~8 years).

Ensolement occurs - if at all - at conception. That is the christian position for having a human being. Hence their no abortion stance. Some say that the human being becomes evident at the time it becomes self aware or sentient. The laws in most cases say the human being exists from its birth onwards.


As far as I can see, the christians are intransient, so they can have no part in the discussion. Much of western societies morals/ethics/mores are judao-christian and thus, biased toward the ghoust in the machine. Our laws reflect this nonsence. All we have left is sentiance as a criterium. Oh dear, now I am advocating snuffing out imbiciles and the vegatives. OK, I can live with that.

If you are sharp, you will have noted that this logic determines that infantacide not be concidered murder. :uhoh:

Cat
04-02-2004, 02:16 PM
david, a point that also seems to have been missed is, by medical definition, when is an unborn child regarded as being 'alive'?

For an organism to be alive it must have the following atributes;

- an ability to replicate
- an ability to mutate

A foetus is alive but totally dependent on its mother for its continued survival. Many organisms are totally dependent on other organisms for their continued existence. A foetus is essentially a parasite, a potential human being, but not a human being.

As Matt says, 20-25% of fetuses are aborted naturally. Maybe its God's way, maybe he (and she) doesn't feel so bad about abortion as us humans?

Garvinator
04-02-2004, 02:45 PM
Maybe its God's way, maybe he (and she) doesn't feel so bad about abortion as us humans?
going into dangerous territory there arent you david, especially with all us rabid athiests around :lol:

Oepty
04-02-2004, 02:56 PM
Well I am a bit more willing today than yesterday so I will make a few of brief replies.

Matthew. I don't believe in the existance of immortal souls so I have no problem with anything to do with souls.

Kevin. I find it totally rediculous that a feotus could be decribed as not being alive. I also believe there is no such thing as a justified killing (as apposed to an accidental killing) at this current period in time.

chesslover. Your list of scenarios contains nothing I have not seen before so it is all covered by my initial statements.

Scott

Bill Gletsos
04-02-2004, 03:33 PM
Oh dear, now I am advocating snuffing out imbiciles and the vegatives. OK, I can live with that.Well some here on the BB may place you in the first category, where by you couldnt live with it. :lol: ;)

antichrist
04-02-2004, 03:44 PM
Oh, come off it. This is a good christian country for full good christian women who ar e just dieing to have the children of their rapists. Family Planning clinics never do good business even when they are marketed properly with catchy jingles like, "You Rape 'em, We Scape 'em", or "No Feotus Can Beat Us."

Around 50% of zygotes (fertilised eggs) do not implant in the endometrium. Since these poor little buggers have a sole, and are just lost in down the S-bend riding the blue tailed mouse, the government should be trying to save them for reimplantation. Not to do so is tantamount to manslaughter. The scheme could involve a monthly collection service, donor programs, and even a Christian Recipient of the Year comp for the woman who has the largest number of implanted humans born in one go.

What concerns me is that those few evil women who use abortion as an excuse to chuck a sicky, don't even get to put the products of conception to good use. Can't they be given a doggy bag to feed Fido?

This would have to be the best of so far and a contender for best for year.

MS, where were you over Xmas, BIll G had a field day unchallenged.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 04:28 PM
Kevin. I find it totally rediculous that a feotus could be decribed as not being alive.

It's all a matter of definition. How do you define what's "alive" and what isn't? Or you can say it's composed with living tissue, which it is, but at what point does it become a distinct and truly independent entity? I'm just curious - whether it's considered alive or not doesn't make a shred of difference to my beliefs.


I also believe there is no such thing as a justified killing (as apposed to an accidental killing) at this current period in time.

Yes, I'm aware that you hold that belief but you would be one of very, very few who does.

Here is an interesting situation for you. A person perfoms an abortion. You believe that abortion should be illegal, so you would presumably want the police to go after them and prosecute them - correct? But this abortionist is so heavily armed at all times that if the police try to capture this person peacefully, the police will be killed. Therefore, if the police do not kill the abortionist, the abortionist goes free. What should happen in this situation? Either you are supporting justified killing at some point in the chain, or your belief that abortion should be illegal is toothless because anyone with enough weapons can flout it.

PHAT
04-02-2004, 06:36 PM
A person perfoms an abortion. You believe that abortion should be illegal, so you would presumably want the police to go after them and prosecute them - correct? But this abortionist is so heavily armed at all times that if the police try to capture this person peacefully, the police will be killed. Therefore, if the police do not kill the abortionist, the abortionist goes free. What should happen in this situation? Either you are supporting justified killing at some point in the chain, or your belief that abortion should be illegal is toothless because anyone with enough weapons can flout it.


What a clumsy long winded way to ask, "May one kill to prevent a killing?"

Anyway, the answer is yes - if you have an interest in the well being of the person in danger.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2004, 10:42 PM
What a clumsy long winded way to ask, "May one kill to prevent a killing?"

Pay attention, Matthew. :rolleyes: He's already said he doesn't believe in killing to prevent killing, and wasn't amenable to practical counter-arguments last time (because all the good people are going to Heaven anyway so why kill someone just to save their lives). So I set up a little scenario to try to prove that his attitude gets in the way of enforcing a belief directly derived from it, and is therefore not consistently tenable.

PHAT
04-02-2004, 11:06 PM
Pay attention, Matthew. :rolleyes: He's already said he doesn't believe in killing to prevent killing, and wasn't amenable to practical counter-arguments last time (because all the good people are going to Heaven anyway so why kill someone just to save their lives). So I set up a little scenario to try to prove that his attitude gets in the way of enforcing a belief directly derived from it, and is therefore not consistently tenable.

Why recontextualise the same question, "May one kill to prevent a killing?" If he don't never get it, let him enjoy his fairytail - until he sews the seeds of back street abortionist businesses, then we shoot him.

Fair dinkum, these brain washed pro-lifers are not worth the candle. Hopelessly illogical, closed minded, and ... ummm, I cannot think of anything that is more condeming than that. Trying to establish a point with them is as productive as trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

Rincewind
04-02-2004, 11:23 PM
Fair dinkum, these brain washed pro-lifers are not worth the candle. Hopelessly illogical, closed minded, and ... ummm, I cannot think of anything that is more condeming than that. Trying to establish a point with them is as productive as trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

:)

Have you heard the one about how we know toothpaste was invented in Tasmania?

Oepty
05-02-2004, 10:50 AM
Kevin. An abortionist may avoid punishment by the police but will not avoid punishment from God. The legal system we have even in this country is far from perfect even if it is not racked by the corruption that happens in some places overseas. That innocent people are convicted is a fact, and I am equally sure that guilty people have gone free. Sentences are not always consistent.

As to my definition on life, well I admit I don't have formal definition in mind, but I will try and come up with one. I do though believe that things that are alive are alive because God's power keeps them alive. I wouldn't say plants are alive in the same sense animals are.

Scott

EDIT: Kevin, I do not believe in heaven going.

Oepty
05-02-2004, 10:52 AM
Matthew. You shouldn't be surprised that I am closed minded on this issue as I stated I was. In fact I think that you have far more chance of convincing me there is no God than convincing me that abortion is ever right.
Scott

EDIT: Matthew if you really want to shoot me, come and do it.

PHAT
05-02-2004, 11:05 AM
EDIT: Matthew if you really want to shoot me, come and do it.

Don't be so melodramatic. I would rather crush you OTB.

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 04:31 PM
Kevin. An abortionist may avoid punishment by the police but will not avoid punishment from God. The legal system we have even in this country is far from perfect even if it is not racked by the corruption that happens in some places overseas. That innocent people are convicted is a fact, and I am equally sure that guilty people have gone free. Sentences are not always consistent.

That wasn't my point. My point was that if you have a law against abortion but are also opposed to justified killing then the police cannot enforce your law. In fact if you are opposed to justified killing then a police force in your ideal state would not be able to enforce any law at all. Anyone with weapons would be able to hold the state to ransom while the police did nothing. Would you be content to allow that and expect your God to sort out the mess?


As to my definition on life, well I admit I don't have formal definition in mind, but I will try and come up with one. I do though believe that things that are alive are alive because God's power keeps them alive. I wouldn't say plants are alive in the same sense animals are.

I doubt that a single qualified biologist in the world would agree with you. What's the difference?


Kevin, I do not believe in heaven going.

What do you mean by that?

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 04:36 PM
Don't be so melodramatic. I would rather crush you OTB.

Actually I think Scott's chess has improved, whereas your quantum leap has suffered from a waveform collapse. He now outrates you by almost 200 points. :p

Cat
05-02-2004, 05:13 PM
"I wouldn't say plants are alive in the same sense animals are. "

Half the Government are vegetables and the other half animals, and some are both at the same time!

Cat
05-02-2004, 05:17 PM
Actually I think Scott's chess has improved, whereas your quantum leap has suffered from a waveform collapse. He now outrates you by almost 200 points. :p

Don't blame it on chess skill, don't blame it on good play, don't blame it on good times, just blame it on the Glicko.

PHAT
05-02-2004, 06:52 PM
...In fact if you are opposed to justified killing then a police force in your ideal state would not be able to enforce any law at all. Anyone with weapons would be able to hold the state to ransom while the police did nothing.


This typical of what a first year philosophy student would try to do - attempt to apply logic to a system that is beyond peoples ability to apply it. There are so many contingencies and variables that you cannot hope to find a logical solution without a a six volume treatise.

Your analogy implodes because in practical machinations, pigs do not have to kill to prevent a person from practising as an abortionist.

Shut-up with the analogies and solve it from first principles. If you cannot agree with SC as to what those principles are, there is no way forward and no alternative but to shoot him.

PHAT
05-02-2004, 06:57 PM
Half the Government are vegetables and the other half animals, and some are both at the same time!

Sch.t! I just knew they were protozoan!

Atomic Pawn
05-02-2004, 07:00 PM
Don't be so melodramatic. I would rather crush you OTB.
And I would crush you OTB.

PHAT
05-02-2004, 07:00 PM
Actually I think Scott's chess has improved, whereas your quantum leap has suffered from a waveform collapse. He now outrates you by almost 200 points. :p

Just the size I like to disembowel.

PHAT
05-02-2004, 07:03 PM
And I would crush you OTB.

Prove it :cool:

Atomic Pawn
05-02-2004, 07:09 PM
Prove it :cool:
What is your rating?

PHAT
05-02-2004, 07:18 PM
What is your rating?

Ooooooh, getting worried?

Look it up and don't judge a book by its cover.

$100 says you cannot beat me 7:0

Atomic Pawn
05-02-2004, 07:34 PM
hahahahahaha AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA (just checked ur rating rofl)

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 11:30 PM
This typical of what a first year philosophy student would try to do - attempt to apply logic to a system that is beyond peoples ability to apply it.

Says one who never even finished first year to one who has a degree in the subject. :rolleyes:


There are so many contingencies and variables that you cannot hope to find a logical solution without a a six volume treatise.

Name some.


Your analogy implodes because in practical machinations, pigs do not have to kill to prevent a person from practising as an abortionist.

Is wasting my time the single greatest source of meaning in your life? Your claim implodes because in practical machinations, the police do not have to kill because it is known that they will if they have to. :doh:


Shut-up with the analogies and solve it from first principles.

If you can't work out the first-principle argument from the analogy there is no hope for you.

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 11:35 PM
$100 says you cannot beat me 7:0

Would you make that bet with me, if we met? Games at main-rating-list time limits? :p

chesslover
05-02-2004, 11:36 PM
Says one who never even finished first year to one who has a degree in the subject. :rolleyes:



Name some.



Is wasting my time the single greatest source of meaning in your life? Your claim implodes because in practical machinations, the police do not have to kill because it is known that they will if they have to. :doh:



If you can't work out the first-principle argument from the analogy there is no hope for you.

You really are very very smart and articulate well :clap: :clap:

remind me never to argeu against you in relation to any issue concerning philosophy or logic

PHAT
05-02-2004, 11:43 PM
hahahahahaha AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA (just checked ur rating rofl)

So, are you going to take $100 off me or not, A Comic Prawn?

PHAT
05-02-2004, 11:49 PM
Would you make that bet with me, if we met? Games at main-rating-list time limits? :p

In a flash. There is nobody whom I wouldn't offer the bet. [Psst. Now, Einstein, ask yourself why.]

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 11:54 PM
In a flash. There is nobody whom I wouldn't offer the bet. [Psst. Now, Einstein, ask yourself why.]

It's got me beat. Someone with more than 510 rating advantage would be expected to clean sweep their opponent 7-nil.

Bill Gletsos
06-02-2004, 12:01 AM
It's got me beat. Someone with more than 510 rating advantage would be expected to clean sweep their opponent 7-nil.
Practically probably yes, theoretically no as 510 is around a 95% winning chance.
Now up around a 920 point difference, well thats another matter entirely. ;)

Rincewind
06-02-2004, 12:09 AM
Practically probably yes, theoretically no as 510 is around a 95% winning chance.
Now up around a 920 point difference, well thats another matter entirely. ;)

I worked on the assumption that you needed a score which was closer to 7/7 then it was 6.5/7. The mid-point 6.75/7 is ~ .964286 which on the normal distribution with a std dev of 200&SQRT(2) equates to 509.8926.

I'm not a statistician so my argument is probably flawed.

EDIT...

Another wat you can look at it is with a expected result .964286 and assuming the lower rated player maximises his drawing possibility you would have a 0.071429 of a draw and 0.928571 of higher playing winning.

0.928571 ^ 7 is 0.595261 so better odds of 7-nil than there being any draws by that argument too.

Bill Gletsos
06-02-2004, 12:14 AM
I worked on the assumption that you needed a score which was closer to 7/7 then it was 6.5/7. The mid-point 6.75/7 is ~ .964286 which on the normal distribution with a std dev of 200&SQRT(2) equates to 509.8926.

I'm not a statistician so my argument is probably flawed.
Yes, 510 is 0.96432 on the normal scale but only 0.94959 on the logistic scale.

Rincewind
06-02-2004, 12:31 AM
Yes, 510 is 0.96432 on the normal scale but only 0.94959 on the logistic scale.

OK. Rating diff of 573 on the logistic scale then.

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2004, 12:40 AM
In a flash. There is nobody whom I wouldn't offer the bet. [Psst. Now, Einstein, ask yourself why.]

Nobody, not even a grandmaster? If they are strong enough to wallop you 7-0 then that's 7 nice cheap chess lessons?

You're a problem gambler?

You'd leave the country after losing game 6?

If none of the above, I give up.

PHAT
06-02-2004, 08:36 AM
Would you enter a tournament for $100 if the mean rating of your opponents was 1951+920=2871 ? [920 is Bill's figure for MS-AC]

Would you enter a tournament for $100 if the mean rating of your opponents was 1951+510=2561 ? [510 is the break even difference figure from BC for MS-AC]

When we look at the ratings of people on the BB, the mean is somewhere around 1700 ± 200 A Comic Prawn is not likely. That is 400-500 above my abiltiy. I reckon the pressure is all on A Comic Prawn.

So, I have about even odds of pulling a draw or win in 7 games. Plus I get to play 7 games with a similar flavor to Bonham vs Rogers.

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2004, 01:58 PM
Would you enter a tournament for $100 if the mean rating of your opponents was 1951+920=2871 ? [920 is Bill's figure for MS-AC]

Sure, why not? $100 for seven games with the greatest player who ever lived sounds like a pretty good deal. But getting beaten 7-0 by me really isn't quite the same sort of talking-point. (Except that you would probably be able to boast about having a won position before losing in say two of those games.)


Would you enter a tournament for $100 if the mean rating of your opponents was 1951+510=2561 ? [510 is the break even difference figure from BC for MS-AC]

Again, sounds like an OK deal, since I'd typically pay $25-$30 for a simul game against one of these guys.


When we look at the ratings of people on the BB, the mean is somewhere around 1700 ± 200 A Comic Prawn is not likely. That is 400-500 above my abiltiy. I reckon the pressure is all on A Comic Prawn.

This rather depends on whether Atomic Pawn is or is not a player whose name sounds rather similar to "Atomic", and who has previously used a handle incorporating the same word, doesn't it? Could just be coincidence I suppose. If it's him, you're in biiiiiiiiiiiig trouble. :eek:

I don't think the rating curve's actually that reliable in these cases, it's just a model, many people think the lower rated player overperforms slightly and I haven't seen any stats that refute that perception. The rating curve would give me about a 90% chance of 7-0 against you, I think 70% is more realistic.

Oepty
06-02-2004, 02:06 PM
Kevin. I might be wrong that animals and plants do not have the same sort of life. It was just a little bit of musing off the top of my head.

As to the analogy. Well I am not sure what to say about it other what I have said. The fact that people get away with crimes in the world, whether the police are allowed to use violence or not is sad, but hardly surprising. It would be a bit stupid to think that us imperfect humans could create a perfect legal system. This thought really stands whether there is a God or not I think. I have never said and certainly don't believe that making anything, including abortion, illegal would stop it happening. I would still believe that abortion should be illegal even if it did not lower the amount of abortions that occur in Australia. If I am still missing the point perhaps you need to explain it some more.

As to my chess rating. I have not played a great deal of games, <20 I think, so the fact I have won my last five, over a period of over a year means they have a greater impact on my rating than I deserved. Looking at the SA list I believe my rating should be around 1300 based on my level of play in the games. I wouldn't be betting against MAtthew scoring 7-0 against me, largely because I don't bet.
Scott

antichrist
08-02-2004, 04:26 PM
Did the abortion debtae get aborted?

Basil
17-04-2010, 04:56 PM
Note: None of what follows should in any way be interpreted as relative to my own view on abortion.

Question 1:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

Back to this question in a moment.

Question 2:
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three candidates.. Who would you vote for?

Candidate A.
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologist. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B.
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be our choice?

The candidates identities are in white text.
Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question: If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.

Adamski
17-04-2010, 05:13 PM
Cor, talk about resurrecting an old thread, CU. I never even voted on this one (until now). I woul donly allow abortion in the most limited of circumstances - your questions come close. As mentioned much earlier in the thread, rape would often be involved.

Basil
17-04-2010, 05:20 PM
Yep, it has been dormant for a while, hasn't it? I haven't read the thread - I simply queried the key word to save starting another thread. The questions arrived via one of those mass mails that SWAMBO receives.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2010, 10:19 PM
Question 1:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

I would recommend that she be allowed to have an abortion if she wishes to but I would neither encourage nor discourage. Whether she wants to or not is none of my business.


Question 2:
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three candidates.. Who would you vote for?

Candidate A.
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologist. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B.
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be our choice?

I'd go B for the sleeping in til noon alone. C has just got to be Hitler, I think B might have been Churchill.


And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question: If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.

No you didn't. Beethoven was the second of seven siblings (four of whom died in childhood as was fashionable in those days), not the last of nine.

Basil
17-04-2010, 10:37 PM
I would recommend that she be allowed to have an abortion if she wishes to but I would neither encourage nor discourage. Whether she wants to or not is none of my business.
That's where I am as well.


C has just got to be Hitler, I think B might have been Churchill.
Correct on both counts. I've edited my original to note that the identity of all three candidates are in white text.


No you didn't. Beethoven was the second of seven siblings (four of whom died in childhood as was fashionable in those days), not the last of nine.
Ching! A very quick Google reveals you're right. Shame on me for copying and pasting from an e-mail! I wasn't mindful of checking facts because I understood the 'you've just killed Beethoven' to be illustrative in its intent (although I did take the information to also be correct).

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2010, 11:23 PM
The poll could be extended:

Abortion only to save the mother's life (my view (http://creation.com/what-about-abortion-to-save-the-mothers-life) and that of leading pro-life philosopher Francis Beckwith (http://creation.com/antidote-to-abortion-arguments)).
Abortion should both on demand and taxpayer funded (as in Obamovcare).
Some libertarians believe that women should be able to choose abortion on demand, but that no one else should be forced to pay for their choice.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-04-2010, 01:35 PM
what about options like:
Abortion should be banned in LIMITED circumstances
Abortion must be agreed by both would be parents,
et.

The list is endless.

ER
19-04-2010, 01:44 AM
Only in cases of the woman's life is being endangered or when the pregnancy is a result of rape!
Then again it should only be the woman's decision!
I don't know if this has been pointed out before, the thread is too long to check all responses!

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2010, 02:02 AM
I don't think that gets him off the hook. If a person holds sexist religious beliefs they are sexist.
This applies to both sexes. Similarly, a white-hating black person is a racist, as is a black who voted for Obama because of his melanism.


I don't take an anti-abortion position as necessarily sexist, in that a person might hold it based on a fundamental (and in my view completely mistaken in at least two major ways) belief that abortion is "murder". However virtually all people holding anti-abortion views I have ever encountered (and I've known quite a few of them) are either (i) Christians, or otherwise religiously inclined against abortion or
They are religiously inclined for the same reason that former abortionist Bernard Nathanson became secularly inclined: that they believe that the unborn is human. The Bible doesn't itself directly say "abortion is wrong"; this is a logical deduction from the biblical teaching that "murder is wrong", the normal definition "murder is intentional killing of innocent human beings", and a largely science-based proposition "the unborn is a human being", agreed even by some pro-aborts.


(ii) males who are not Christians but whose attitudes towards women are in other ways strongly prone to be considered sexist or misogynistic.
Yet a majority of pro-lifers are women.

And when it came to the human cloning bill in 2002, Labor MP Kate Ellis was reported as follows about her vote (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr061206.pdf):


She said she did not see herself as a conservative, nor was she basing her opposition on religious convictions. But the creation of human life for the purpose of destroying it was something about which she was deeply uncomfortable.

