Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JerryM · 10-28-2002, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Rick,
Abortion rights are not dependant on getting the numbers down. I am arguing that no mother has a "moral" right to get an abortion, except in the case of self defense. The legality is a seperate issue. For example I think getting drunk is immoral but i am not for prohibition. Or maybe that is not the best analogy. I still can present moral arguments against drunkenness, though. I do not think making abortion illegal would end it. It would also make abortion more dangerous.
If everyone was convinced abortion was immoral and no one got them anymore, the law would not matter.

For GeoTheo:

In general I agree with you. I would never claim that terminating a pregnancy is virtuous, but it may be medically necessary. My point is just that an early term abortion should not be criminalized. In a philosophic sense, I would define "person" simply as any living human being. A fetus is certainly a human being, but legally (at least in the US) it does not have the same constitutional rights as someone who has been born. It is not a "person" in the legal sense (and Justice Blackmun specifically stated that in the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.) We can disagree about the rightness of this, but I can accept a distinction between a philosophic definition of a person, and the legal status of a person. Though I agree that we're on