Further, many misogynist men support abortion so they can have sex with lots of women knowing that if pregnancy results, they can push them into aborting and covering up the problem.


Presumably there are exceptions to this but my suspicion is that secular people who are not sexist are likely to see through the philosophical holes in the anti-abortion case.
But most of them usually don't even try to try anything philosophical. Instead of addressing the pro-lifers' main concern that abortion takes a human life, nearly all pro-abort politicians rely instead on trite sayings like "a woman's right to choose". Few pro-aborts are as philosophically sophisticated as say Judith Jarvis Thomson. Some pro-lifers are also not consistent, if they allow abortion for rape or incest, because this undercuts the main reason for objecting to abortion: that an innocent human life is taken.


Oh, back to the thread subject: isn't it curious how the Green vote seems to be shrinking (and the Green-voter preferencing of Labor increasing) now that Labor has turfed Rudd and installed Gillard, when Gillard will almost certainly be harsher on border protection than Rudd and when Gillard promotes a consensus-building approach to climate change management as opposed to immediate action, and was actually one of the movers behind Rudd's dog of an ETS getting dumped in the first place? A few hypotheses to explain this have occurred to me so far: (i) Some Green voters are exceedingly gullible and less than terribly bright (ii) The "Green voters" crossing back were never really Green inclined ideologically in the first place, were just saying "Green" as a form of "neither of the above" and would never have voted Green at all (iii) Gillard appeals to borderline Labor-Green voters because of issues other than climate change and boat people and the impact of those issues on vote leak from Labor has been exaggerated.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in dumping Rudd when Gillard supported all his failed policies.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 03:07 AM
Similarly, a white-hating black person is a racist, as is a black who voted for Obama because of his melanism.

I don't necessarily agree with the latter unless that vote was solely because of Obama's skin colour and without any expectation that having a President of that skin colour would make any tangible difference. I believe I have argued this before.


The Bible doesn't itself directly say "abortion is wrong"; this is a logical deduction from the biblical teaching that "murder is wrong", the normal definition "murder is intentional killing of innocent human beings", and a largely science-based proposition "the unborn is a human being", agreed even by some pro-aborts.

No; while this deduction is commonly argued by religious moralists it is an unsound deduction which can be easily seen through by many rational people not influenced by religious culture/dogma for at least three reasons:

1. Abortion involves a situation in which one supposed person is physically connected to another, depending on them for sustenance and inflicting vast physical changes on their body in the process of growing to the stage at which birth occurs over several months. Applying the "normal definition" to this circumstance is unwarranted because extremely few, if any, of the circumstances in which that normal definition is otherwise applied even remotely resemble it.

2. It is false that the intentional killing of an "innocent" human being defines murder anyway - it is a necessary but not sufficient condition as there are many forms of deliberate homicide that are not murder and some of these can refer to the killing of people who are doing harm through no fault of their own (eg the temporarily deranged).

3. Even if the normal definition was applicable, the additional premise you require is not "the unborn is a human being" but "the unborn is a living human being". The term "living" in the context of unborn specimens is inapplicable as it is hopelessly subjective.


Yet a majority of pro-lifers are women.

In Australia the gender difference is slight (if it even still exists, just 4 points in Morgan 2006, barely stat. sig.) and an obvious confounding factor is that more women than men are religious.


And when it came to the human cloning bill in 2002, Labor MP Kate Ellis was reported as follows about her vote (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr061206.pdf):


She said she did not see herself as a conservative, nor was she basing her opposition on religious convictions. But the creation of human life for the purpose of destroying it was something about which she was deeply uncomfortable.

Irrelevant example. Nobody (or hardly anybody) gets pregnant just so they can get an abortion.


Further, many misogynist men support abortion so they can have sex with lots of women knowing that if pregnancy results, they can push them into aborting and covering up the problem.

Neither disputed nor relevant to my comments above if true. An argument of the form (most A are B) is not refuted by an argument of the form (some B are not A).


But most of them usually don't even try to try anything philosophical. Instead of addressing the pro-lifers' main concern that abortion takes a human life, nearly all pro-abort politicians rely instead on trite sayings like "a woman's right to choose". Few pro-aborts are as philosophically sophisticated as say Judith Jarvis Thomson.

Here you mistake the combination of desire and ability to articulate a philosophical position in public (which very few people on any side of any issue possess) with the ability to see through and reject a shonky one, and furthermore politicians will often dumb issues down anyway.


There is a lot of hypocrisy in dumping Rudd when Gillard supported all his failed policies.

Only if you argue that policy failure is actually what Rudd was dumped for. Nonetheless there is a lot of artificial distancing.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2010, 05:15 AM
I don't necessarily agree with the latter unless that vote was solely because of Obama's skin colour and without any expectation that having a President of that skin colour would make any tangible difference. I believe I have argued this before.
You may well have, yet black people voted for Obamov about 95% against Heilary despite having almost identical policies. The Leftard race-baiters should be honest: if whites went for Heilary or McLame by 95%, they would be screaming about anti-black racism. To prove this, there were whinges about it anyway, although Obamov picked up about the same percentage of the white vote as John "seared, seared" Kerry.


No; while this deduction is commonly argued by religious moralists it is an unsound deduction which can be easily seen through by many rational people not influenced by religious culture/dogma for at least three reasons:
Yet it was argued by the likes of Nathanson, as well as Nat Hentoff, who accepted all premises except that they thought murder was wrong independent of the Bible which they didn't believe.


1. Abortion involves a situation in which one supposed person is physically connected to another, depending on them for sustenance and inflicting vast physical changes on their body in the process of growing to the stage at which birth occurs over several months. Applying the "normal definition" to this circumstance is unwarranted because extremely few, if any, of the circumstances in which that normal definition is otherwise applied even remotely resemble it.
Basically the Judith Jarvis Thompson argument with the "famous violinist". But a violinist artificially hooked up is an unnatural situation unlike a pregnant woman.


2. It is false that the intentional killing of an "innocent" human being defines murder anyway — it is a necessary but not sufficient condition as there are many forms of deliberate homicide that are not murder and some of these can refer to the killing of people who are doing harm through no fault of their own (eg the temporarily deranged).
"Innocent" in this case means the original Latin in nocens or not harming, not sinlessness for example.


3. Even if the normal definition was applicable, the additional premise you require is not "the unborn is a human being" but "the unborn is a living human being". The term "living" in the context of unborn specimens is inapplicable as it is hopelessly subjective.
That was implied in the term "being". And it has objective meaning otherwise fetal surgery would be nonsense. Even subjectively it has power, in that women who want their baby sometimes describe themselves as "with child", and the fetal surgeons regard the unborn as a patient.


In Australia the gender difference is slight (if it even still exists,
Regardless of the reason, it is still significant.


just 4 points in Morgan 2006, barely stat. sig.) and an obvious confounding factor is that more women than men are religious.
True. G.K. chesterton pointed out the dishonest of christophobes who on the one hand whinged that Christianity is anti-woman, then expressed contempt for the church because its attendance was majority female.


Irrelevant example. Nobody (or hardly anybody) gets pregnant just so they can get an abortion.
It was relevant in showing that a view related to pro-life can be held by a secular (and leftist) woman.


Here you mistake the combination of desire and ability to articulate a philosophical position in public (which very few people on any side of any issue possess)
Yet pro-life politicians often make the logically valid argument that I outlined, while their opponents make little attempt to dispute the premises.


with the ability to see through and reject a shonky one, and furthermore politicians will often dumb issues down anyway.
Yet the likes of alGore, Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson defended pro-life views for some time. They switched when it was necessary for advancement in the Dems, without even trying to refute their previous arguments. All they come up with now is "woman's right to choose". Judith Jarvis Thompson also admitted the lack of decent arguments by prominent pro-aborts against the pro-life premises.


Only if you argue that policy failure is actually what Rudd was dumped for. Nonetheless there is a lot of artificial distancing.
It was in a sense, in that KRudd's mining supertax was a magnet for opposition, and it reminded people of KRudd's other expensive failures. Thus polls were predicting a huge loss of seats. Yet Gillardova supported these policies.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 08:30 PM
You may well have, yet black people voted for Obamov about 95% against Heilary despite having almost identical policies. The Leftard race-baiters should be honest: if whites went for Heilary or McLame by 95%, they would be screaming about anti-black racism. To prove this, there were whinges about it anyway, although Obamov picked up about the same percentage of the white vote as John "seared, seared" Kerry.

What the "Leftard race-baiters" would say is neither here nor there in determining whether a vote was actually racist or not. Furthermore, even if Obama's and Clinton's policies were utterly identical, if blacks believed that electing one of their own would be more likely to deliver those policies in a way that favoured them personally, then that's not a racist vote, whether they were right or wrong.


Yet it was argued by the likes of Nathanson, as well as Nat Hentoff, who accepted all premises except that they thought murder was wrong independent of the Bible which they didn't believe.

Hentoff (according to him) got duped by one of Peter Singer's silly sensationalist arguments that claims there is no moral difference between aborting a week before birth and allowing a severely impaired infant to die, combined with some silly legalese concerning a case where parents were allowed to let a baby die in the supposed name of "privacy". But Singer was wrong because while the infant is not yet born its physical connection to the mother-to-be impacts physically on her, even if for only a week. After it is born that is no longer the case.

Nathanson, like Hentoff, may well have been culturally influenced by religious dogma even without believing in God at the time they formed their views (both called themselves "Jewish atheists" and Nathanson later converted to Catholicism.)


Basically the Judith Jarvis Thompson argument with the "famous violinist". But a violinist artificially hooked up is an unnatural situation unlike a pregnant woman.

Exactly. I am aware JJT used that as a pro-abortion argument, but the anti-abortion crew can't compare abortion to any real murder-like circumstances because they barely exist.


"Innocent" in this case means the original Latin in nocens or not harming, not sinlessness for example.

Well in that case a fetus undesired by its mother is not innocent.


That was implied in the term "being".

Not convinced. A recently dead being is still a being, just one that is no longer alive.


And it has objective meaning otherwise fetal surgery would be nonsense. Even subjectively it has power, in that women who want their baby sometimes describe themselves as "with child", and the fetal surgeons regard the unborn as a patient.

But there are plenty of usage indicators the other way too. We (or most of us anyway) talk about someone's lifespan extending from the date of birth to date of death. We talk about their age dated from the date of birth, instead of saying they've been alive for around DOB + an arbitrary nine months. We describe the population of a region in terms of the number of people who have been born and have not yet died, counting day-old babies equivalent to large adults when it would not be difficult to extrapolate from birth rates to an approximate estimate of the number of unborns yet to be born within that population.


Regardless of the reason, it is still significant.

Not for the purposes of what I was arguing above.


It was relevant in showing that a view related to pro-life can be held by a secular (and leftist) woman.

There is pro-life and pro-life. Issues relating to whether it is OK or not to deliberately create human cells that will then be destroyed (for whatever reason) differ from abortion so fundamentally that it should not be assumed Ellis is anti-abortion. Indeed Ellis voted for the RU486 bill, which split 66-43 in favour for males and 29-7 in favour for females. All 7 women who voted no were Lib/Nat although a few ALP males voted no.


Yet pro-life politicians often make the logically valid argument that I outlined, while their opponents make little attempt to dispute the premises.

Not sure about the latter bit. When I have some time to spare I might dig up the Hansard and see how the RU486 debate went philosophically. If so I will post results here.


Yet the likes of alGore, Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson defended pro-life views for some time. They switched when it was necessary for advancement in the Dems, without even trying to refute their previous arguments. All they come up with now is "woman's right to choose".

I would expect there would be some pollies on either side of the party fences whose argued position on abortion would be determined by their party alignment rather than by their actual views. At times it is not a wise career move for a conservative party figure to be pro-abortion.


Judith Jarvis Thompson also admitted the lack of decent arguments by prominent pro-aborts against the pro-life premises.

Prominent fervent advocates of pretty much any issue position tend to be either philosophically simple or else dumbing it down for mass consumption. Environmental philosophers are frustrated by Greens, Marx was frustrated by Marxists and so on.


It was in a sense, in that KRudd's mining supertax was a magnet for opposition, and it reminded people of KRudd's other expensive failures. Thus polls were predicting a huge loss of seats. Yet Gillardova supported these policies.

I will take this up back on the Gillard thread if at all. Actually I am trying to write an article on the whole Rudd-replacement business and what made it tick.

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2010, 05:02 AM
What the "Leftard race-baiters" would say is neither here nor there in determining whether a vote was actually racist or not.

Living in the USA now, several of my friends have been accused of being racist for attacking Obamov, even though skin colour was not mentioned.
Their attacks were on the spendulus, taking over private companies, abortion extremism, dissing the US allies and appeasing despots. Yet these particular Obamov defenders would have agreed with these attacks if they were against a white-skinned politicians. Thus they were defending Obamov just because of his skin colour, i.e. they are racist.


Furthermore, even if Obama's and Clinton's policies were utterly identical, if blacks believed that electing one of their own would be more likely to deliver those policies in a way that favoured them personally, then that's not a racist vote, whether they were right or wrong.
Again, see if that would work if that was a reason for whites to vote for a white.


Hentoff (according to him) got duped by one of Peter Singer's silly sensationalist arguments that claims there is no moral difference between aborting a week before birth and allowing a severely impaired infant to die, combined with some silly legalese concerning a case where parents were allowed to let a baby die in the supposed name of "privacy".
Singer, rabid atheopath and greenstapo supporter, argued that there was no real difference between the child in the womb and outside, as far as the entity was concerned.


But Singer was wrong because while the infant is not yet born its physical connection to the mother-to-be impacts physically on her, even if for only a week. After it is born that is no longer the case.
Yet at viability, the baby can live independently of the mother. But the object of abortion is precisely a dead baby. Obamov was notorious for supporting killing babies that survived an abortion attempt.


Nathanson, like Hentoff, may well have been culturally influenced by religious dogma even without believing in God at the time they formed their views (both called themselves "Jewish atheists" and Nathanson later converted to Catholicism.)
I doubt it at the time. Many Jews are secular, and Nathanson was a leader of NARAL and performed abortions himself.


Well in that case a fetus undesired by its mother is not innocent.
It is; it is not harming.


But there are plenty of usage indicators the other way too. We (or most of us anyway) talk about someone's lifespan extending from the date of birth to date of death.
Not the Chinese.


I would expect there would be some pollies on either side of the party fences whose argued position on abortion would be determined by their party alignment rather than by their actual views. At times it is not a wise career move for a conservative party figure to be pro-abortion.
For that reason, I distrust Mitt Romney. But it was notorious in the Dems.

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2010, 10:23 PM
Living in the USA now, several of my friends have been accused of being racist for attacking Obamov, even though skin colour was not mentioned.
Their attacks were on the spendulus, taking over private companies, abortion extremism, dissing the US allies and appeasing despots. Yet these particular Obamov defenders would have agreed with these attacks if they were against a white-skinned politicians. Thus they were defending Obamov just because of his skin colour, i.e. they are racist.

Maybe the defenders are racist. Or maybe they're just partisan Democrats, who would have agreed with those attacks if they were against white-skinned Republicans? Without knowing more about the "attackers" and their critics, I can't say. But of course I agree that an attack on Obama over those policies is not necessarily racist, and indeed provided it doesn't carry a racial tone, probably not racist at all.


Again, see if that would work if that was a reason for whites to vote for a white.

I'm fine with it just as I'm fine with a hypothetical local Italian community voting for Italian local politicians for no other reasons than that they are fellow Italians, for example. Or women voting for a woman in a choice between an equally qualified man and an equally qualified woman, or men voting for men in the same situation. None of it demonstrates an -ism in my view. I realise not everybody from either side of the Obama-vs-White Dudes United sub-debate would agree with me.


Singer, rabid atheopath and greenstapo supporter, argued that there was no real difference between the child in the womb and outside, as far as the entity was concerned.

Which may very well be true but the difference is the impact on another entity.


Yet at viability, the baby can live independently of the mother. But the object of abortion is precisely a dead baby. Obamov was notorious for supporting killing babies that survived an abortion attempt.

Obama's stated concern was that the proposed law requiring saving such babies would effectively outlaw abortion.

Obama has also given in-principle support to partial birth abortion bans provided the health of the mother is adequately secured, but considers that bills put before him fail to meet that proviso.

My own view is that where, as a result of an abortion attempt that failed, there is a viable baby that has entirely been removed from its mother's body, and is breathing, then that baby is alive and should have a legal right to not be killed. Whether it should be actively kept alive and at whose expense are trickier questions. Perhaps by way of atonement for their illiberal political views, anti-abortionists could pay a special tithe for this service. :lol:


I doubt it at the time. Many Jews are secular, and Nathanson was a leader of NARAL and performed abortions himself.

It depends on exactly what they mean by "Jewish atheist". They seem to think the "Jewish" part of the equation is a big deal.


It is; it is not harming.

Of course it is. Pregnancy is severely incapacitating and does great temporary and often considerable permanent damage to a woman's body - indeed it is so harmful that prior to the interventions of modern medicine pregnancy was one of the leading causes of female death. That the harm is unintentional is irrelevant to whether it is harm or not. Of course, this "harm" won't be considered as net harm by a woman who wants a baby, but that's different.


Not the Chinese.

Which doesn't stop them having a very extreme attitude in support of birth control indeed.

Ian Murray
29-06-2010, 08:34 AM
New Poll Finds Strong Majority Of Australians Support Abortion Rights (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/166681.php)

Australian voters have become much more favorable toward abortion rights over the past 20 years, according to new findings from the Australian Election Study, the Brisbane Times reports. In 1987, 38% of Australians supported abortion rights in all circumstances, according to the Times. The new study found that 57% of Australians support right of women to have an abortion "readily when they want one," while another one-third support abortion "in special circumstances," according to the Times. Four percent of respondents oppose abortion rights under any circumstances. The study is based on polls of 1,873 voters during Australia's 2007 federal elections.

The study also showed that 77% of winning candidates in the 2007 election favored an unrestricted approach to abortion rights. A clear majority of both Labor Party and Liberal Party voters support abortion rights, the study found.

Kevin Bonham
29-06-2010, 04:17 PM
Interesting to note also that in that study the question is:

‘Which one of these statements comes closest to how you feel about abortion in Australia?
1) Women should be able to obtain an abortion readily when they want one 2) Abortion should be
allowed only in special circumstances 3) Abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances 4)
Don’t know’

It looks like the don't-know rate was 11.3%. Of those who did express a view, 60.8% went for option 1, 34.9% for option 2, and only 4.3% for option 3. That's even though option 2 is hardly specific about what "special circumstances" are.

Ian Murray
29-06-2010, 07:21 PM
Interesting to note also that in that study the question is:

‘Which one of these statements comes closest to how you feel about abortion in Australia?
1) Women should be able to obtain an abortion readily when they want one 2) Abortion should be
allowed only in special circumstances 3) Abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances 4)
Don’t know’

It looks like the don't-know rate was 11.3%. Of those who did express a view, 60.8% went for option 1, 34.9% for option 2, and only 4.3% for option 3. That's even though option 2 is hardly specific about what "special circumstances" are.
Considering that 68% of Australians are nominally Christian (ABS Census data), it follows that the vast majority of Christians are also pro-choice, with the right-to-life lobby a very small albeit vocal minority

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2010, 06:51 AM
Considering that 68% of Australians are nominally Christian (ABS Census data),
Who cares?


it follows that the vast majority of Christians are also pro-choice, with the right-to-life lobby a very small albeit vocal minority
Only if you equate nominal Christians with real ones. And since when is morality decided by majority vote? Hitler was democratically elected, and ante-bellum US Democrats supported slavery and were a majority in the South.

I note also that Mr Murray is a fanatical warm-mongering alarmist. Many of these types talk about out duty to our future descendants. But if there is such a thing as a duty to people not yet conceived, then a fortiori there must be a duty to embryos already conceived.

Ian Murray
30-06-2010, 09:20 AM
Who cares?


Only if you equate nominal Christians with real ones. And since when is morality decided by majority vote? Hitler was democratically elected, and ante-bellum US Democrats supported slavery and were a majority in the South.

I note also that Mr Murray is a fanatical warm-mongering alarmist. Many of these types talk about out duty to our future descendants. But if there is such a thing as a duty to people not yet conceived, then a fortiori there must be a duty to embryos already conceived.
Your POV is shared by only 4% of Australians. As you say, who cares?

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2010, 10:34 AM
Your POV is shared by only 4% of Australians. As you say, who cares?
Yet when abortion was supported by a vocal feminazi minority, you would regard that minority of Amazonian harridans as heroines.

Ian Murray
30-06-2010, 01:55 PM
Yet when abortion was supported by a vocal feminazi minority, you would regard that minority of Amazonian harridans as heroines.
Not me. You're thinking of someone else - I don't even know what a feminazi is.

ER
30-06-2010, 03:15 PM
Not me. You're thinking of someone else - I don't even know what a feminazi is.

what about an Amazonian harridan? :eh: :hmm:

Ian Murray
30-06-2010, 07:04 PM
what about an Amazonian harridan? :eh: :hmm:
At least that's something I can look up in the dictionary :) An endangered species, I fear, along with everyone else in the Amazon basin, as the loggers and rancheros continue denuding it.

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2010, 09:01 PM
Hitler was democratically elected

False. A common urban myth.

The highest vote gained by the Nazis was 43.9% in March 1933 and that election was hardly free and fair since Communist leaders were suppressed following the Reichstag fire, meaning that the Nazis had inflated powers in the new parliament since their enemies had not only lost votes but were also effectively prevented from taking their seats. Without this, the Nazis would still have been a significant party (probably with their support in the 30s as in previous elections) but would not have been able to technically do nearly as much.


I note also that Mr Murray is a fanatical warm-mongering alarmist. Many of these types talk about out duty to our future descendants. But if there is such a thing as a duty to people not yet conceived, then a fortiori there must be a duty to embryos already conceived.

Doesn't even remotely follow since the supposed argument about duty to our descendents mainly concerns the negative quality of their experience of life - that it is not good to make others suffer trying to get by on a trashed, polluted, denuded and impoverished planet. But embryos that are aborted don't have any kind of experience of planetary conditions and therefore the thought of them having a miserable life doesn't come into it, since they actually have no life at all.

Maybe you should file your line above in "Arguments Anti-Abortionists Should Not Use".

Igor_Goldenberg
30-06-2010, 09:59 PM
False. A common urban myth.

The highest vote gained by the Nazis was 43.9% in March 1933 and that election was hardly free and fair since Communist leaders were suppressed following the Reichstag fire, meaning that the Nazis had inflated powers in the new parliament since their enemies had not only lost votes but were also effectively prevented from taking their seats. Without this, the Nazis would still have been a significant party (probably with their support in the 30s as in previous elections) but would not have been able to technically do nearly as much.

Hitler was already a Chancellor before Reishtag fire, being leader of the party with highest vote and largest number of seat. Is current Tasmanian premier democratically elected? If yes, then so was Hitler.

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2010, 11:05 PM
Hitler was already a Chancellor before Reishtag fire, being leader of the party with highest vote and largest number of seat.

The party having the highest vote and largest number of seats was hardly the reason since this was also true after the July 1932 election and between the November 1932 election and Hitler's appointment as Chancellor on 30 Jan 1933. In fact Hitler was appointed Chancellor at the head of an unstable coalition appointed by the President between elections, although it did not have a majority of seats even between the two parties. (While I referred to Hitler's vote share above it is only relevant because the German system of the time was very proportional. In many elections a vote of 43-ish% does win a party an outright majority of seats.)

For the period of a whole 34 days between his appointment and the unfair 5 Mar 1933 election, you can argue that Hitler was democratically elected as the leader of a minority government, but it is more accurate to say that he was the indirect appointment of a democratically elected President (who, incidentally, had thrashed Hitler in the 1932 Presidential Election) in a situation where no party could command control of the parliament. Furthermore, in the cabinet that von Hindenberg appointed Hitler Chancellor of, the Nazis had little representation. In any case, whatever you argue about whether Hitler was democratically elected for 34 days (much of that being the campaign for the next election) it just doesn't carry the significance that "Hitler was democratically elected" is supposed to convey.

The analogy with the current Tasmanian Premier ignores two relevant facts. Firstly, that Premier is now Premier as head of a formal coalition government commanding 60% of the seats in the Tasmanian Parliament, really no different to the Liberal-National coalition governments under Howard except that those were announced as coalitions before the elections. Government is formed on the floor of the House by elected representatives so a leader heading a coalition commanding 60% of the seats after a free and fair election is democratically elected. Hitler never commanded a majority of seats won at a free and fair election.

Second, Bartlett was the incumbent Premier at the time of the election and as such remains the democratically elected Premier until he is removed by the Parliament, sacked by the Governor or resigns. Bartlett said he was going to resign if Will Hodgman could convince the Governor that he could govern, but Hodgman failed to do that, and hence Bartlett remained in office.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-06-2010, 11:31 PM
Hitler was appointed Chancellor in accordance with the German law (democratic at the time). Even what he did after 5th March was arguably within existed legal framework (and approved by Hindenburg). As such, he was democratically elected. The fact that he abolished the democracy after being elected is besides the point.

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2010, 11:57 PM
Even what he did after 5th March was arguably within existed legal framework (and approved by Hindenburg). As such, he was democratically elected.

No, because the election of 5 March was not a free and fair election due to massive use of violence and intimidation by the Nazis, especially against the Communists, and therefore, even if you call him democratically elected from 30 Jan, he ceased to be such with the election of 5 March.

Furthermore, many of the things Hitler did after 5 March were possible only because his coalition had the numbers on the floor of parliament to do them. But it had those numbers not by virtue of the election results, but because many of the democratically elected representatives were intimidated by clear and publicly obvious threats of physical violence. The Enabling Act needed a two-thirds majority and would never have got near it in a freely meeting parliament, even following the March 1933 election results.

Just because there is an "election" doesn't mean someone has been democratically elected.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 02:25 AM
False. A common urban myth.

The highest vote gained by the Nazis was 43.9% in March 1933
But quite a lot of democratically elected governments have <50% of the votes. One of the Left's favorite martyrs, the Marxist Salvador Allende, won a plurality of only 36.2%.


and that election was hardly free and fair since Communist leaders were suppressed following the Reichstag fire, meaning that the Nazis had inflated powers in the new parliament since their enemies had not only lost votes but were also effectively prevented from taking their seats.
Well, Communists have little cause to complain about unfair elections, not that I think that the German elections were fair, obviously.


Doesn't even remotely follow since the supposed argument about duty to our descendents mainly concerns the negative quality of their experience of life - that it is not good to make others suffer trying to get by on a trashed, polluted, denuded and impoverished planet. But embryos that are aborted don't have any kind of experience of planetary conditions and therefore the thought of them having a miserable life doesn't come into it, since they actually have no life at all.
But descendants who do not yet exist likewise have no life at all.


Maybe you should file your line above in "Arguments Anti-Abortionists Should Not Use".
I'd have to get around to writing that, and there is not enough for it, since even your objection is hardly conclusive.

But “Arguments Pro-aborts should not use” would fill a book.

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2010, 03:21 AM
But quite a lot of democratically elected governments have <50% of the votes.

That is because they operate under electoral systems in which this is possible. In an accurate proportional representation system it is not. The German system was very accurate; 43.9% of the vote won the Nazis 44.5% of seats.


One of the Left's favorite martyrs, the Marxist Salvador Allende, won a plurality of only 36.2%.

Allende's election is another example of why any form of first past the post is dubiously democratic at best. But all the same, to say he was elected by winning a plurality oversimplifies it. Topping what was basically a very close three-way split did not guarantee him election automatically. Rather it created a situation in which Chile's Congress selected the winner from the top two candidates, and the tradition in such cases was that the Congress selected the top vote-getter. There was substantial pressure placed on Congress not to do so in Allende's case but Congress still endorsed him by a wide margin. Effectively he was another indirect appointment.

(Incidentally looking at the current Chilean Congress, they have a quite unusual electoral system that elects two members from each constituency, which tends to result in parliaments closely balanced between two large coalitions.)


Well, Communists have little cause to complain about unfair elections, not that I think that the German elections were fair, obviously.

There are Communists and there are Communists. Some are or were actually silly enough to think their ideology might eventually obtain unlimited democratic mandate. These days we know better; the system collapses unless supported by force.


But descendants who do not yet exist likewise have no life at all.

They have no life at this stage but the point is that they will have lives and experiences in the future (assuming we are not extinct by then, which I think is quite a safe assumption) and the question is: given that they will have lives and experiences, do we have a responsibility to take actions that improve the quality of their lives and experiences? (Note that this is not my question. It is however the question of the environmental types who you, in this case incorrectly, suggest are hypocritical.)

Asking the same question in the context of whether or not to abort an embryo makes no sense, since you can only talk about the quality of their life and experience in the same way if that life and experience actually starts, which is precisely what is at issue here. So the analogy leads directly to circularity.


I'd have to get around to writing that, and there is not enough for it, since even your objection is hardly conclusive.

Well your rebuttal was very easy for me to dispose of, so I suggest my point about your use of inapplicable analogical reasoning was far more conclusive than you think.

Looks like I need to save you the trouble. I agree that "Arguments Anti-Abortionists Should Not Use" would be a very short book. It would go like this:

Arguments Anti-Abortionists Should Not Use

1. All of them.

:lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
01-07-2010, 10:05 AM
Furthermore, many of the things Hitler did after 5 March were possible only because his coalition had the numbers on the floor of parliament to do them.

Finally you are getting it. All he needed was to squeeze in. Democracy by itself is a rule of majority, and majority can do whatever it wants.


But it had those numbers not by virtue of the election results, but because many of the democratically elected representatives were intimidated by clear and publicly obvious threats of physical violence.

No election is squeaky clean, very often political party win election using intimidation and fraud.
Labor used faked how-to-vote cards in South Australia, but nobody objects to them being "democratically elected".

BTW, Hitler was also a Chancellor of a coalition government, like Bartlett in Tasmania.

Ian Murray
01-07-2010, 12:32 PM
Doesn't even remotely follow since the supposed argument about duty to our descendents mainly concerns the negative quality of their experience of life - that it is not good to make others suffer trying to get by on a trashed, polluted, denuded and impoverished planet. But embryos that are aborted don't have any kind of experience of planetary conditions and therefore the thought of them having a miserable life doesn't come into it, since they actually have no life at all.

Maybe you should file your line above in "Arguments Anti-Abortionists Should Not Use".
Quite apart from that, one of the major causes of our environmental degradation is of course over-population. Measures which reduce population pressures are ipso facto good for the planet

Igor_Goldenberg
01-07-2010, 01:13 PM
Quite apart from that, one of the major causes of our environmental degradation is of course over-population. Measures which reduce population pressures are ipso facto good for the planet
I haven't come across a "friend of the Earth" who would be happy to start addressing over-population by removing himself.

Ian Murray
01-07-2010, 01:25 PM
I haven't come across a "friend of the Earth" who would be happy to start addressing over-population by removing himself.
With approx 6,853,048,814 people on the planet as we speak, there are probably quite a few you haven't come across yet

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 02:05 PM
That is because they operate under electoral systems in which this is possible.
But they are still loosely classed as "democratic", although only a PR system really is. But democracy is over-rated; rule of law and protection of property rights, including from the majority, is more important. And both a Westminster and the Electoral College prevent too much power by a faction in a heavily populated state, an advantage that over-rules their deviation from strict democracy.


Allende's election is another example of why any form of first past the post is dubiously democratic at best.
And probably the crassest of all free voting systems at worst.


They have no life at this stage but the point is that they will have lives and experiences in the future (assuming we are not extinct by then, which I think is quite a safe assumption) and the question is: given that they will have lives and experiences, do we have a responsibility to take actions that improve the quality of their lives and experiences? (Note that this is not my question. It is however the question of the environmental types who you, in this case incorrectly, suggest are hypocritical.)
The unborn, already alive not merely hypothetically so, will have lives and experiences in the future if not torn to pieces in the abortion mill.


Arguments Anti-Abortionists Should Not Use

1. All of them.

:lol:
Most abortion activists are feminazis and their sympathizers with nothing more than variants of "woman's right to choose".

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2010, 04:29 PM
All he needed was to squeeze in. Democracy by itself is a rule of majority, and majority can do whatever it wants.

Not true; democracies frequently embody protections against drastic steps being taken by bare majorities and often require that certain changes have two-thirds (or more) support to occur, and/or employ other safeguards such as second houses of parliament elected on different electoral systems. The changes that made Hitler effectively a dictator were among those, though even if he couldn't ram those through parliament by the use of violent intimidation I believe he would have usurped the authority of the parliament anyway.


No election is squeaky clean, very often political party win election using intimidation and fraud.
Labor used faked how-to-vote cards in South Australia, but nobody objects to them being "democratically elected".

This is rather like arguing that every chessplayer makes at least some minor errors therefore there is no such thing as a weak chessplayer. No election is perfect but an election needs to rate reasonably highly across a range of criteria to be considered democratic enough to deserve the label.

And for what it's worth, there are counter-claims that FF also engaged in dodgy HTV behaviour by dressing in red and employing Labor-like slogans.

The issue of a bit of naughty stuff on how-to-be-a-sheep cards is trivial compared to situations where a party cannot even campaign effectively because of the risk that its members will be arrested or killed.


BTW, Hitler was also a Chancellor of a coalition government, like Bartlett in Tasmania.

Already addressed (third para of my first response to you). Hitler's coalition before the 1933 "election" did not have a majority whereas Bartlett's does. After the 1933 election the numbers are irrelevant because the election was not free and fair.

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2010, 05:09 PM
But they are still loosely classed as "democratic", although only a PR system really is.

I don't actually agree that only a PR system is democratic, or even that PR is necessarily optimally democratic. There is the contrary view that the role of elections is to elect an effective government and that obsessive pursuit of PR to too many decimal places weakens government by continually subjecting it to drawn-out negotiations involving large numbers of splinter parties that are often of a transitory or deceptive nature and that often gain election by exploiting loopholes in the system (eg preferential ticket voting). On this view, it does not matter whether representation in the Parliament is proportional provided that (i) significant minorities obtain some representation (ii) out of the parties contending for government, the party that wins can be said to have won fairly.


But democracy is over-rated; rule of law and protection of property rights, including from the majority, is more important.

That's a debate for one of the libertarianism 101 type threads.


The unborn, already alive not merely hypothetically so, will have lives and experiences in the future if not torn to pieces in the abortion mill.

Irrelevant (and I have already outlined how "already alive" is mired in intractable subjectivity) because the argument is that given that a specific future life will occur, it is irresponsible for us to act now in a way that causes that life to be a miserable experience. It is premised on the idea that causing suffering is bad. The question of whether there are responsibilities to increase the number of human lives having experiences (good, bad or indifferent) is an entirely different one.

Indeed, adherents of a green viewpoint will often argue that since increasing the number of human lives having experiences is (in their view) likely to lead to an increase in both the number and proportion of lives that are miserable, that therefore it is morally wrong to allow too steep a rate of continual population increase, something that prohibiting abortion would be very likely to contribute to. Whatever the facts or otherwise of their views about the impact of population increase on quality of life, the moral issue of consistency for viewpoints with more than a tinge of Malthus about them is certainly not whether to prevent abortions. The consistency dilemma for that viewpoint is exactly the opposite - it is whether or not to impose birth control on people against their will.


Most abortion activists are feminazis and their sympathizers with nothing more than variants of "woman's right to choose".

So? Whoever they are, and whoever they sympathize with, there is nothing wrong with such a position as a basis for law unless a need for an overriding legal right is demonstrated. No attempt to demonstrate an overriding right is remotely near succeeding.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-07-2010, 12:55 PM
Not true; democracies frequently embody protections against drastic steps being taken by bare majorities and often require that certain changes have two-thirds (or more) support to occur, and/or employ other safeguards such as second houses of parliament elected on different electoral systems.
Which is an acknowledgement that pure democracy is deficient and needs to be enhanced (to prevent Hitler-like outcome). Often those safeguards fail (as in Aliende and Hitler).



Already addressed (third para of my first response to you). Hitler's coalition before the 1933 "election" did not have a majority whereas Bartlett's does. After the 1933 election the numbers are irrelevant because the election was not free and fair.

Hitler's coalition was shaky, but he had support of Nazi's (196 seats), Centre (von Papen) Party (70 seats) and DNVP (52 seats). Together they had 318 seats out of 584.
It enabled Hitler to have Chancellor post (like Bartlett has a Premier post), but there were many legislations he couldn't pass without help of Coalition partners (like Labor can't pass legislation in Tasmania without Green support).
He was a legitimate head of minority government. That he later became illegitimate dictator is irrelevant to the discussion (whether he was democratically elected).

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2010, 01:47 PM
With approx 6,853,048,814 people on the planet as we speak, there are probably quite a few you haven't come across yet
Fine, want to lead by example, the point of IG's post? To spell it out, the most vocal protestors against too many people want other people gone, not themselves. P.J. O'Rourke pointed out that alGore is a vocal whinger about overpopulation, but added four to the number himself.

In reality, overpopulation claims have been going on for at least 1800 years. We are actually far from overpopulated; often the poor areas are sparsely populated, while wealthy areas are very densely populated. All the people in the word could all fit into an area the size of England, with more than 20 square metres each.

Ian Murray
02-07-2010, 04:55 PM
...In reality, overpopulation claims have been going on for at least 1800 years. We are actually far from overpopulated; often the poor areas are sparsely populated, while wealthy areas are very densely populated. All the people in the word could all fit into an area the size of England, with more than 20 square metres each
There's a bit more to it than enough standing room. Increasing population accelerates pollution, deforestation and desertification while increasing demand for limited resources - potable water, food, health services, social services, energy, waste management.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
31-10-2012, 08:57 PM
[moved, originally reply to http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=346321&postcount=47 - mod]

Why are these idiotic defences of anti abortion always concerning killing unborn "children"

I would once like to hear about a campaign that supports unborn "pensioners".

Theyre worth saving too you know.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2012, 12:27 AM
Why are these idiotic defences of anti abortion always concerning killing unborn "children".
Perhaps because a woman who wants to have her child will usually talk about the baby in her womb not her "fetus", any more than she would describe herself with the equally medicalese term "gravida". Also, plenty of informational websites about ultrasound (http://www.webmd.com/baby/ultrasound) say that it can determine the health and gender of the "baby". Furthermore, Joe "Hyena" Biden said in his ebate with Paul ryan he believes that the unborn is a human from conception, but it's OK to kill this baby anyway.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
01-11-2012, 02:48 AM
It always seems that pro-lifers like to imbellish the truth by overstating the faculties of a fetus.

Potentially it is a baby, a child, someones grandad or the local postman but currently it is a fetus.

Just wondering since you think abortion is killing of unborn children whether youd class a miscarriage as involuntary manslaughter as this is essentially the same outcome under different circumstances.

Regards,
B.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2012, 03:43 AM
It always seems that pro-lifers like to imbellish the truth by overstating the faculties of a fetus.
No, it's your ilk who underestimate this (including the ability to feel pain (http://creation.com/unborn-baby-fetal-pain-abortion) and activity in brain areas involved with intropspection (http://creation.com/unborn-babies-planning-future), while overestimate the rights of the gravida to kill the baby within her. It's notable that the founding feminists of the 19th century denounced abortion as "child murder".


Potentially it is a baby, a child, someones grandad or the local postman but currently it is a fetus.
But according to the ultrasound ads, as well as common usage, it's a baby. Ask any pregnant woman who is looking forward to having this child—she will normally say that she has a baby in her womb. In older times, she would be described as "with child".


Just wondering since you think abortion is killing of unborn children whether youd class a miscarriage as involuntary manslaughter as this is essentially the same outcome under different circumstances.
No, because no intent was there.

Desmond
01-11-2012, 05:25 AM
Perhaps because a woman who wants to have her child you mean like Ann Coulter?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
01-11-2012, 07:06 AM
Are you now relaxed towards people who commit manslaughter ?

I cant believe that if your consistent and you truly think that every abortion is the killing of a child that you can so easily disregard miscarriage as an inconvenient anomaly to your "pro-life" manta.

Adamski
10-11-2012, 04:28 PM
Are you now relaxed towards people who commit manslaughter ?

I cant believe that if your consistent and you truly think that every abortion is the killing of a child that you can so easily disregard miscarriage as an inconvenient anomaly to your "pro-life" manta.
But as Jono said no woman intends to have a miscarriage. Certainly not voluntary manslaughter. Just sadly something that often happens and causes couples much distress.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
11-11-2012, 02:23 AM
But as Jono said no woman intends to have a miscarriage. Certainly not voluntary manslaughter. Just sadly something that often happens and causes couples much distress.

so i guess hes suddenly gotten a lot more flexible towards manslaughter in the "real" world.

it just seem ludicrous that as a man who decries "abortion is the killing of children", he has no interest in any other form of death relating to pregnancy.

To be honest I dont think hes really thought this through. If he was so committed to "pro-life" then i would imagine he would endorse the investigation of each and every miscarriage to determine that the cause of death was not preventable. Punishment relating to negligence would then be dealt out to those culpable of harming the "child".

Isnt he supposed to be part of this great christian movement as the protector of lifes most vulnerable ???? it seems likes hes putting in a pretty slack effort.

what about all those promiscuous single women like that Fluke bint that will probably forget to take the pill for a while and subsequently might have a miscarriage (possibly from alcohol and drugs) ??? are all thoses bints suddenly ok in jonos book ??? is it still unintentional or do we need detective jono on the case to harrass every woman out there who has ever had a miscarriage to uphold his valiant ideology ???

at least if hes going to jump on someone elses ideological bandwagon he should first make sure it doesnt have square wheels.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2012, 05:25 PM
so i guess hes suddenly gotten a lot more flexible towards manslaughter in the "real" world.
Miscarriage is to abortion what natural death is to murder.

Desmond
11-11-2012, 05:32 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AGQXOeuArMk/T073ysRruyI/AAAAAAAAVNA/Oq_qRBtupMM/s1600/FireShot-Screen-Capture-426-Pics-I-Tosh_0-Blog-tosh_comedycentral_com_blog_category_pics.jpg.jpg

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
11-11-2012, 07:53 PM
Miscarriage is to abortion what natural death is to murder.

so forced miscarriage and negligence towards the health of the fetus by the mother is natural death ?

:hmm:

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
12-11-2012, 07:58 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AGQXOeuArMk/T073ysRruyI/AAAAAAAAVNA/Oq_qRBtupMM/s1600/FireShot-Screen-Capture-426-Pics-I-Tosh_0-Blog-tosh_comedycentral_com_blog_category_pics.jpg.jpg

I hope she was careful and wore kneepads to avoid any injury.

Unfortunately skateboarding is known to be hazardous.

Damodevo
13-11-2012, 10:41 AM
It always seems that pro-lifers like to imbellish the truth by overstating the faculties of a fetus.

There is no need to 'embellish' the faculties of the fetus. It is enough to establish that it has the full fledgling potentiality to develop into a member of the human species. Now the potentiality principle (PP) can be argued for from the inherent genetic constitution of the fetus which is fully human from conception or from use of the PP used elsewhere to justify the murder charge, say, with very young children
(http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/10/why-we-should-accept-the-potentiality-principle.html#more)

Consider post-natal humans from birth on to the age of seven or so. Do they have rights? Liberals, who believe in all sorts of rights, will presumably maintain that children have rights to health care, education, food, shelter, clothing and what all else. But underlying all of these is surely the right to life without which none of the others has any purchase. Now what is the basis for ascribing rights to neonates or one year olds? They cannot walk or talk, syllogize or philosophize. Chess is out of the question as is cell phone use. They cannot even control their bowels. They are helpless and in a sense good-for-nothing. They don't cook or clean or shop or work or pay taxes. They are more useless than cats who at least can fend for thmselves and control the rodent population. There is little that is actual about them. They don't realize much value or exercise the capacities that confer value or a right to life. And yet, as matter of fact, we consider them precious.

This grounds the argument against abortion from infanticide (notably premise 2.);

1. Infanticide is morally wrong
2. Abortion is morally indistinguishable from infanticide
3. Therefore abortion is morally wrong

Interestingly, some pro-aborts (http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5101) accept the modus tollens version of this argument;

1. Abortion is not morally wrong
2. Infanticide is morally indistinguishable from infanticide
3. Therefore infanticide is not morally wrong

But I at least commend them for seeing the moral link between infanticide and abortion (the atheist philosopher Frank Jackson agrees with this in his From Metaphysics to Ethics [pg 134] but doesn't endorse infanticide).

Rincewind
13-11-2012, 11:22 AM
There is no need to 'embellish' the faculties of the fetus. It is enough to establish that it has the full fledgling potentiality to develop into a member of the human species.

The same is true of impregnated eggs in artificial fertility programs. Procedurally there are many such eggs which are not brought to term. Are you also against those methods by arguing the same "potential" to produce human life?

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2012, 01:10 PM
There is no need to 'embellish' the faculties of the fetus. It is enough to establish that it has the full fledgling potentiality to develop into a member of the human species.

If your argument is based on potentiality then you don't even need a presently existing "it" to be the bearer of that potentiality. You can say that a man and a woman are the parents of a potential child even if they haven't had sex yet and thereby argue that they must attempt to bring that child into being.

From that perspective, arguing that a young baby or fetus has a right to life on the basis of potentiality alone is false.

There is one relevant distinction between the unborn and the born and that is that the fetus is connected to and dependent on its potential mother's body. This provides an argument for making its fate subject to her deliberate and continuing consent, which does not apply after it is born because if she does not want to be inconvenienced by it, it may be looked after and helped to live by somebody else without any further impact on her body.

Another argument is that birth should be an easy line to draw as a matter of general intersubjective agreement. Arguments along the line of the modus tollens version become enormously contentious, even if accepted (and the above provides reason not to accept them) in the area of trying to determine which infanticides might be (supposedly) morally indistinguishable from abortion. Easier to just draw a line and say that irrespective of moral equivalence, we choose for governance purposes to reject killing of those who have actually been born. (Excluding rare exceptions such as just wars (if we can find any), police shooting of someone who will otherwise massacre others, Siamese twin operations, possibly assisted suicide, etc).

And much easier than attempting to stop any action that will or may prevent potentiality, a position which can be wedged all the way to supporting compulsory rape.

Damodevo
13-11-2012, 02:36 PM
If your argument is based on potentiality then you don't even need a presently existing "it" to be the bearer of that potentiality.

Yes you do. We are talking about the potentiality in a substance; two adults do not constitute a substance. They are two separate substances. That is why my one year old daughter, whilst having virtually none of the higher capacities of the human species, has the potentiality for those capacities and the right to life where a sperm and ovum as separate substances do not. The sperm and ovum change in essence (as far as genetic constitution is concerned) during fertilization where the development of a fetus from conception to birth and beyond only changes accidentally. Every developmental stage of the fetus is gradual and according to its genetic blueprint it has from conception.


There is one relevant distinction between the unborn and the born and that is that the fetus is connected to and dependent on its potential mother's body. This provides an argument for making its fate subject to her deliberate and continuing consent, which does not apply after it is born because if she does not want to be inconvenienced by it, it may be looked after and helped to live by somebody else without any further impact on her body.

At most your argument justifies abortion up until the 22 week period after which the fetus is (possibly) viable outside the womb. After this period the fetus may be given to another couple to raise with the help of medical intervention. So your argument is really nothing more than a riff on the old viability outside the womb argument because whether the mother is held hostage to the child depends on its outside viability. But this is ridiculous because it makes a metaphysical/ontological conception dependent on technological development. That is, the fetus is a human being iff it can be sustained outside the womb, and sustenance outside the womb is contingent on the current level of medical capacities.

But this is preposterous in another way. Let's consider a thought experiment; imagine a woman with her 6 month old marooned on a desert island. The child is completely dependent on the mother for its sustenance and survival as there are no other potential nurturers. Is she justified in murdering the child because it is 'connected to and dependent' on its mother entirely?

Rincewind
13-11-2012, 02:57 PM
The sperm and ovum change in essence (as far as genetic constitution is concerned) during fertilization where the development of a fetus from conception to birth and beyond only changes accidentally. Every developmental stage of the fetus is gradual and according to its genetic blueprint it has from conception.

So your argument is some magically happens at conception. However this still has issues with a number of things which are generally uncontroversial today such as...

IVF: Fertilised eggs are generated in larger number than actually needed and therefore IVF participants practice infanticide, according to your definition.

Hormonal IUDs: operate in part by changing the characteristics of the endometrium would also be a form of infanticide.

Finally your comment of following a "blueprint" is rather simplistic and the genetic "blueprint" operates much more like a recipe than a blueprint. So while you have a recipe for a particular individual, how that individual will turn out depends of a multitude of environmental factors which are not determined at the time of conception.

Damodevo
13-11-2012, 03:23 PM
IVF: Fertilised eggs are generated in larger number than actually needed and therefore IVF participants practice infanticide, according to your definition.

Not at all. No more than any couple who engages in reproductive activity and produces a fertilsed egg that does not carry (this is very common). Of course they are not engaged in the killing of innocents. This is the doctrine of Double Effect. The aim is not to destroy fertilised eggs but to produce viable ones.

pappubahry
13-11-2012, 03:36 PM
Of course they are not engaged in the killing of innocents. This is the doctrine of Double Effect.
Wouldn't a double effect argument go something like: "Yes, they're killing innocents, but that's OK because they'll get a baby out of it"?

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2012, 03:43 PM
Yes you do. We are talking about the potentiality in a substance; two adults do not constitute a substance.

They constitute two "substances" in fact. And they are also each habitat to a great variety of microscopic life forms too.

It doesn't matter whether potentiality exists in a single substance or not; it is still potentiality. If you are arguing that a substance that has potentiality has rights that exceed those of a potentiality not (yet) attached to a substance, then you are arguing that it has those rights because it is a substance rather than on account of its potentiality. That that "potentiality" would be realised in a different substance (in the case of sperm + egg) is just irrelevant.


At most your argument justifies abortion up until the 22 week period after which the fetus is (possibly) viable outside the womb.

Wrong because the tack you are taking implies that I should accept that if the fetus is potentially independently viable then the potential mother can rightly be forced to choose to undergo one sort of procedure over another (in choosing between, say, a caesarean section and an abortion). I do not accept this; it is her body.


But this is ridiculous because it makes a metaphysical/ontological conception dependent on technological development.

The dependency applies only (for the reason given above) if you can devise a technology in which you press a button and the unborn fetus teleports to outside a woman's womb with no impact upon her body beyond its removal. Until then it is her body you are damaging and she has a say in how that will occur.


But this is preposterous in another way. Let's consider a thought experiment; imagine a woman with her 6 month old marooned on a desert island. The child is completely dependent on the mother for its sustenance and survival as there are no other potential nurturers. Is she justified in murdering the child because it is 'connected to and dependent' on its mother entirely?

This example is not equivalent, because the woman has chosen to carry the child to full term and given birth to it. Thereby, provided that she had the child in a country where abortion is available, legal and reasonably safe, it is highly probable that she voluntarily consented to its birth and renewed that consent over the full period of a pregnancy. On this basis it can reasonably be argued that she should have a legal obligation to support the child unless doing so places her own life at risk.

If on the other hand she had the child in a religious conservative backwater where aborting it was never permitted, then I would argue there is no such clear consent to parental obligation and things become rather trickier. Though even then your use of "murder" entails a false dichotomy, because the third possibility is to simply refuse to support it, as a result of which the available evidence suggests it will die. In a pregnancy situation that possibility does not exist.

This shows a good argument in favour of allowing abortion: establishing that childbirth is an act of true and long-considered consent that implies parental responsibility, and thereby defeating an argument in favour of permitting infanticide or at least child-abandonment (depending on the circumstances.)

Thank you therefore for showing me that certain arguments against abortion support infanticide as well as rape. (And if any anti-abortionist is offended by these words, I'll listen to you when you stop banging on about so-called "murder".)

Rincewind
13-11-2012, 04:40 PM
Not at all. No more than any couple who engages in reproductive activity and produces a fertilsed egg that does not carry (this is very common). Of course they are not engaged in the killing of innocents. This is the doctrine of Double Effect. The aim is not to destroy fertilised eggs but to produce viable ones.

Not really since in the biological case couples are trying all fertilsed eggs at the time of fertilisation and therefore do not produce a number of fertilised eggs which are then have no chance of viability.

By your argument something magical happens when two substances become one and in IVF treatment a number of fertilised eggs are produced and some are chosen for implant and others are discarded based on viability factors (things like oocyte morphology, etc).

Surely the morally correct procedure from your dogmatic perspective would be to only fertilise eggs as required for implantation and implant all fertilised eggs. Since after conception, all oocytes have the potential to produce an adult human and therefore have the same right to be implanted. To do otherwise would be morally equivalent to infanticide.

Damodevo
14-11-2012, 01:33 PM
They constitute two "substances" in fact. And they are also each habitat to a great variety of microscopic life forms too.

It doesn't matter whether potentiality exists in a single substance or not; it is still potentiality. If you are arguing that a substance that has potentiality has rights that exceed those of a potentiality not (yet) attached to a substance, then you are arguing that it has those rights because it is a substance rather than on account of its potentiality. That that "potentiality" would be realised in a different substance (in the case of sperm + egg) is just irrelevant.

Incorrect. The PP is only relevant when talking about a single substance. Two adults or a sperm and ovum do not together constitute a single substance. Hence as a collective they do not have any more rights than they have as separate substances. So they do not have the same rights that a fetus or a 6 month old child has.

I don't understand what you are saying here. The potentiality is within the substance itself as a self-subsisting, independent substance with its own DNA, blood type, distinctive development, etc. The sperm and ovum only have the same potentialities if conjoined in the relevant way and undergo a complete change in substantial nature.



Wrong because the tack you are taking implies that I should accept that if the fetus is potentially independently viable then the potential mother can rightly be forced to choose to undergo one sort of procedure over another (in choosing between, say, a caesarean section and an abortion). I do not accept this; it is her body.


Quick question. Do you take the fetus to be a part of the mother's body in the same way that, say, fat tissue or an appendix? So an abortion is morally equivalent to liposuction? If not then I suggest you are equivocating on the definition of 'part'.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2012, 07:23 PM
Incorrect. The PP is only relevant when talking about a single substance.

You assert that but you provide no evidence that it is true, so there is no reason at all to take your claim seriously. And I don't. If it has been made by some qualified philosopher, "bioethicist" or whatever, then that makes no difference; I still don't take it seriously.

Public debate is awash with these sorts of so-called "principles" that are actually overrated tosh. I don't know what you think of the "precautionary principle" beloved of many green types but it is a similar example.


Two adults or a sperm and ovum do not together constitute a single substance. Hence as a collective they do not have any more rights than they have as separate substances. So they do not have the same rights that a fetus or a 6 month old child has.

Again, you provide no evidence that a right based on potentiality needs to reside within any substance (or a unique substance as opposed to multiple substances) or even be possessed by anything that actually exists at all. If potentiality alone is a valid argument then it shouldn't matter how it happens, because the potentiality argument is about a desire that a thing with certain properties exists in the future, as opposed to being about the current properties of the thing. Since it's not about the current properties of something, you don't even need a thing for potentiality to reside behind.


I don't understand what you are saying here. The potentiality is within the substance itself as a self-subsisting, independent substance with its own DNA, blood type, distinctive development, etc. The sperm and ovum only have the same potentialities if conjoined in the relevant way and undergo a complete change in substantial nature.

Which is irrelevant for the same reason. Potentiality means something can happen. The something is the addition of another human. Whether it happens through growth and birth alone or through the joining of sperm and egg then growth plus birth is irrelevant since in either case the end goal of the potentiality can be realised.

And the potentiality argument is additionally invalid because it assumes that the addition of another human is necessarily desirable - an extremely dubious assumption given that there are very likely more than enough of us as it is.


Quick question. Do you take the fetus to be a part of the mother's body in the same way that, say, fat tissue or an appendix? So an abortion is morally equivalent to liposuction?

I don't need to have a view on the first question as it makes no difference to my position. My position is that abortion is typically no different "morally" to any other significant surgical procedure that a woman may elect to undergo, and should be treated no differently by law. I do not however hold the view that a woman can do absolutely whatever she likes to a fetus, because I think that intentionally or negligently harming (while not killing) a fetus that will later become a living human being, can be a problem. For instance, smoking while pregnant and intending to give birth is a significant issue.

Damodevo
15-11-2012, 12:00 AM
I don't need to have a view on the first question as it makes no difference to my position. My position is that abortion is typically no different "morally" to any other significant surgical procedure that a woman may elect to undergo, and should be treated no differently by law.

If abortion is no different morally from any other surgical procedure then you are equating the value of the fetus with any other organ/tissue in the mother's body, which is absurd.


I do not however hold the view that a woman can do absolutely whatever she likes to a fetus, because I think that intentionally or negligently harming (while not killing) a fetus that will later become a living human being, can be a problem. For instance, smoking while pregnant and intending to give birth is a significant issue.

(This passage contradicts the earlier ones - first you say that there is no moral distinction between abortion and any other surgical procedure, then you say that the fetus does in fact have value after all, unlike a lump of fat tissue, or an appendix).

You are justifying your moral stance on what can and cannot be done to a fetus based on the future impact it may have on that fetus' future physiological state. (Sounds a lot like Don Marquis argument that abortion is morally prohibited because it deprives a fetus of a future life it would otherwise have.) So on your account it is morally unacceptable to engage in any activities that may incapacitate or retard the development of a fetus at a future time but not to deprive it of its future life all together. That's completely illogical.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2012, 01:04 AM
If abortion is no different morally from any other surgical procedure then you are equating the value of the fetus with any other organ/tissue in the mother's body, which is absurd.

You finding it absurd doesn't make it so.


(This passage contradicts the earlier ones - first you say that there is no moral distinction between abortion and any other surgical procedure, then you say that the fetus does in fact have value after all, unlike a lump of fat tissue, or an appendix).

Rubbish. I am saying that the attribution of a value to the fetus sufficient to justify protecting it from harm depends upon a woman's intention to give birth to it. So if a fetus is going to be born, then it makes sense to think of the wellbeing it will have after that occurs. But if it is going to be aborted, then it has no future wellbeing as a living person who has been born, and therefore that wellbeing isn't a consideration.


You are justifying your moral stance on what can and cannot be done to a fetus based on the future impact it may have on that fetus' future physiological state. (Sounds a lot like Don Marquis argument that abortion is morally prohibited because it deprives a fetus of a future life it would otherwise have.)

Rubbish again - it is nothing like that "argument" at all. I am arguing that if a woman has decided to give birth, then it makes sense for her to look after the wellbeing of her future child, rather than to do things that will injure it and cause it to experience a less pleasant life than would otherwise be the case. But if a woman has decided not to give birth, then there is no future quality of life to affect. On that basis, it is perfectly acceptable to abort the fetus, but not acceptable to avoidably injure it and then give birth to it.


So on your account it is morally unacceptable to engage in any activities that may incapacitate or retard the development of a fetus at a future time but not to deprive it of its future life all together.

No, this is blatant strawmanning on your part (the first bit). You've taken my position that there are some things a woman could do to a fetus while still intending to give birth that "can be a problem" and twisted it to an absolute prohibition on any activities that may do damage.

There was absolutely no basis in my comments for you to conclude that was my view and it is not.


That's completely illogical.

No, you're completely clueless about what I actually said.

And even once you stop misrepresenting my position I expect you'll still be clueless.

The first difference between the cases is consent. Since I hold that the claimed right to life of the fetus depends entirely on its mother's consent to give birth to it, I therefore support the right to abort.

But in a case where a woman has chosen to have a child, and the only question is whether or not she will do things that may severely damage the life it will live, consent to give birth isn't an issue. There is consent whether she damages it or not.

The second difference between the cases is that if a child is born with serious health problems, when its parent could have easily had the child without causing those problems, then the damage caused before birth could inflict a lifetime of suffering. And I think that to cause a person to be alive and suffering greatly when it was possible instead for that same person to be alive and not suffering at all, is a big problem. It's effectively a form of assault against a person who will be alive.

In contrast, if you just decide not to bring another person into the world, you're not harming that person's life. You're just deciding that it will never start in the first place, and therefore that there is nothing to harm. Just an unrealised potentiality, and you've seen what I think about that.

Damodevo
15-11-2012, 02:35 AM
The first difference between the cases is consent. Since I hold that the claimed right to life of the fetus depends entirely on its mother's consent to give birth to it, I therefore support the right to abort.

This seems to be the crux of your argument. The value of the fetus and hence the morality of abortion is entirely contingent on the mother's consent to give birth. But why can't we base all rights to life on consent? I mean, why not base the life of a 6 month old on its mother's consent? Your response would no doubt be that it is not justified because other guardians are around to take care of the child.

Your case for the value of the fetus' life is entirely extrinsic. That is to say, the question of whether or not a fetus has a right to life is entirely based on factors external to it. But no right to life is ever justified in such a way. A person has a right to life because of what it is not because some second party consents or not.

Here is another response of yours I should have responded to


This example is not equivalent, because the woman has chosen to carry the child to full term and given birth to it. Thereby, provided that she had the child in a country where abortion is available, legal and reasonably safe, it is highly probable that she voluntarily consented to its birth and renewed that consent over the full period of a pregnancy. On this basis it can reasonably be argued that she should have a legal obligation to support the child unless doing so places her own life at risk.

This completely misses the point. Your argument is entirely based on the consent of the mother and the conditions whether others may care for the child in the event that it is unwanted. In the event of a 6 month old where the mother does not consent to look after it any longer and there are no others around to looker after it then she is justified in either killing it or abandoning it.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2012, 12:59 PM
This seems to be the crux of your argument. The value of the fetus and hence the morality of abortion is entirely contingent on the mother's consent to give birth. But why can't we base all rights to life on consent? I mean, why not base the life of a 6 month old on its mother's consent? Your response would no doubt be that it is not justified because other guardians are around to take care of the child.

No, my response is primarily that it is independent of her body and therefore it is no longer the case that her body is being affected by a decision to keep it alive. Therefore, there is no longer any reason for her consent to be required. Whether or not there is a guardian around to take care of it is irrelevant to this.


Your case for the value of the fetus' life is entirely extrinsic. That is to say, the question of whether or not a fetus has a right to life is entirely based on factors external to it. But no right to life is ever justified in such a way. A person has a right to life because of what it is not because some second party consents or not.

The problem here is that you are taking a standard applied to the rights of persons who have been born and attempting to apply it to the fetus. But it doesn't work because there is a relevant difference between all the other cases and abortion, and that relevant difference arises from the lack of physical independence of the fetus and hence the physical impact of it not being aborted on another person. Effectively you're applying an argument from analogy but applying it to a circumstance that is not analogous.


Your argument is entirely based on the consent of the mother and the conditions whether others may care for the child in the event that it is unwanted.

This is more of your strawmanning. Go back and read the paragraph you quoted again and tell me where it contains any reference whatsoever to others caring for the child in the event it is unwanted.


In the event of a 6 month old where the mother does not consent to look after it any longer and there are no others around to looker after it then she is justified in either killing it or abandoning it.

I am not sure whether that is meant to be your view or a view you are attempting to attribute to me.

If the former I disagree for reasons already explained.

If the latter, then my view is more complex than that for reasons already explained. If the mother has chosen freely to give birth, having the opportunity to instead abort, then I would argue she is obliged to support the 6 month old if no-one else will and if doing so does not put her own life at very extreme risk. It might even be argued that she has a responsibility to look after it rather than adopt it out unless it will be better off adopted out.

However if she did not choose freely to give birth, because she lived in a country where abortion was banned, unsafe or inaccessible, then she has not consensually accepted any obligation to the child and the question of whether she should be considered obliged to support it even in a "desert island" situation becomes less clear.

Damodevo
18-11-2012, 02:43 AM
Your position is as hard to nail down as Jell-O but it seems to come to this; the unborn child has no right to life because it is dependent on its mother who's body is effected by the child's extreme form of dependency. Therefore the mother has a unique say in whether or not it should live. The question of the metaphysical status of the fetus as a rights-bearing individual is entirely preempted by the circumstances under which it finds itself as a dependent being on the mother's body.

Damodevo
18-11-2012, 02:49 AM
If the mother has chosen freely to give birth, having the opportunity to instead abort, then I would argue she is obliged to support the 6 month old if no-one else will and if doing so does not put her own life at very extreme risk. It might even be argued that she has a responsibility to look after it rather than adopt it out unless it will be better off adopted out.

But what is the difference between placing freedom-restricting responsibilities on her to look after a six month old and that of carrying an unborn child? (especially given the former is a far more demanding role) And please don't make the question begging argument that it is because after a six month old is born she has decided to go through with the pregnancy and is therefore expected to look after it. Your argument for abortion is based on the extreme dependency of the child and its effect on the mother's body yet that is hardly different to the position a six month old is in.

Damodevo
18-11-2012, 03:09 AM
Rubbish again - it is nothing like that "argument" at all. I am arguing that if a woman has decided to give birth, then it makes sense for her to look after the wellbeing of her future child, rather than to do things that will injure it and cause it to experience a less pleasant life than would otherwise be the case. But if a woman has decided not to give birth, then there is no future quality of life to affect. On that basis, it is perfectly acceptable to abort the fetus, but not acceptable to avoidably injure it and then give birth to it.

What you just called "rubbish" you have just then repeated - saying that it is morally unacceptable for a woman to engage in activities that negatively effects the physiological or psychological state of the child. Say, excessive alcohol consumption causing foetal alcohol syndrome. You are talking about the affect on the "future quality of life". But again it is retarded to say that it is unacceptable to retard the future life of a fetus yet it is not unacceptable to deprive that fetus of a life altogether.

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2012, 12:16 PM
Your position is as hard to nail down as Jell-O

That's because you are somewhat philosophically inept. It's not my fault.


but it seems to come to this; the unborn child has no right to life because it is dependent on its mother who's body is effected by the child's extreme form of dependency. Therefore the mother has a unique say in whether or not it should live.

Yep. I'll skip the metaphysics bit as metaphysics is all bunkum.


What you just called "rubbish" you have just then repeated - saying that it is morally unacceptable for a woman to engage in activities that negatively effects the physiological or psychological state of the child.

No; the reason I called your comment rubbish in that case was your attempt to compare my position to "Don Marquis argument that abortion is morally prohibited because it deprives a fetus of a future life it would otherwise have".


But again it is retarded to say that it is unacceptable to retard the future life of a fetus yet it is not unacceptable to deprive that fetus of a life altogether.

Oh, so I explain the basis for the difference and the best you can come up with is to lamely call my position "retarded".

Precisely what are your formal qualifications in moral philosophy, and if they exist, how may I verify them?

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2012, 12:39 PM
But what is the difference between placing freedom-restricting responsibilities on her to look after a six month old and that of carrying an unborn child? (especially given the former is a far more demanding role) And please don't make the question begging argument that it is because after a six month old is born she has decided to go through with the pregnancy and is therefore expected to look after it.

You accuse this of being a question-begging argument but provide no evidence that it is.


Your argument for abortion is based on the extreme dependency of the child and its effect on the mother's body yet that is hardly different to the position a six month old is in.

For the purposes of deciding the law and dealing with cases other than desert island scenarios, this isn't true. The child depends on support to live, but not necessarily from its mother. Only in the case where only the mother can cause it to survive does it make sense to consider whether she should be considered obliged to do so, based on whether she has lived in a society in which her going through with the pregnancy can be interpreted as consent to try to ensure it stays alive.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
05-04-2013, 03:58 AM
im just curious as to what the anti-abortionists feel they would do if their partners/wives were to be diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy ?

approximately 1 in 50 pregnancies are classed as "out of place" and if surgeons are unable to place the ectopic pregnancy into the uterus then it is terminated.

if this particular pregnancy is not aborted in time then the embryo can grow and burst the tube it resides within (most commonly the fallopian tube) resulting in abdominal pain, bleeding and sometimes death.

so kindly tell us all what steps you would take to deal with this particular situation if you have such a blanket objection towards abortion ? :hmm:

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
05-04-2013, 05:13 AM
jonos answer is one which i find a little confusing (as stated on his website via an earlier post in this thread)

jonos daft scribings via http://creation.com/what-about-abortion-to-save-the-mothers-life - "In the case of removing an ectopic pregnancy, the death is an accidental and not an intended consequence of the act to save the mother."

how is it accidental and not intended ? the doctor is fully aware of the problem and he deals with it intentionally.

do you seriously think that people are going to believe your nonsense that an embryo that poses great health risks to a woman is only going to be classed as an "accidental consequence" in its removal to administer a solution ? how exactly does one remove an embryo accidentally ? does the doctor intend to perform a hearing test on the woman in question and "accidentally" performs the wrong procedure by removing an embryo that just happens to be placed in a cavity that threatens her life ? is that what you mean by accidental or are you being even more confusing than usual ?

how does a specific piece of surgery suddenly become accidental ??? i dont think any certified medical practioner would ever put their hand up to admit to accidentally performing surgery unless theyre doctor nick riviera from the simpsons.

you seriously live in dream world. :confused:

p.s. .................. if i was to sever a finger and the surgeon was able to reattach it would there ever be a circumstance when the reattachment process could be called an "accidental consequence" of my finger suddenly reappearing intact ???

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
05-04-2013, 05:18 AM
jonos doctor of choice for all procedures that are classed as "accidental consequences" of any heathcare his family has administered ;)

aqImkDgDwHU

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
08-04-2013, 10:02 PM
does dr nick actually charge you jono or do you just pay him in food stamps ? :hmm:

Desmond
09-04-2013, 06:32 AM
"Accidental consequences" reminds me of this one:

5YZDbeu2li8

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
10-04-2013, 02:31 AM
nice one.

it really is amazing what kind of nonsense one can delude oneself with when suckling at the teat of religious indoctrination.

is there no end to the hilarity that jono continues to deliver ? :D

Kevin Bonham
10-04-2013, 02:41 AM
Churches in my state have just signed a thing they call the Salamanca Declaration.

Basic idea of it is that they believe in the liberty to worship but oppose the liberties to abort, to choose the manner of your own death and to marry someone of the same sex.

The eighteen signatories trying to control women's reproductive choices are, surprise surprise, all male.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
10-04-2013, 03:28 AM
Churches in my state have just signed a thing they call the Salamanca Declaration.

Basic idea of it is that they believe in the liberty to worship but oppose the liberties to abort, to choose the manner of your own death and to marry someone of the same sex.

The eighteen signatories trying to control women's reproductive choices are, surprise surprise, all male.

im sure that will be well received. :confused:

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2013, 11:47 PM
Abortion reform has passed the Lower House in Tasmania. It won't see the Upper House until after the May elections for three of the 15 seats, though in my view only one of those seats is a real chance to change from conservative to progressive (and that's about a 50-50 chance).

The proposed changes are:

The reform changes the two-doctor-plus-counselling requirement for abortions to effectively on-demand (with single approving doctor) up to 16 weeks (was to be 24 but conservative Labor MPs would have voted it down.)

Illegal abortion becomes a matter for professional rather than criminal sanction, excepting extreme cases like abortion against a woman's consent.

Women are no longer able to be charged if they have an illegal abortion performed on them.

For abortions after 16 weeks the two-doctor consent rule remains but the circumstances under which physical or mental health impacts are to be considered are clarified.

Exclusion zones of 150 m radius are established around clinics in which abortion-related protests, harassment, obstruction etc are banned. (One of the Greens went on a big hypocritical silly free speech rant about this that made no sense at all and eventually backed down to an amendment that clarified that "protests" did not count as such if they were not visible or audible to the public.)

The debate has been utterly dire, including the recruiting of schoolchildren in uniform to stand at the front of rallies, and some incredibly stupid comments. I've had my say about it here:

Liberty, Abortion and the "Salamanca Declaration"

http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/liberty-abortion-and-salamanca.html

I warn that some sections of the article may offend some people.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
19-04-2013, 11:34 PM
so have you stopped deluding yourself yet that you actually oppose abortion jono ? :D

Adamski
20-04-2013, 10:28 AM
You won't be surprised, GUB, to learn that I oppose abortion. IN NZ I belonged to an organisation called the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) - along with many Catholics. I have personal reasons for my strong stand on this issue. My wife and I lost several babies, including our twins who were born very prematurely, lived over a minute each, but died back in 1983. We have one miracle son- alive and well.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2013, 11:33 AM
You won't be surprised, GUB, to learn that I oppose abortion. IN NZ I belonged to an organisation called the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) - along with many Catholics. I have personal reasons for my strong stand on this issue. My wife and I lost several babies, including our twins who were born very prematurely, lived over a minute each, but died back in 1983. We have one miracle son- alive and well.
Yes, I oppose prenatal baby-butchery too. I was also on the committee of the Wellington branch of SPUC until I moved to Oz. Sorry about your losses. :(

Kevin Bonham
20-04-2013, 12:01 PM
There are quite a few people on both sides of the debate whose positions are underlined by personal experience.

But there seems to be a big difference in approach.

On the one side you get people who say that because abortion was or would have been a good choice for them, therefore everyone in a position supposedly resembling theirs should be able to choose for themselves.

On the other side you quite often get people who say that because abortion was or would have been a bad choice for them, therefore everyone in a position resembling theirs should be forced to choose not to abort.

You don't get too many people who say that because abortion was or would have been a good choice for them, therefore everyone in a position supposedly resembling theirs should be forced to abort. Yet this is the exact inverse of the common my-experience-means-abortion-shouldn't-be-allowed line.

You do to their credit, get people who say that abortion was or would have been a bad choice for them, and that they would therefore never recommend it personally and don't like it, but they still think the law should allow others in the same position to make their own decisions.

antichrist
20-04-2013, 10:11 PM
I believe in enforced abortion if foetus is severly deformed etc

It is shockng what very cruel parents put their children through with no authority - I have read of a case recently where the child now years old sued his parents for putting him through such. And another case where a similar case after a bad car crash, and after years the guy committed suicide. He had residual physical and brain injuries.

antichrist
20-04-2013, 10:11 PM
If God can do spontaneous abortions on healthy foetus, surely humans can do abortions on severely deformed or sick foetus

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
21-04-2013, 05:59 PM
You won't be surprised, GUB, to learn that I oppose abortion. IN NZ I belonged to an organisation called the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) - along with many Catholics. I have personal reasons for my strong stand on this issue. My wife and I lost several babies, including our twins who were born very prematurely, lived over a minute each, but died back in 1983. We have one miracle son- alive and well.

are you of the same opinion as jono that a termination of the foetus due to potantial health complications for the mother is simply an "accidental consequence" of protecting the mother ?

its definately an unfortunate consequence but it is not accidental.

jono is yet to man up and reply (no doubt because he has nothing of substance to add) so i would be interested in hearing what you think this means in the scheme of things ?

Adamski
22-04-2013, 12:06 AM
are you of the same opinion as jono that a termination of the foetus due to potantial health complications for the mother is simply an "accidental consequence" of protecting the mother ?

its definately an unfortunate consequence but it is not accidental.

jono is yet to man up and reply (no doubt because he has nothing of substance to add) so i would be interested in hearing what you think this means in the scheme of things ?
Gotta agree with you there. Definitely unfortunate, rather than accidental. Fortunately, it is not that common.

antichrist
22-04-2013, 12:16 AM
I know a beautiful chick, in looks and attitude, in a loveless marriage got her *******s to the wrong guy, so did an amateur induced miscarriage (abortion) and ended up in hospital with haemmorage (?)

how does that fit in the scale of things?

Adamski
22-04-2013, 12:21 AM
I know a beautiful chick, in looks and attitude, in a loveless marriage got her *******s to the wrong guy, so did an amateur induced miscarriage (abortion) and ended up in hospital with haemmorage (?)

how does that fit in the scale of things?
The word "stupid" comes to mind.

antichrist
22-04-2013, 12:34 AM
The word "stupid" comes to mind.

not at all, she is beautiful person in herself. Completely harmless and considerate. She has had a difficult life since young and has to do the whatever she had to do. She had no one to guide her probably since reaching double figures. We are slowly getting her on side to make better decisions and she is finally beginning to listen. But she does not have a drop of nastiness and so pleasant to be with all the time. In fact will be seeing her very shortly when run off

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
23-04-2013, 05:06 AM
Gotta agree with you there. Definitely unfortunate, rather than accidental. Fortunately, it is not that common.

so it would therefore be consistent to state that the termination of the child is a premeditated act by the parents to protect the health of the mother.

would you agree ?

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
26-04-2013, 05:30 AM
Gotta agree with you there. Definitely unfortunate, rather than accidental. Fortunately, it is not that common.

would you also agree that anybody claiming that the removal of the foetus in this circumstance as being 'accidental' is failing in their duties to protect their partner as they are obviously not interested in taking ownership for the decision to remove the danger to the mother rendering her healthy once again ?

it is obviously not a very pleasant decision but one that every participant in the decision process is aware of.

do you believe that it is fanciful for anti-abortionists to be using such florid language like 'pre natal baby butchery' when it is patently obvious that they will be undertaking the very same procedure to potentially save the mothers life.

i smell a pungent stench in the form of jonos rampant hypocricy.

can you smell it as well ? :hmm:

Oepty
29-04-2013, 06:32 PM
Abortion is wrong in every possible scenario that could be devised.

By wrong I mean it is murder. The moral equivalent of somebody walking down the street, choosing someone at random, putting a gun to their head and blowing out their brains.

antichrist
29-04-2013, 06:35 PM
Abortion is wrong in every possible scenario that could be devised.

By wrong I mean it is murder. The moral equivalent of somebody walking down the street, choosing someone at random, putting a gun to their head and blowing out their brains.

what about when God does it via spontaneous abortions?

Desmond
29-04-2013, 06:46 PM
Abortion is wrong in every possible scenario that could be devised.

By wrong I mean it is murder. The moral equivalent of somebody walking down the street, choosing someone at random, putting a gun to their head and blowing out their brains.
Even in the case of ectopic pregnancy, when the foetus has no chance of ever coming to term and poses a real risk to the health and life of the mother?

antichrist
29-04-2013, 07:14 PM
Even in the case of ectopic pregnancy, when the foetus has no chance of ever coming to term and poses a real risk to the health and life of the mother?

that is a new twist, like the foetus holding a gun to the head of the mother or like having a suicide belt on taking mum with itself

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2013, 07:57 PM
The moral equivalent of somebody walking down the street, choosing someone at random, putting a gun to their head and blowing out their brains.

When you find a woman whose decision to have an abortion results in the abortion of random foetuses, rather than only those carried by her, I might consider thinking about taking your claims seriously for even one-tenth of a second.

It is not empirically equivalent and hence it fails the first test for possible "moral" equivalence. I can save you the suspense by telling you it will fail others too.

Being emotional about this issue does not entitle people to say silly stuff about it without being called on it.

Oepty
29-04-2013, 08:38 PM
When you find a woman whose decision to have an abortion results in the abortion of random foetuses, rather than only those carried by her, I might consider thinking about taking your claims seriously for even one-tenth of a second.

It is not empirically equivalent and hence it fails the first test for possible "moral" equivalence. I can save you the suspense by telling you it will fail others too.

Being emotional about this issue does not entitle people to say silly stuff about it without being called on it.

Kevin, you are trying to make something equivalent I was not trying to make equivalent. Not sure why. I would consider a person killing their husband or wife to be the same as well, it was just one example of many I could have given.

Also, unless your views have changed recently I find your views as stated previously to be totally ridiculous.

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2013, 08:50 PM
Kevin, you are trying to make something equivalent I was not trying to make equivalent.

Oh yes you were. You introduced the word "random". But there is nothing random about it, because the "victim" is not a randomly selected fetus but rather one being carried by the woman who wants it aborted.

Changing your analogy to a comparison with someone who is at least related to the supposed killer (ie not random) eliminates that problem but there are plenty of others.


Also, unless your views have changed recently I find your views as stated previously to be totally ridiculous.

Given that I have just shown that your argument was incoherent in a very elementary and obvious way, whatever train of thought might lead you to find my views "ridiculous" will be riddled with similar blunders and therefore irrelevant and invalid. And I suspect what we're seeing here is just you lashing out at my views because I criticised yours and because this is an issue you get emotional about. You won't be able to argue an effective case.

Anyway this is part of what I recently wrote on my site:


* Abortion - This is the trickiest of the three and there are some who maintain that abortion violates the liberty of an unborn human life and is hence tantamount to murder. I, for one, believe that that position is simplistic in the extreme and therefore nonsense. I believe this for two reasons. The first is that liberty is not something that has an objective status as following from some logical basis that forces us to extend it to all or even any thin-end-of-the-wedge cases. The assignment of liberty to all who are born (to a reduced extent in the case of children, although not one that stops them attending political rallies) is a result of social consensus between holders of a range of views.

The general consensus at the moment does not (for instance) grant equal liberty to "sentient" animals as to humans, although there are some who consider this to be simply arbitrary and rampant "speciesism" (to which a possible reply is "look Oscar the Orca, we'll look after our species, and you guys can look after yours"). If we decide that liberty pertains to all humans who have been born and not those who haven't, even if the line being drawn is arguably arbitrary when debating a viable fetus vs a baby born prematurely at the same stage, then there isn't any valid argument against drawing such a line. (If anyone requests me to get into how this relates to drawing lines that include some living humans and not others - eg racist or sexist ones - I can do that in comments.)

The second is that liberty, or the "right to life", isn't unconditional anyway. Suppose that a mentally deranged person (whose insanity was no fault of his own) announces that he is going to take a woman hostage on and off for several months and injure, but probably not kill, her. The woman objects and the police are called. What will happen here will be that the deranged person will be asked to release his hostage, if he resists the police will attempt to arrest him, and if he resists arrest and insists on taking the hostage anyway, and there is absolutely no other way around it, he's very likely going to eventually be shot dead. The right to life does not entail the right to cause significant injury to another person, and that applies even if the condition causing the injurer to do so is no fault of their own. Situations that are tantamount to the impact of an undesired pregnancy on the woman carrying it, as applied to normal "right to life" discussions, are so peculiar and artificial that the concept is just not normally applicable to them.

The standard counter-argument [..] is that a woman consents to carrying a child if she allows herself to avoidably become pregnant (or even if she doesn't allow it and it happens anyway, if your name is Todd Akin). However, many women who become pregnant do so either while not aiming to do so or while attempting to actively avoid doing so by pretty much any practical available means other than destroying their own sex lives. Others may initially think it is a good idea to have a child then later decide otherwise if their circumstances irreversibly and unexpectedly change. The consent argument only applies if there is effectively continual consent, and when there is continual consent then there is nothing to debate.

Ultimately, the anti-abortion case restricts the liberty of women, and does so on the basis of claims about the liberty or rights of the unborn that are disputable or problematic at best. While the Salamanca Declarers may think that banning women from having legal abortions in most cases and bringing back the proverbial coathanger brigade is a mark of a civilised society, I think the mark of a civilised society is not getting caught in simplistic philosophical traps, and especially not doing so on account of decidedly unmodern religious beliefs expressed in un"civilised" texts.

Oepty
29-04-2013, 09:12 PM
Oh yes you were. You introduced the word "random". But there is nothing random about it, because the "victim" is not a randomly selected fetus but rather one being carried by the woman who wants it aborted.

Changing your analogy to a comparison with someone who is at least related to the supposed killer (ie not random) eliminates that problem but there are plenty of others.


I could see an objection to the word random if the word random was meant to signify a moral point. That is the inclusion of randomness in the selection of the victim makes the crime to be worse than one where the victim was chosen for a specific reason, for example relationship. However I was not trying to make this point at all so the randomness of the crime is irrelevant to me, it is just that one person is killing another, one of many examples that I could give.



Given that I have just shown that your argument was incoherent, no doubt whatever train of thought might lead you to find my views "ridiculous" is riddled with similar blunders and therefore irrelevant and invalid. And I suspect what we're seeing here is just you lashing out at my views because I lashed out on yours and because this is an issue you get emotional about. You won't be able to argue an effective case.

Anyway this is part of what I recently wrote on my site:


* Abortion - This is the trickiest of the three and there are some who maintain that abortion violates the liberty of an unborn human life and is hence tantamount to murder. I, for one, believe that that position is simplistic in the extreme and therefore nonsense. I believe this for two reasons. The first is that liberty is not something that has an objective status as following from some logical basis that forces us to extend it to all or even any thin-end-of-the-wedge cases. The assignment of liberty to all who are born (to a reduced extent in the case of children, although not one that stops them attending political rallies) is a result of social consensus between holders of a range of views.

The general consensus at the moment does not (for instance) grant equal liberty to "sentient" animals as to humans, although there are some who consider this to be simply arbitrary and rampant "speciesism" (to which a possible reply is "look Oscar the Orca, we'll look after our species, and you guys can look after yours"). If we decide that liberty pertains to all humans who have been born and not those who haven't, even if the line being drawn is arguably arbitrary when debating a viable fetus vs a baby born prematurely at the same stage, then there isn't any valid argument against drawing such a line. (If anyone requests me to get into how this relates to drawing lines that include some living humans and not others - eg racist or sexist ones - I can do that in comments.)

The second is that liberty, or the "right to life", isn't unconditional anyway. Suppose that a mentally deranged person (whose insanity was no fault of his own) announces that he is going to take a woman hostage on and off for several months and injure, but probably not kill, her. The woman objects and the police are called. What will happen here will be that the deranged person will be asked to release his hostage, if he resists the police will attempt to arrest him, and if he resists arrest and insists on taking the hostage anyway, and there is absolutely no other way around it, he's very likely going to eventually be shot dead. The right to life does not entail the right to cause significant injury to another person, and that applies even if the condition causing the injurer to do so is no fault of their own. Situations that are tantamount to the impact of an undesired pregnancy on the woman carrying it, as applied to normal "right to life" discussions, are so peculiar and artificial that the concept is just not normally applicable to them.

The standard counter-argument (and see the paragraph at the bottom of this article) is that a woman consents to carrying a child if she allows herself to avoidably become pregnant (or even if she doesn't allow it and it happens anyway, if your name is Todd Akin). However, many women who become pregnant do so either while not aiming to do so or while attempting to actively avoid doing so by pretty much any practical available means other than destroying their own sex lives. Others may initially think it is a good idea to have a child then later decide otherwise if their circumstances irreversibly and unexpectedly change. The consent argument only applies if there is effectively continual consent, and when there is continual consent then there is nothing to debate.

Ultimately, the anti-abortion case restricts the liberty of women, and does so on the basis of claims about the liberty or rights of the unborn that are disputable or problematic at best. While the Salamanca Declarers may think that banning women from having legal abortions in most cases and bringing back the proverbial coathanger brigade is a mark of a civilised society, I think the mark of a civilised society is not getting caught in simplistic philosophical traps, and especially not doing so on account of decidedly unmodern religious beliefs expressed in un"civilised" texts.

A completely different way of thinking that I could never accept. I do not believe abortion "violates the liberty of an unborn human life", it just ends that life.
Liberty is a strange concept, we do not have the freedom to do whatever we like without punishment. Humans do not have liberty, humans are punished with death, a well earned death.

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2013, 10:17 PM
I could see an objection to the word random if the word random was meant to signify a moral point. That is the inclusion of randomness in the selection of the victim makes the crime to be worse than one where the victim was chosen for a specific reason, for example relationship. However I was not trying to make this point at all so the randomness of the crime is irrelevant to me, it is just that one person is killing another, one of many examples that I could give.

You made that so-called point whether you were trying to make it or not. What is important is what is actually said, and what it means as written, and not what a person then tries to claim they really meant to say. If you need to recast, it's your fault for writing badly.


A completely different way of thinking that I could never accept. I do not believe abortion "violates the liberty of an unborn human life", it just ends that life.
Liberty is a strange concept, we do not have the freedom to do whatever we like without punishment. Humans do not have liberty, humans are punished with death, a well earned death.

Which makes your moral outrage seem especially incongruous. Since on your account all humans are "punished" with death and they all deserve it why do you get outraged over the non-birth of someone who in any case would have deserved to die? And why do you get outraged over genuine murder? Victims are just getting what they deserved and what was coming to them anyway, according to your basic claim.

I should note that the term "liberty" featured so strongly in my article because I was criticising Christians who had argued that they were supporters of "liberty" while also opposing liberty in most contexts. I have other ways of putting the same thing but it boils down to the same basic claim: the law should let people do what they like except where there are very good reasons why not; in this case there are not very good reasons why not, and therefore the law shouldn't get too involved.

But in any case, to say that "liberty" means the freedom to do whatever you like without punishment is just wrong. It does not mean the freedom to behave violently towards another living person - not even unintentionally - nor the freedom to steal or destroy their property or break a commercial contract with them (to give some examples). Those who violate the liberty of others without valid reason can expect to have their own violated by law.

Oepty
29-04-2013, 10:29 PM
You made that so-called point whether you were trying to make it or not. What is important is what is actually said, and what it means as written, and not what a person then tries to claim they really meant to say. If you need to recast, it's your fault for writing badly.



I wrote exactly what I meant. I never said that randomness of a murder makes it worse than a non random murder.

Abortion is the moral equivalent of a person killing a random person they find on the street.
It is also the moral equivalent of a husband killing their wife.
It is also the moral equivalent of a mother killing a newborn baby.
It is also the moral equivalent of any person taking a deliberate act to kill another person and succeeding in killing that person.

I just happened to include the first example in the post above. My view has not changed at all between my posts tonight

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2013, 10:53 PM
I wrote exactly what I meant. I never said that randomness of a murder makes it worse than a non random murder.

It would be widely read as implied. Killing someone you never had anything to do with who never did anything to you is widely seen as particularly senseless. Whereas sometimes when people kill someone they know it is not so bad because there was severe provocation. Sometimes it may even justified, in most people's eyes, if the provocation or threat was exceptionally bad.


Abortion is the moral equivalent of a person killing a random person they find on the street.
It is also the moral equivalent of a husband killing their wife.
It is also the moral equivalent of a mother killing a newborn baby.
It is also the moral equivalent of any person taking a deliberate act to kill another person and succeeding in killing that person.

And these things are not generally considered to all be equivalent to each other so it is not sensible to say that they are all morally equivalent to abortion. In fact, none are, and I have pointed out why not in the third paragraph of the quote from my article.

Based on your last statement (and others you have made before), if a terrorist has a nuclear bomb and is threatening to detonate it in a major city killing 10,000,000 people, then you would consider it morally wrong to kill the terrorist.

Most people would consider it not merely not wrong to kill the terrorist, but either morally obligatory or at least a very good idea.

So if you are saying abortion is morally equivalent to killing a terrorist who would have killed 10,000,000 people, then you are declaring it morally equivalent to something anyone remotely morally normal would approve of.

On that basis, your claim that it is "wrong" isn't exactly carrying a lot of weight. And the obvious question which is probably going to result in a silly religious answer is why do you then call it wrong? What are your criteria for evaluating whether something is right or not, and why should anyone care?

Oepty
29-04-2013, 11:48 PM
It would be widely read as implied. Killing someone you never had anything to do with who never did anything to you is widely seen as particularly senseless. Whereas sometimes when people kill someone they know it is not so bad because there was severe provocation. Sometimes it may even justified, in most people's eyes, if the provocation or threat was exceptionally bad.



And these things are not generally considered to all be equivalent to each other so it is not sensible to say that they are all morally equivalent to abortion. In fact, none are, and I have pointed out why not in the third paragraph of the quote from my article.

Based on your last statement (and others you have made before), if a terrorist has a nuclear bomb and is threatening to detonate it in a major city killing 10,000,000 people, then you would consider it morally wrong to kill the terrorist.

Most people would consider it not merely not wrong to kill the terrorist, but either morally obligatory or at least a very good idea.

So if you are saying abortion is morally equivalent to killing a terrorist who would have killed 10,000,000 people, then you are declaring it morally equivalent to something anyone remotely morally normal would approve of.

On that basis, your claim that it is "wrong" isn't exactly carrying a lot of weight. And the obvious question which is probably going to result in a silly religious answer is why do you then call it wrong? What are your criteria for evaluating whether something is right or not, and why should anyone care?

Why should anyone care?
I am not sure, I certainly do not expect you or any of the other atheists on this board to care.
However my criteria for right and wrong is what God thinks is right or wrong. But I might be wrong about what God thinks is right or wrong.

As for the terrorist, I think it is wrong to kill him. I am aware that my view is not the norm but that does not worry me at all.

antichrist
30-04-2013, 01:03 AM
Why should anyone care?
I am not sure, I certainly do not expect you or any of the other atheists on this board to care.
However my criteria for right and wrong is what God thinks is right or wrong. But I might be wrong about what God thinks is right or wrong.

As for the terrorist, I think it is wrong to kill him. I am aware that my view is not the norm but that does not worry me at all.

how has this board survived without such doses of intellectualism

Oepty
30-04-2013, 08:22 AM
how has this board survived without such doses of intellectualism

It has survived with and with out your intellectualism so I am sure my comings and goings mean nothing. I am nothing.

Kevin Bonham
01-05-2013, 12:20 AM
Posts moved

Moved some of the God tangents from this thread to a split thread in Religion and Science section. May want to move others from other politics threads soon too and will move them to same thread if so.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
06-05-2013, 04:18 AM
its amazing that 2 people who chose to become active in an official capacity in new zealand against abortion can be so silent when asked how hypocritical it is to slander abortion as baby butchery when jono readily admits he would undertake this process to protect his partner.

will chesschats biggest hypocrite jono ever respond along with his willing henchman adamski 'jono lite' ?

where is the main provocateur of crackbrain ideology and his number one fanboy when you need a straight answer ? :hmm:

Adamski
13-05-2013, 12:46 AM
its amazing that 2 people who chose to become active in an official capacity in new zealand against abortion can be so silent when asked how hypocritical it is to slander abortion as baby butchery when jono readily admits he would undertake this process to protect his partner.

will chesschats biggest hypocrite jono ever respond along with his willing henchman adamski 'jono lite' ?

where is the main provocateur of crackbrain ideology and his number one fanboy when you need a straight answer ? :hmm:
I can only answer for myself - I believe intentional abortion is murder. The unborn child in the womb is alive so killing it is murder.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
13-05-2013, 12:56 AM
I can only answer for myself - I believe intentional abortion is murder. The unborn child in the womb is alive so killing it is murder.

so what youre saying is that the foetus takes precedence over the health and wellbeing of your wife ? :eh:

Adamski
13-05-2013, 01:00 AM
so what youre saying is that the foetus takes precedence over the health and wellbeing of your wife ? :eh:
If one's wife is sick, medical procedures which lead to the unintended death of the foetus are not murderous. If the mother would be likely to die, then the mother should be saved as first priority.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
13-05-2013, 01:15 AM
If one's wife is sick, medical procedures which lead to the unintended death of the foetus are not murderous. If the mother would be likely to die, then the mother should be saved as first priority.

how is it unintended ? you two still keep trotting this illogical excuse out but its clearly rubbish.

you have even admitted previously that the death is 'unfortunate' not 'unintended'. (post 163)
how easy it seems to be for your memory to completely forget this.

you might feel the need to delude yourself into believing that you are somehow exonerated from culpability but your not. everybody would be responsible for partaking in this act. i doubt you are going to fool god with this line of reasoning.

life is sometimes imprecise.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2013, 01:26 AM
If one's wife is sick, medical procedures which lead to the unintended death of the foetus are not murderous. If the mother would be likely to die, then the mother should be saved as first priority.
Of course. This is a genuine self-defence issue. If the mother died, then the baby would as well. Just about all pro-life advocates would allow a genuine life-of-the-mother exception. Of course, I don't believe that inability to fit into a prom dress is a life-threatening condition. The rape/incest exceptions are also illogical: if we must execute someone, then let it be the rapist, not the non-guilty child of the rapist. Miscarriage is not the same as abortion because there is no intent to kill; this is like comparing natural deaths with murders.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
13-05-2013, 01:40 AM
Of course. This is a genuine self-defence issue. If the mother died, then the baby would as well. Just about all pro-life advocates would allow a genuine life-of-the-mother exception. Of course, I don't believe that inability to fit into a prom dress is a life-threatening condition. The rape/incest exceptions are also illogical: if we must execute someone, then let it be the rapist, not the non-guilty child of the rapist. Miscarriage is not the same as abortion because there is no intent to kill; this is like comparing natural deaths with murders.

of course this is a genuine self defence issue but your explanation of how it is facilitated is deceptive.

what kind of health risk does there need to be before YOU INSTRUCT THE DOCTOR TO ABORT.

a minor bleed ?
a major bleed ?
a hernia ?
death ?

how accidental is the act that i have bolded ?

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2013, 12:16 AM
Pleased to advise that the abortion law reforms passed through the Tasmanian Lower House earlier this year (see post here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?338-Abortion-an-issue-in-Australia&p=356518&viewfull=1#post356518)) passed the Upper House yesterday and are now law.

Relatively minor amendments were passed, which generally improved the bill. Requirements for "counsellors" who had conscientious objections to abortion to refer clients who wished to discuss abortion elsewhere were firstly stripped of penalties and then dropped entirely; the issue being that the term "counsellor" is undefined at law and hence the provision is nebulous. (Priests etc were already exempt from this requirement.) Doctors with conscientious objections are not required to specifically refer a woman to a specific practitioner known to support abortion rights but are now only required to provide a pamphlet providing general information about other options. And doctors are no longer required to halt a consultation if they have a conscientious objection to abortion; they can continue the consultation if they wish provided they inform the woman of their views.

The final debate in the Legislative Council was a very long one but in the end four of the normally conservative MLCs (Liberal Vanessa Goodwin, Liberal Party member and likely state candidate but notional independent Paul Harriss, and independents Greg Hall and Tania Rattray) supported the Bill. All of these had opposed same-sex marriage earlier in the year (though in Harriss's case solely because he considered it a federal issue).

I was impressed by the consideration shown by some of the conservative MLCs and it was especially interesting that even those who strongly opposed the reform overall - painful as their often emotive and irrelevant objections were to listen to at times - commended parts of it strongly, such as the restrictions on clinic vigils and so on. A big contrast to the Lower House where the Liberals made noises about it being a conscience vote but none of them actually used that freedom to support it - which has also been a problem with the Libs here on most other "conscience votes" in this term.

Hasimir
07-08-2014, 07:54 AM
As opposed to the zealots for prenatal baby-butchery, like the professing Catholic Crapthine?

A foetus isn't a baby, nor is an embryo and I have yet to see any policies which make abortions mandatory, it's hardly comparable.

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2014, 03:33 AM
A foetus isn't a baby, nor is an embryo and
Of course it is. What mother who wants a child will say "I have a fetus growing inside of me"? Also, this Week By Week Pregnancy Calendar (http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/landing.aspx) uses the term "baby" almost throughout:


Week 5 of Pregnancy
Your baby's heart and circulatory system are developing, while your hCG hormone levels are now high enough to confirm your good news with a home pregnancy test.


Week 16 of Pregnancy
Here's an eye opener for you: While you're packing on the baby pounds, your baby's eyesight (and eyelashes!) are developing rapidly.

Week 17 of Pregnancy
Your baby is practicing sucking and swallowing as she gets ready for the real thing: a breast or bottle! As for Mom, you may be warding off some unwanted belly touching.

Week 28 of Pregnancy
Your baby has started blinking and dreaming while you may be dreaming that the pain in your derriere will disappear!

But I'll tell you what: I'll give you credence for using medicalese rather than everyday terms for the baby if you will also use the medicalese gravida for the pregnant woman.


I have yet to see any policies which make abortions mandatory, it's hardly comparable.
China did for years with its one-child policy, supported by many western abortion-lovers.

Hasimir
08-08-2014, 04:31 AM
Of course it is. What mother who wants a child will say "I have a fetus growing inside of me"? Also, this Week By Week Pregnancy Calendar (http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/landing.aspx) uses the term "baby" almost throughout:


Week 5 of Pregnancy
Your baby's heart and circulatory system are developing, while your hCG hormone levels are now high enough to confirm your good news with a home pregnancy test.


Week 16 of Pregnancy
Here's an eye opener for you: While you're packing on the baby pounds, your baby's eyesight (and eyelashes!) are developing rapidly.

Week 17 of Pregnancy
Your baby is practicing sucking and swallowing as she gets ready for the real thing: a breast or bottle! As for Mom, you may be warding off some unwanted belly touching.

Week 28 of Pregnancy
Your baby has started blinking and dreaming while you may be dreaming that the pain in your derriere will disappear!

But I'll tell you what: I'll give you credence for using medicalese rather than everyday terms for the baby if you will also use the medicalese gravida for the pregnant woman.

Nope, because it's not accurate. Gravida as the etymological root indicates means swollen, laden or heavily with child. You know, around the eighth month. The more general and most consistently applicable would be prægnans/prægnantis, prægnas/prægnatis or inciens/incientis. No prizes for guessing which English word the first two of those developed into and which English word I'll continue to use.


China did for years with its one-child policy, supported by many western abortion-lovers.

Last I checked, Victoria hadn't suddenly become a province of China. You have a problem there, take it up with them ... or conquer them and impose your will. Personally, though, I reckon they'd kick your arse.

All of which is beside the point. Perhaps you can answer me this question: is it acceptable to you to prevent access to abortion, even if that means forcing a woman to carry to term against her will?

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2014, 06:09 AM
Nope, because it's not accurate. Gravida as the etymological root indicates means swollen, laden or heavily with child.
Everyone should know that word meaning is governed by usage not etymology. Do you think nice means ignorant, even though it comes from nescius meaning just that? Or do you really think that treason and tradition have related meanings just because they come from the same root?

Anyway, after the above free semantics lesson, even Merriam Webster says (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gravida):


grav·i·da noun \ˈgra-və-də\
: a pregnant woman —often used with a number to indicate the number of pregnancies a woman has had <a gravida 4>

Another online dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gravida)confirms it's a normal OB/GYN term:


Obstetrics .
1.
a woman's status regarding pregnancy; usually followed by a roman numeral designating the number of times the woman has been pregnant.
2.
a pregnant woman.


You know, around the eighth month.
Wrong, as above. No wonder gravid is the normal word for pregnant in Scandinavian languages.


The more general and most consistently applicable would be prægnans/prægnantis, prægnas/prægnatis or inciens/incientis. No prizes for guessing which English word the first two of those developed into and which English word I'll continue to use.
A very common English phrase in the not-too-distant past was "with child". I've never heard "with fetus".


Last I checked, Victoria hadn't suddenly become a province of China. You have a problem there, take it up with them ... or conquer them and impose your will. Personally, though, I reckon they'd kick your arse.
Yes, that would be typical of the brutality of the Communist regime you love. Mao still holds the Guinness Book of Records entry for what has been called megademocide: murder of at least a million people by their own government.


All of which is beside the point.
Hardly. It's typical of your ilk to ignore the results of abortion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBKKnCtNeRU


Perhaps you can answer me this question: is it acceptable to you to prevent access to abortion, even if that means forcing a woman to carry to term against her will?
Evidently you think it's acceptable to impose your anti-life view on the innocent unborn baby.

Desmond
08-08-2014, 07:25 AM
All of which is beside the point. Perhaps you can answer me this question: is it acceptable to you to prevent access to abortion, even if that means forcing a woman to carry to term against her will?Jono's agenda is not only that but also to cause the pregnancy in the first place by discouraging contraception, and when the baby is born to leave it and its mother to starve without taxpayer assistance or medical care. But that's OK, because the child will soon be able to work in a sweatshop unencumbered by any restriction on minimum wage or conditions. And if you disagree with any of this, you must be a person with a mental impediment, who are, in Jono's view, worthy of ridicule.

Hasimir
08-08-2014, 07:43 AM
Jono's agenda is not only that but also to cause the pregnancy in the first place by discouraging contraception, and when the baby is born to leave it and its mother to starve without taxpayer assistance or medical care. But that's OK, because the child will soon be able to work in a sweatshop unencumbered by any restriction on minimum wage or conditions. And if you disagree with any of this, you must be a person with a mental impediment, who are, in Jono's view, worthy of ridicule.

Yeah, but is he serious or just trolling?

Hasimir
08-08-2014, 07:45 AM
Evidently you think it's acceptable to impose your anti-life view on the innocent unborn baby.

Oh, you mean the parasitic organism ...

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2014, 08:28 AM
Jono's agenda is not only that but also to cause the pregnancy in the first place by discouraging contraception, and when the baby is born to leave it and its mother to starve without taxpayer assistance or medical care. But that's OK, because the child will soon be able to work in a sweatshop unencumbered by any restriction on minimum wage or conditions. And if you disagree with any of this, you must be a person with a mental impediment, who are, in Jono's view, worthy of ridicule.
Typical leftard nonsense, which of course could easily be reversed on rr: his agenda is to affect compassion—but only with other people's money—after birth, but tearing them apart before birth. And even after birth, his ilk don't care much about good results but only nice sounding goals of their policies.

Desmond
08-08-2014, 09:09 PM
Typical leftard [sic] nonsense, which of course could easily be reversed on rr: Yes it can be twisted, but here's the difference: what I said about you is true and what you said me isn't.

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2014, 04:51 AM
rr is of course projecting. It's also typical of leftards to make this non sequitur: if you oppose certain government programs that ostensibly help certain groups, you must by definition hate or not care about those groups. Take just one of his moronic ideas: the current high minimum wage laws mean that Australian unemployed people are stuck on $255.25 pw, and under the new law be forced to work for 25 hours and apply for 40 jobs; but they are streng verboten to take a job that will earn $500 pw for 40 hours.

It also happens to be true that his ilk affect compassion only after the arbitrary dividing line of birth, but are violently uncompassionate before.

Desmond
09-08-2014, 01:28 PM
rr is of course projecting. Let me know which, if any, of the points you dispute, or which ones are projected:

1. You discourage contraception (increase likelihood of pregnancy in the first place).
2. You oppose abortion.
3. You oppose providing medical care to the mother during pregnancy, and the mother and child after.
4. You oppose providing financial support as well.
5. Having created this poverty trap, your solution out of it is to allow the mother and child to work for anything without regard for minimum conditions or wages.

And as for my final point "And if you disagree with any of this, you must be a person with a mental impediment, who are, in Jono's view, worthy of ridicule.", you already proved this one by variously calling me a retard and moron for outlining your own position.

Rincewind
09-08-2014, 04:25 PM
if you oppose certain government programs that ostensibly help certain groups, you must by definition hate or not care about those groups.

Is that the same sort of non sequitur that you committed when describing Alison Lundergen Grime (who is catholic but pro-choice) as an "abortion lover"?

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2014, 01:19 AM
Let me know which, if any, of the points you dispute, or which ones are projected:
See below.

1. You discourage contraception (increase likelihood of pregnancy in the first place). F
2. You oppose abortion. T
3. You oppose providing medical care to the mother during pregnancy, and the mother and child after. F
4. You oppose providing financial support as well. F
5. Having created this poverty trap, your solution out of it is to allow the mother and child to work for anything without regard for minimum conditions or wages. NA


And as for my final point "And if you disagree with any of this, you must be a person with a mental impediment, who are, in Jono's view, worthy of ridicule.", you already proved this one by variously calling me a retard and moron for outlining your own position.
More likely, if you want to go from the empirical question of whether a program helps the group it is ostensbly for, to questioning the motives and morality of opponents to that position, that really is moronic.

Desmond
12-08-2014, 07:26 AM
So now you're for providing medical care and financial support? That's news.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2014, 09:10 AM
So now you're for providing medical care and financial support? That's news.
I said that I was not opposed to providing both. If you want to take medical care of them and financially support them, go for it. Why would I or anyone else want to oppose this?

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2014, 09:15 AM
Is that the same sort of non sequitur that you committed when describing Alison Lundergen Grime (who is catholic but pro-choice) as an "abortion lover"?

Is that similar to your calling this avid supporter of prenatal butchery a Catholic? Rather like a capitalist Marxist, Muslim atheist, or intelligent leftist.

Rincewind
12-08-2014, 12:17 PM
Is that similar to your calling this avid supporter of prenatal butchery a Catholic? Rather like a capitalist Marxist, Muslim atheist, or intelligent leftist.

Self-reflection obviously not your strong suit.

Desmond
12-08-2014, 07:17 PM
I said that I was not opposed to providing both. If you want to take medical care of them and financially support them, go for it. Why would I or anyone else want to oppose this?You said

3. You oppose providing medical care to the mother during pregnancy, and the mother and child after. F

I assume F is for False.

Who do you think should provide it?

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2014, 10:57 PM
Don't blame me because your true/false questions were not worded the way you wanted. I answered them according to their wording, and yes, F means false. I.e. I don't oppose the provision of care and money. At least you're getting part of it now, although leftists are usually very prone to making the non-sequitur: conservatives oppose many government programs that ostensibly take care of the poor, therefore conservatives oppose taking care of the poor. Leftists need to prove that government programs are the best way to to this, and that they really do help the poor rather than harm them by incentivising proverty-inducing behaviour and punishing moves out of dependence and poverty.

Patrick Byrom
13-08-2014, 12:07 AM
Is that similar to your calling this avid supporter of prenatal butchery a Catholic? Rather like a capitalist Marxist, Muslim atheist, or intelligent leftist.
Are you saying that Tony Abbott, who is also a pro-choice Catholic, is therefore not a Catholic? You do realise that Catholicism doesn't actually work that way?

Desmond
13-08-2014, 09:15 PM
Don't blame me because your true/false questions were not worded the way you wanted.:eh:
I answered them according to their wording, and yes, F means false. I.e. I don't oppose the provision of care and money. Who do you think should provide it?

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2014, 12:21 AM
Are you saying that Tony Abbott, who is also a pro-choice Catholic, is therefore not a Catholic? You do realise that Catholicism doesn't actually work that way?

Abbott is a very strange one on this. He is not so much pro-choice-to-murder but rather wimpy on the issue. The woman RW likes is an obsessive fighter for abortion. Catholicism is even the archetypical pro-life religion, so yes of course it works that way.

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2014, 12:23 AM
:eh:
Well, you had an unstated non sequitur that all leftists must resort to: these people must be helped, therefore the government must help them.


Who do you think should provide it?
Those who used to provide it before the government crowded it out. John Stossel has a good account of the American situation (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2005/08/24/the_value_of_private_charity/page/full).

Desmond
14-08-2014, 07:22 AM
Well, you had an unstated non sequitur that all leftists must resort to: these people must be helped, therefore the government must help them.You are the one who wishes to depart from the status quo - state provided medical care - so you can be the one to provide the alternative. I am quite happy for a slice of my taxes to pay for the medical care of a pregnant woman, including abortion if/when appropriate. You are not. What's your alternative. You already stated it should be provided for her; by whom?

Patrick Byrom
14-08-2014, 01:11 PM
Abbott is a very strange one on this. He is not so much pro-choice-to-murder but rather wimpy on the issue. The woman RW likes is an obsessive fighter for abortion. Catholicism is even the archetypical pro-life religion, so yes of course it works that way.
If Abbott does nothing to oppose abortion - which is the case - then he is going against Catholic teaching. In Australia, he doesn't need to be an "obsessive fighter", as there is no strong movement against abortion. So, according to you, he is not a Catholic.

The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty, of course - are Catholic supporters of the death penalty also not Catholic (according to you)?

You don't understand the structure of the Catholic Church. The Pope decides whether you are a Catholic: if he hasn't excommunicated you, and you haven't left the church, then you are still a Catholic.

Rincewind
14-08-2014, 03:06 PM
The Catholic church is quite consistent in their political views regarding abortion, death penalty, opposition to wars, etc. The right wing nut jobs like Jono who pretend to hold the sanctity of human life paramount are exposed as hypocrites when they advocate for the death penalty, stand your ground laws (promoting property crimes above personal crimes) and and always agitating for military intervention including the bombing of UN controlled schools full of innocent children.

Jono also has no idea when the idea that someone may choose to be a catholic and still be pro-choice, even fiercely pro-choice. It reminds me of Jono's abject failure in trying to comprehend the concept of a separation of church and state.

Capablanca-Fan
15-08-2014, 02:49 AM
The Catholic church is quite consistent in their political views regarding abortion, death penalty, opposition to wars, etc.
There is no official Catholic doctrine that opposes war or capital punishment per se, since statements by popes and bishops are not binding, and in any case are not historic stances of the church. However, opposition to abortion is clearly stated in Papal encyclicals and in official doctrinal statements, and has always been a Catholic position. This is why the Australian born priest and professor of History at Notre Dame, Fr. Dr. Wilson Miscamble (http://history.nd.edu/faculty/directory/rev-wilson-d-bill-miscamble-c-s-c/), can both defend the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuking (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4422/) and staunchly oppose abortion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqjEWDSP8Kk


The right wing nut jobs like Jono who pretend to hold the sanctity of human life paramount are exposed as hypocrites when they advocate for the death penalty,
The left wing nut jobs like RW are the real hypocrites when they oppose execution of the worst multiple child rapist/torturer/murderers but support execution of unborn babies for the crime of being unwanted or for being the child of a rapist.


stand your ground laws (promoting property crimes above personal crimes)
Not so: they mean that law-abiding citizens can defend themselves and have no duty to retreat when faced by a thug.


and and always agitating for military intervention including the bombing of UN controlled schools full of innocent children.
Once more, typical of antisemite RW to hold Israel responsible when it's Hamas, with the connivance of the UN kakistocracy, plants weapons in schools, and are thus responsible for their deaths under the rules of war. Of course RW would rather condemn Israel for building weapons and shields to protect innocent children than Hamas/UN who turn children into shields to protect weapons.


Jono also has no idea when the idea that someone may choose to be a catholic and still be pro-choice, even fiercely pro-choice.
Crap: it's like being Marxist and pro-capitalist. There is also much hypocrisy among many professing Catholic politicians who love abortion and pretend that the state should not impose their religious views will appeal to ostensibly religious basis for opposing capital punishment on guilty murders (as opposed to the same punishment on innocent babies) and government redistribution of wealth from the productive to the greedy unproductive.


It reminds me of Jono's abject failure in trying to comprehend the concept of a separation of church and state.
Which is irrelevant since it is not in the US Constitution. But separation of powers is foundational, and repeatedly violated by the Obamov regime.
And as noted, RW doesn't mind when his fellow leftards appeal to ostensibly Christian teachings to support imposition of leftard policies on the state.

Patrick Byrom
15-08-2014, 12:40 PM
There is no official Catholic doctrine that opposes war or capital punishment per se, since statements by popes and bishops are not binding, and in any case are not historic stances of the church. However, opposition to abortion is clearly stated in Papal encyclicals and in official doctrinal statements, and has always been a Catholic position. This is why the Australian born priest and professor of History at Notre Dame, Fr. Dr. Wilson Miscamble (http://history.nd.edu/faculty/directory/rev-wilson-d-bill-miscamble-c-s-c/), can both defend the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuking (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4422/) and staunchly oppose abortion.
You really, really, don't understand how the Catholic Church works - statements by the Pope are binding on Catholics, and overrule any historic stance.

There is an obvious problem with supporting bombings which will kill innocent children while proclaiming the sanctity of innocent life to oppose abortion, but that is a problem for Dr Miscamble.

Capablanca-Fan
16-08-2014, 09:12 AM
You really, really, don't understand how the Catholic Church works - statements by the Pope are binding on Catholics, and overrule any historic stance.
I don't normally take advice on Catholic doctrine from atheists, thanks. No, the Pope's statements are binding when he speaks ex cathedra, and in encyclicals. Otherwise he speaks as someone who should be listened to very carefully, but it is not binding. Anyway, Popes have spoken both officially and unofficially against abortion in no uncertain terms.


There is an obvious problem with supporting bombings which will kill innocent children while proclaiming the sanctity of innocent life to oppose abortion, but that is a problem for Dr Miscamble.
The hypocrisy charge works both ways. There is rather a problem in opposing an action that saved millions of both Allied and Japanese lives, as Miscamble documents, but thinking it's fine to rip up babies in the womb. As Miscamble argues, what alternative action to the "Least Evil Option (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4422/)" was possible that would have avoided those deaths? His book is worth study: The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs, and the Defeat of Japan (Cambridge Essential Histories) (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521514193).

Anyway, Fr. Miscamble is a priest in good standing. An abortion-loving priest would not be.

Rincewind
16-08-2014, 10:22 AM
I don't normally take advice...

You could have stopped there. As I've said, self-reflection, not your strong suit.

Patrick Byrom
16-08-2014, 03:18 PM
I don't normally take advice on Catholic doctrine from atheists, thanks. No, the Pope's statements are binding when he speaks ex cathedra, and in encyclicals. Otherwise he speaks as someone who should be listened to very carefully, but it is not binding. Anyway, Popes have spoken both officially and unofficially against abortion in no uncertain terms.
Maybe you should take advice from me, as you are still having trouble understanding! When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, Catholic teaching is that he is infallible. However, statements by the Pope are binding on Catholics, whether he speaks ex cathedra or not. But of course, you are an 'atheist' with respect to Catholic doctrine anyway.

I wasn't claiming that the Pope supports abortion - that would be silly. However, the Second Vatican Council made its position clear on bombings such as Nagasaki (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4339/):

This principle was acknowledged, but certainly not introduced, by the Second Vatican Council, in its document Gaudium et Spes: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” So common morality, and at least the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching on the matter, agree that non-combatants should never be intentionally targeted for death.


The hypocrisy charge works both ways. There is rather a problem in opposing an action that saved millions of both Allied and Japanese lives, as Miscamble documents, but thinking it's fine to rip up babies in the womb. As Miscamble argues, what alternative action to the "Least Evil Option (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4422/)" was possible that would have avoided those deaths? His book is worth study: The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs, and the Defeat of Japan (Cambridge Essential Histories) (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521514193).

Anyway, Fr. Miscamble is a priest in good standing. An abortion-loving priest would not be.
And you should read this article by Tollefsen (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4339/), who criticises Miscamble's position because he believes support for the Nagasaki bombing undermines opposition to abortion.

I don't agree with Tollefsen's position, but I think his argument is consistent, unlike Miscamble's. Your argument that it's okay to kill innocent civilians in order to save other lives suffers from the same problem, of course - what is then wrong with abortion to save the life of the mother?

MichaelBaron
17-08-2014, 11:02 AM
I did not realise that abortion is still an issue to be discussed by politicians and that it can be played effectively as an ''election card'' in a liberal country like Australia.

Capablanca-Fan
18-08-2014, 05:59 AM
Maybe you should take advice from me, as you are still having trouble understanding! When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, Catholic teaching is that he is infallible. However, statements by the Pope are binding on Catholics, whether he speaks ex cathedra or not.
Not at all. He is the Bishop of Rome expressing an opinion not a dogma. Anyway, your ilk is like:


You may be a fundamentalist atheist if.... (http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/fundyath.html)
When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he's just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.


But of course, you are an 'atheist' with respect to Catholic doctrine anyway.
Hardly; I agree about the Trinity, substitutionary atonement, and that Scripture is "sacred", for some big ones.


I wasn't claiming that the Pope supports abortion - that would be silly.
So abortion-supporters who claim to be Catholic are silly as well, according to your own arguments.


However, the Second Vatican Council made its position clear on bombings such as Nagasaki (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4339/):

This principle was acknowledged, but certainly not introduced, by the Second Vatican Council, in its document Gaudium et Spes: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” So common morality, and at least the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching on the matter, agree that non-combatants should never be intentionally targeted for death.
Miscamble documented extensively that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, as other articles have documented (http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=49):


Hiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center.
...
The city of Nagasaki was one of the most important sea ports in southern Japan. Although it was not among the list of potential targets selected by Oppenheimer's committee, it was added later due to its significance as a major war production center for warships, munitions, and other equipment.


And you should read this article by Tollefsen (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4339/), who criticises Miscamble's position because he believes support for the Nagasaki bombing undermines opposition to abortion.
But Miscamble answered Tollefsen in an article already cited (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4422/), pointing out that he had no clue about what alternative would have worked:


It is when one turns to alternate courses of action that the abstract nature of Tollefsen’s criticisms becomes apparent. He criticizes Truman’s actions as immoral but offers no serious proposal regarding a viable alternative. Elizabeth Anscombe had naively suggested that Truman alter the terms of surrender, but such an approach only would have strengthened the hand of the Japanese militarists and confirmed their suicidal strategy. Tollefsen concedes that “it might well be true that greater suffering would have resulted from a refusal to use the atomic weapons in Japan,” but he backs away from any genuine discussion of what Truman should have done and of what that “greater suffering” might have involved. He provides no evidence that he has considered this matter at all. But should philosophers be able to avoid outlining what they would have done in the demanding circumstances that Truman confronted? I have always thought that moral reflection wrestles with the awful and painful realities. Tollefsen seems to want to stand above the fray, to pronounce Truman’s actions as deeply immoral and to leave it at that. It would have brought greater clarity to this discussion if he had confronted the alternatives seriously.
...
I suspect that Professor Tollefsen would be willing to say that it would be better to do absolutely nothing and to live with the consequences, if I may use that word, than to use morally questionable tactics. But the decision not to act undoubtedly would have incurred terrible consequences. Surely such inaction would carry some burden of responsibility for the prolongation of the killing of innocents throughout Asia, in the charnel house of the Japanese Empire. Is it really “moral” to stand aside, maintaining one’s supposed moral purity, while a vast slaughter is occurring at the rate of over two hundred thousand deaths a month? Isn’t there a terrible dilemma here, namely, which innocent lives to save? Would Tollefsen really have rested at peace with the long-term Japanese domination of Asia? Would that be a pro-life position?
...
I trust that my pro-life credentials will not be questioned because I refuse to denounce Truman as a “mass-murderer.” Unlike Tollefsen, I do not think that my position initiates the unraveling of the entire pro-life garment. I believe Truman pursued the least-harmful course of action available to him to end a ghastly war, a course that resulted in the least loss of life.


I don't agree with Tollefsen's position,
In what sense?


but I think his argument is consistent, unlike Miscamble's. Your argument that it's okay to kill innocent civilians in order to save other lives suffers from the same problem, of course - what is then wrong with abortion to save the life of the mother?
How many abortions have anything to do with saving the mother's life (as opposed to enabling her to fit into her prom dress), and in any case, I have answered that (http://creation.com/what-about-abortion-to-save-the-mothers-life).

Rincewind
18-08-2014, 10:24 AM
How many abortions have anything to do with saving the mother's life (as opposed to enabling her to fit into her prom dress)

I don't know why everyone thinks you're a misogynist.

Oh wait, I remember now. It's because you continually marginalise women.

Desmond
18-08-2014, 06:24 PM
I don't know why everyone thinks you're a misogynist.

Oh wait, I remember now. It's because you continually marginalise women.Indeed. Re the prom dress line, I think cat (himself a doctor) said it best way back in post #2:


Most individuals do not undergo this decision lightly and seek medical advice in order that they arrive at an appropriate decision. In my experience, most individuals or couples attend with the expectation to be counselled. The term 'abortion on demand' impunes the integrity of every individual or couple that has wrestled with what is often the most difficult decision of their lives.

Patrick Byrom
18-08-2014, 11:23 PM
Not at all. He is the Bishop of Rome expressing an opinion not a dogma.
Unless he speaks ex cathedra of course (according to Catholic teaching) :)


Hardly; I agree about the Trinity, substitutionary atonement, and that Scripture is "sacred", for some big ones.Papal authority is also very important to Catholics, but you would hardly agree with that!


So abortion-supporters who claim to be Catholic are silly as well, according to your own arguments.It is not silly to be a pro-choice Catholic, but it would be silly to claim that the Pope was one.


Miscamble documented extensively that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, as other articles have documented (http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=49): ...
I agree with Miscamble that Truman's decision was probably correct at the time. But in Catholic theology you can't justify an action by those sorts of arguments - this is the point Tollefsen was making. It's called situation ethics (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0919.htm). I don't have a problem with this type of argument, so I don't have a problem with Miscamble's arguments (unlike Tollefsen).


How many abortions have anything to do with saving the mother's life (as opposed to enabling her to fit into her prom dress), and in any case, I have answered that (http://creation.com/what-about-abortion-to-save-the-mothers-life).
You don't seem to mention penalties in your articles. What penalty would you impose on a mother who aborted a one day old foetus - capital punishment?

Capablanca-Fan
19-08-2014, 02:17 AM
Unless he speaks ex cathedra of course (according to Catholic teaching) :)
As I covered earlier.


It is not silly to be a pro-choice Catholic, but it would be silly to claim that the Pope was one.
Of course it is, because defies an official Catholic doctrine, whereas there is plenty of Catholic teaching about "just war".


I agree with Miscamble that Truman's decision was probably correct at the time.
That's good.


But in Catholic theology you can't justify an action by those sorts of arguments - this is the point Tollefsen was making.
Miscamble is just as well trained in Catholic theology and he disagrees! And of course, he is far more knowledgeable about the history. Tollefson's argument, if it were consistent, would be essentially that of the analytical Thomist Elizabeth Anscombe, who opposed the Allied entry into WW2 as a whole, not just the nuclear bombs.


It's called situation ethics (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0919.htm). I don't have a problem with this type of argument, so I don't have a problem with Miscamble's arguments (unlike Tollefsen).
Miscamble and I are not situationists. Rather, I support graded absolutism or a hierarchy of objective morals. Miscamble supports either that or conflicting absolutism, which Norman Geisler, a proponent of graded absolutism, explains as follows:


These six views may be summarized in the following way. Antinomianism sets forth its view to the exclusion of all objective moral laws. Generalism claims there are exceptions to moral laws. Situationism holds one moral absolute (love) to the exclusion of all others. Unqualified absolutism insists there is always an escape from the apparent conflict in absolute moral laws. Conflicting absolutism contends that when moral laws conflict, doing the lesser evil is excusable. Graded absolutism holds that when moral laws conflict, God grants an exemption to the lower in view of our duty to obey the higher.

All this raises the crucial question as to how an ethical system can be considered a form of absolutism when it admits there are sometimes exemptions for a universal duty. Graded absolutists point to three senses in which it is still legitimate to call such a view absolute. First, the moral laws are absolute as to their source (God). Second, each moral law is absolute in its sphere. For example, lying is always wrong as such. When it conflicts with life-saving, however, one is exempt from truth-telling, even though the duty remains in force. Just as a magnet overpowers the pull of gravity without gravity ceasing its pull, even so the duty to love God overpowers the duty to love human beings. Third, each moral law is absolute in its hierarchy. That is to say, for a Christian the hierarchy of values is set up by God in accordance with His nature and is therefore absolute. God has established that He is first, persons are next, and things are last. Likewise, the same God who instructs us to obey our parents also tells us not to worship idols. Hence, if a parent should command his or her child to worship an idol, the child’s higher moral obligation is not to do so.

Miscamble has pointed out that Tollefson's alternatives would result in so much more death that would likewise be hard to reconcile with a pro-life stance. Also, he argued, why just pick on the nukes, when some conventional bombs resulted in more civilian casualties? In his book he documents that at the time, the leading generals just regarded nukes as being scaled up conventional explosives without considering the radiative problems, and proposed to use them tactically in an invasion of Japan.


You don't seem to mention penalties in your articles. What penalty would you impose on a mother who aborted a one day old foetus - capital punishment?
Penalties are a matter of civil law, outside the scope of the articles.

Patrick Byrom
19-08-2014, 06:43 PM
Of course it is, because defies an official Catholic doctrine, whereas there is plenty of Catholic teaching about "just war".
Catholic teaching supports 'just war', not the bombing of civilians, as I pointed out earlier (quoting Tollefsen):

This principle was acknowledged, but certainly not introduced, by the Second Vatican Council, in its document Gaudium et Spes: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” So common morality, and at least the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching on the matter, agree that non-combatants should never be intentionally targeted for death.


Miscamble is just as well trained in Catholic theology and he disagrees! And of course, he is far more knowledgeable about the history. Tollefson's argument, if it were consistent, would be essentially that of the analytical Thomist Elizabeth Anscombe, who opposed the Allied entry into WW2 as a whole, not just the nuclear bombs.
If you read him carefully, you'll see that Miscamble doesn't actually disagree with Tollefsen about the morality of the bombing. Miscamble never says the bombing is morally justified, in fact he specifically states that it was wrong:

Evaluated in isolation, each atomic bombing was a deeply immoral act deserving of condemnation. The fact that the bombings entailed the least harm of the available paths to victory, and that it brought an end to destruction, death, and casualties on an even more massive scale, cannot obviate their evil; it should, however, satisfy those who accept a utilitarian approach to morality, in which good ends can justify certain immoral means. I am not in that number.


This passage is necessary to avoid the charge of situation ethics. However, Miscamble is implicitly arguing from situation ethics, even if he explicitly rejects that position. This is what Tollefsen points out:

To plead for greater “understanding” of the evils that Truman avoided, or the difficulties that he faced, is one thing; but to excuse his choices as “necessary” evils, required for the greater good, is to abandon our post as witnesses to the truth that pro-life principles are immutable and without exception.



Miscamble and I are not situationists. Rather, I support graded absolutism or a hierarchy of objective morals. Miscamble supports either that or conflicting absolutism ...Miscamble's explicit statements are different from his implicit arguments, so he doesn't have a clear moral position. As I've repeatedly pointed out, you are misreading Miscamble because you assume he is simply making the same argument for the bombings as you are doing - but Catholic philosophy will not allow him to do that. He has to describe the bombings as immoral - that is a significant difference between your position and his.

Your position can definitely be described as situation ethics, as there can be no hierarchy of morals in the case of the bombings, since innocent civilians will die whether the bombs are dropped or not. The argument that fewer innocent civilians will die under one course of action is a classic case of situation ethics.

Of course, situation ethics has its own problems. A person who believes that a foetus is a person and who believes that killing is okay to save lives, should logically support the killing of doctors who carry out abortions. It can be justified by the same argument that you and Miscamble use: Fewer lives will be lost under one course of action. Tollefsen's position avoids this issue.


Penalties are a matter of civil law, outside the scope of the articles.So what penalty do you support? Or do you believe that abortion is an individual choice, and the state shouldn't intervene? If you believe otherwise, then you must have some idea of what penalty you would impose.

Capablanca-Fan
25-08-2014, 10:32 PM
Catholic teaching supports 'just war', not the bombing of civilians, as I pointed out earlier (quoting Tollefsen):

This principle was acknowledged, but certainly not introduced, by the Second Vatican Council, in its document Gaudium et Spes: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” So common morality, and at least the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching on the matter, agree that non-combatants should never be intentionally targeted for death.
But this was not indiscriminate destruction, because Hiroshima was a major military centre and civilians were warned, while Nagasaki was a major port. Japan had already previously been warned that America had a new WMD available and should surrender to avoid this.


If you read him carefully, you'll see that Miscamble doesn't actually disagree with Tollefsen about the morality of the bombing. Miscamble never says the bombing is morally justified, in fact he specifically states that it was wrong:

Evaluated in isolation, each atomic bombing was a deeply immoral act deserving of condemnation.
This would apply to many wartime acts of course. The point is that it was not in isolation, which is the point of Miscamble's book.


The fact that the bombings entailed the least harm of the available paths to victory, and that it brought an end to destruction, death, and casualties on an even more massive scale, cannot obviate their evil; it should, however, satisfy those who accept a utilitarian approach to morality, in which good ends can justify certain immoral means. I am not in that number.

Exactly: Miscamble is not a situationist or a relativist. It indicates that he is most likely a conflicting absolutist.


This passage is necessary to avoid the charge of situation ethics. However, Miscamble is implicitly arguing from situation ethics, even if he explicitly rejects that position. This is what Tollefsen points out:

To plead for greater “understanding” of the evils that Truman avoided, or the difficulties that he faced, is one thing; but to excuse his choices as “necessary” evils, required for the greater good, is to abandon our post as witnesses to the truth that pro-life principles are immutable and without exception.

But despite Tollefson's historically ignorant whinging, Miscamble's position is consistent with conflicting absolutism.


Miscamble's explicit statements are different from his implicit arguments, so he doesn't have a clear moral position. As I've repeatedly pointed out, you are misreading Miscamble because you assume he is simply making the same argument for the bombings as you are doing - but Catholic philosophy will not allow him to do that. He has to describe the bombings as immoral - that is a significant difference between your position and his.
In that I am a graded absolutist and he is a conflicting absolutist, who is just as qualified in Catholic morality as Tollefson.


Your position can definitely be described as situation ethics, as there can be no hierarchy of morals in the case of the bombings, since innocent civilians will die whether the bombs are dropped or not. The argument that fewer innocent civilians will die under one course of action is a classic case of situation ethics.
Yes there is, as Miscamble pointed out: it was a war where innocent casualties are inevitable, and the nuking provided the least number by far. None of Tollefson's alternatives would, so they were more evil.


Of course, situation ethics has its own problems. A person who believes that a foetus is a person and who believes that killing is okay to save lives, should logically support the killing of doctors who carry out abortions.
Yet no pro-life organization does. Nor does even the Christian reconstructionist Gary North, since a private person lacks this authority (he famously condemned Paul Hill who murdered an abortionist (http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html)). Truman on the other hand was the Commander-in-Chief and had the authority to make this decision.


It can be justified by the same argument that you and Miscamble use: Fewer lives will be lost under one course of action. Tollefsen's position avoids this issue.
And that is a key problem: doing nothing would have also been a moral choice resulting in a prolongued war and far more deaths.


So what penalty do you support? Or do you believe that abortion is an individual choice, and the state shouldn't intervene? If you believe otherwise, then you must have some idea of what penalty you would impose.
Not so. And the state does intervene by providing them.

Patrick Byrom
26-08-2014, 12:58 AM
Yet no pro-life organization does. Nor does even the Christian reconstructionist Gary North, since a private person lacks this authority (he famously condemned Paul Hill who murdered an abortionist (http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html)). Truman on the other hand was the Commander-in-Chief and had the authority to make this decision.
So a private person has no authority to shoot another person in order to prevent that person killing someone? Isn't that supposed to be one of the main reasons for owning a gun - to defend your family and others by shooting people (if necessary)?


Not so. And the state does intervene by providing them.So if there is no state intervention to provide an abortion, there should be no penalty, as there is no state involvement?

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2014, 09:18 AM
But this was not indiscriminate destruction, because Hiroshima was a major military centre and civilians were warned, while Nagasaki was a major port. Japan had already previously been warned that America had a new WMD available and should surrender to avoid this.

I strongly suspect the phrase "indiscriminate destruction" refers to failure to distinguish between the inhabitants of the targeted city, not to failure to distinguish between cities.

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2014, 03:36 PM
So a private person has no authority to shoot another person in order to prevent that person killing someone? Isn't that supposed to be one of the main reasons for owning a gun - to defend your family and others by shooting people (if necessary)?
And to resist tyranny, the express purpose of the American 2nd Amendment. Anyway, as Matt Walsh says (http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/08/28/dear-pbs-i-dont-think-theres-a-compassionate-way-to-murder-infants/):



First, yes, George Tiller was a late term abortionist who was murdered a few years ago. He was shot through the eye, as I understand, which means the man who aborted him used a far more humane method than the one Tiller used to slaughter 60 thousand human children.

Interestingly, it’s precisely my opposition to abortion which allows me to oppose the late term abortion procedure that this man conducted on Tiller. It is only because I see abortion as wrong that I can see killing abortionists as wrong. But if I considered it to be morally sound to suck the brains out of babies, I suppose I’d be at a loss to explain why it’s morally unsound to blow the brains out of baby killers.

Ironically, only pro-lifers can really have a problem with pro-lifers murdering abortionists.



So if there is no state intervention to provide an abortion, there should be no penalty, as there is no state involvement?
There should be a penalty for the ‘doctors’ who tear babies to pieces in the womb, or induce a partial birth then suck out the brains before extracting fully.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2014, 03:51 PM
Interestingly, it’s precisely my opposition to abortion which allows me to oppose the late term abortion procedure that this man conducted on Tiller. It is only because I see abortion as wrong that I can see killing abortionists as wrong. But if I considered it to be morally sound to suck the brains out of babies, I suppose I’d be at a loss to explain why it’s morally unsound to blow the brains out of baby killers.

Ironically, only pro-lifers can really have a problem with pro-lifers murdering abortionists.


Just because Matt Walsh is too stupid to understand the difference doesn't mean he can rightly declare everyone else should be unable to draw a distinction too. The obvious difference is that an unborn fetus, even "late term", continues to depend upon a physical connection to another human being carrying it who is hence some kind of stakeholder in its continuing existence; no such consideration applies to a free-living mobile abortionist. You can argue points of view about how much that difference matters but to ignore it and hence pretend there is no possible justification for drawing the distinction shows the person arguing that point to be an irrelevant clueless hothead, and casts similar doubts upon the credibility in the debate of anyone approvingly quoting them.

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2014, 04:25 PM
Just because Matt Walsh is too stupid to understand the difference doesn't mean he can rightly declare everyone else should be unable to draw a distinction too. The obvious difference is that an unborn fetus, even "late term", continues to depend upon a physical connection to another human being carrying it who is hence some kind of stakeholder in its continuing existence; no such consideration applies to a free-living mobile abortionist. You can argue points of view about how much that difference matters but to ignore it and hence pretend there is no possible justification for drawing the distinction shows the person arguing that point to be an irrelevant clueless hothead, and casts similar doubts upon the credibility in the debate of anyone approvingly quoting them.
Yet Walsh is far from the only one arguing that it makes no relevance to the humanity of the victim whether this victim is inside or outside the birth canal. Peter Singer is infamous for this, and P.Z. Myers said, “Nope, birth is also arbitrary, and it has not been even a cultural universal that newborns are regarded as fully human. I’ve had a few. They weren’t.” Julian Savulescu defended a pape (http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2012/03/are-you-shocked.html)r “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” in the (grossly misnamed?) Journal of Medical Ethics that he edits:


The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.

And there is the famous evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker (http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2012/03/are-you-shocked.html):


On Sunday, November 2 1997, the New York Times carried an article by Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at the august Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pinker seriously suggests infanticide as a legal practice.

Pinker argues as follows: Killing a newborn infant should not be penalized as harshly as killing an older child. "To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other," Pinker says. Pinker says babies aren't real people because they don't have "an ability to reflect upon (themselves) as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: Our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do."

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2014, 06:11 PM
Yet Walsh is far from the only one arguing that it makes no relevance to the humanity of the victim whether this victim is inside or outside the birth canal.

Whether or not Walsh argues that and whether anyone else argues that is irrelevant. The distinction I refer to is perfectly capable of being maintained irrespective of one's position on when "humanity" or "life" starts.


And there is the famous evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker (http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2012/03/are-you-shocked.html):


On Sunday, November 2 1997, the New York Times carried an article by Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at the august Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pinker seriously suggests infanticide as a legal practice.

Pinker argues as follows: Killing a newborn infant should not be penalized as harshly as killing an older child. "To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other," Pinker says. Pinker says babies aren't real people because they don't have "an ability to reflect upon (themselves) as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: Our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do."

You could try actually reading Pinker's piece instead of citing misrepresentations of it by a clueless commentator. A copy is here:

http://www.gargaro.com/pinker.html

The article makes no advocative comment that infanticide should be legal. It does make empirical comments that, as a matter of fact, neonaticide (the killing of a baby immediately after its birth) is typically either not prosecuted or else lightly punished in western societies, and is often considered business as normal in cultures where survival is precarious. The author seems to be of the view that this is all about as it should be or at least makes evolutionary sense, but that is not the same as advocating full legalisation.

The quote you refer to above is in the following context:


No, the right to life must come, the moral philosophers say, from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a unique sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do.

He is suggesting that the standards applied by moral philosophers make it difficult to see a reason for drawing the line. That's not quite the same as saying the line can't be drawn, but is at least stating that it is challenging to draw. I'd say moral philosophers who argue that the right to life for a free-living human being needs to be derived from any particular property are mistaken since humans can intersubjectively choose to assign and recognise that right without requiring it to depend on anything beyond being a member of the species and being alive and born.

The view that "neonaticide" by or with consent of a baby's parents deserves less severe sanction in western society than the murder of an older child or adult is an entirely defensible one. There are many reasons why it does not require such a harsh punishment. There is not the loss of a living person with an established personality and social connections to others. There is not the creation of justified fear that if such killings are not deterred then much older children and adults are likely to be murdered. There is probably not the suffering created by a conscious knowledge that one is going to be killed. There is not the same level of investment by society in the individual's development that is then wasted. And so on. But one can argue all these things without needing to argue that "neonaticide" is equivalent to abortion.


Julian Savulescu defended a paper “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” in the (grossly misnamed?) Journal of Medical Ethics that he edits:

Savulescu also said he would publish a case for criminalising abortion that was argued at an equivalent scholarly level. Unless you have more it seems he is just promoting debate about different possible ethical views.

Patrick Byrom
30-08-2014, 07:59 PM
And to resist tyranny, the express purpose of the American 2nd Amendment. Anyway, as Matt Walsh says (http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/08/28/dear-pbs-i-dont-think-theres-a-compassionate-way-to-murder-infants/):
But Matt Walsh never says why he thinks killing abortionists is wrong. He says that they are killing children and are like Nazis, but apparently it is wrong to stop them? Surely he doesn't think it would be wrong to shoot a mass murderer in order to prevent further killing?

In any case, this is obviously not your view - you believe that civilians should shoot mass murderers. For some reason, you keep quoting people to support your view who don't actually agree with you.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2014, 01:56 AM
But Matt Walsh never says why he thinks killing abortionists is wrong. He says that they are killing children and are like Nazis, but apparently it is wrong to stop them? Surely he doesn't think it would be wrong to shoot a mass murderer in order to prevent further killing?

In any case, this is obviously not your view - you believe that civilians should shoot mass murderers. For some reason, you keep quoting people to support your view who don't actually agree with you.
This is very common in all sorts of debate: quoting supporting evidence from people who could not be accused of being biased towards the quoter's view.

Gary North, as cited, is a Christian Reconstructionist, which I am not, who believes that doctors who commit abortions should be subject to capital punishment, but he nevertheless denounced Paul Hill for killing an abortionist. It should be quite obvious: Paul Hill is not a civil magistrate with the authority to kill. He had previously been excommunicated from his church, and subsequently denounced by all pro-life groups.

Since neither you nor anyone else here approves of killing abortionists, there is nothing to debate.

antichrist
02-09-2014, 10:50 AM
This is very common in all sorts of debate: quoting supporting evidence from people who could not be accused of being biased towards the quoter's view.

Gary North, as cited, is a Christian Reconstructionist, which I am not, who believes that doctors who commit abortions should be subject to capital punishment, but he nevertheless denounced Paul Hill for killing an abortionist. It should be quite obvious: Paul Hill is not a civil magistrate with the authority to kill. He had previously been excommunicated from his church, and subsequently denounced by all pro-life groups.

Since neither you nor anyone else here approves of killing abortionists, there is nothing to debate.

Are you sure of that, isn't the politically correct law that nobody could even admit to this urge to kill abortionists, whether literally or figuratively, because they would face persecution. So you just don't know if there is anything to debate or not.

Patrick Byrom
02-09-2014, 08:37 PM
This is very common in all sorts of debate: quoting supporting evidence from people who could not be accused of being biased towards the quoter's view.
Using supporting evidence from someone who doesn't agree with your views is a good idea, but using a supporting argument from someone who doesn't agree with your views makes less sense.


Gary North, as cited, is a Christian Reconstructionist, which I am not, who believes that doctors who commit abortions should be subject to capital punishment, but he nevertheless denounced Paul Hill for killing an abortionist. It should be quite obvious: Paul Hill is not a civil magistrate with the authority to kill. He had previously been excommunicated from his church, and subsequently denounced by all pro-life groups.Gary North's views are obvious and consistent. But you have a different position - you support killing people who are killing children.


Since neither you nor anyone else here approves of killing abortionists, there is nothing to debate.
But your position is inconsistent. If an abortionist was killing children - ie, not foetuses - you would support a civilian killing him, if it was necessary to stop him. You've made that clear repeatedly. You also claim to believe that there is no difference between a foetus and a child. So logically you should support a civilian killing an abortionist, if it was necessary to stop him killing 'children'.

If you don't support killing abortionists, then you are making a distinction between killing children and killing foetuses. This is inconsistent with your argument that there is no difference between a child and a foetus.

antichrist
02-09-2014, 08:49 PM
when abortion was illegal, every so often one would hear of a coat-hanger job going wrong etc. Women being rushed to hospital on death's doorstep due to loss of blood etc. Blood poisoning due to the procedure not being done fully or hygienically. It is referred to as the bad old days. But still in the Philippines like that for the poor, the rich can get around the problem by bribing doctors or going over seas. The same goes for divorce.

Then later when a woman wanted to have children well they were too damaged by illegal backyard terminations to hold a foetus. Once upon a time there was debate as to when God inserted the soul of the foetus/child so priests would know what to do on childbirth deaths, whether to pray for the soul or not. Then about 100 years ago when surgeons and church authorities (and maybe civilian) had a grand meeting and maybe even operations to ascertain if and when and where God did insert the soul. They found nothing of course. So operations etc could go ahead, and prays appropriately. Most important this aspect.

Capablanca-Fan
08-09-2014, 06:10 AM
AC: actually the "back-alley abortion" was always a pro-abort furphy. Some have admitted to exaggerations, which should have been easy to spot, since many claims placed the number of deaths from illegal abortions as higher than the number of deaths of women of childbearing age from all causes. In the decades before abortion was legalized, antibiotics kept the death toll to a minimum. But note, even legal abortions are not safe for women, e.g. Kermit Gosnell.

The "ensoulment" is another furphy invented by pro-aborts. Hardly any pro-lifers discuss that. I've written loads of pro-life articles and don't talk about this.

Are you aware of the following?


Secular Pro-Life (http://www.secularprolife.org/#!religion/c1ph8) is a group for pro-life atheists, agnostics, humanists—any pro-life secularists. Part of our mission is to create a space for nonreligious pro-lifers to gather and discuss our perspective on abortion within the context of our secularism.

The secular pro-life position (http://www.secularprolife.org/#!abortion/cimp) rests on the following premises:
1. The fetus is a human being.
2. There is no consistent, objective distinction between "person" and "human being."
3. Human beings possess human rights.
4. Bodily integrity is not sufficient to justify most abortions.

One of them responded to an abortion-loving rabbi in Don't Impose Your Science on Me! (http://blog.secularprolife.org/2013/07/dont-impose-your-science-on-me.html):



ALR: You possess a (not THE) definition of what constitutes life, and you won't back down from trying to defend it. There is much integrity to that consistency. But, like all things religious, it is also potentially dangerous.

SPL: How is it "religious" when there are millions of pro-lifers in the United States with no religion (http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/06/we-are-here.html)? It can't just be because there are religious folks who agree with us; most religious people also agree that human trafficking is immoral, but we don't call human trafficking a religious issue.


ALR: So this is the part I don't understand. Your definition of when life begins is not based on scientific fact. It is your religiously held belief. But it isn't mine.

SPL: The reason Rabbi Alexander doesn't get it is because our definition of when life begins IS based on (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/) scientific fact (http://www.ehd.org/science_main.php?level=i).

This misunderstanding goes way back to the beginning, when in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun briefly mentioned the view of modern physicians that life begins at conception alongside the various views of ancient Stoics, Aristotle, Jews, Protestants, and the Catholic Church. Actual medicine was discarded as just another truth among many.

Back when I lived in NZ, a TV debate between a leading pro-lifer and leading abortionist was notable (but not surprising to the well-informed) in that the former was the one who stuck to science while the latter tried to deflect from science.

antichrist
08-09-2014, 06:39 AM
I cannot answer much now as must work but:
Jono:AC: actually the "back-alley abortion" was always a pro-abort furphy. Some have admitted to exaggerations, which should have been easy to spot, since many claims placed the number of deaths from illegal abortions as higher than the number of deaths of women of childbearing age from all causes. In the decades before abortion was legalized, antibiotics kept the death toll to a minimum. But note, even legal abortions are not safe for women, e.g. Kermit Gosnell.

AC: in the Philippines many cannot afford antibiotics, most medicines there cost the same as here, though there wages are virtually nothing. (a few medicines are now allowed to be copied by generic companies so now cheaper then here). Due to poverty many over there do not get medicine unless it becomes serious then they put out a plea amongst relos and friends for money to help out,but sometimes too late and becomes a bad medical problem and some will die. I have heard of many backyard jobs going disastrous over there. But never amongst the rich of course who will also be in the front row at Church.

Discussed the Phlippines not Aus but KB wont mind. Returning to Aus, they may not always note the actual cause of death due to abortion on the death certificate [snip].

Ian Murray
25-05-2015, 06:34 PM
The terrifying American anti-abortion movement is exporting its tactics to the UK – video (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/may/06/us-anti-abortion-movement-exporting-tactics-to-uk-video)
The Guardian
6.5.15

The global anti-choice movement is looking to the United States for clues – which Jessica Valenti argues couldn't be worse news for women abroad. From 'crisis pregnancy centres' that mislead women to disruptive protesters outside clinics, is obtaining an abortion becoming so hard to get that it might as well be illegal? ...

antichrist
26-05-2015, 07:22 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-26/babies-lost-in-early-pregnancy-to-be-acknowledged/6498682

is this the thin edge of the wedge

antichrist
09-11-2020, 06:42 AM
This post makes me so sad. How can it be so very, very wrong?

Life is everything, without it there is nothing. Our decisions must be to preserve life every time, reject anything that takes life.

Any creature born is destined to die including yourself. Do you accept a woman's right for termination of a foetus?

Scott Colliver
09-11-2020, 08:08 PM
Any creature born is destined to die including yourself. Do you accept a woman's right for termination of a foetus?

I do not believe there is a right to termination. I do not believe any human rights exist, there is nothing objective about them at all. They are just subjective opinions of some.

antichrist
09-11-2020, 08:45 PM
I do not believe there is a right to termination. I do not believe any human rights exist, there is nothing objective about them at all. They are just subjective opinions of some.

Amazing, if no human rights exist then why can't wholesale killing take place? I think you are off topic here and contradicting your other threads. You are in top gear and reverse simultaneously.

Scott Colliver
09-11-2020, 10:28 PM
Amazing, if no human rights exist then why can't wholesale killing take place? I think you are off topic here and contradicting your other threads. You are in top gear and reverse simultaneously.

I am not contradicting myself. My post was not off topic but your is and this reply is also off topic

Perhaps watch this video and take note of what Alex says about the existence of human rights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv-daraEJu8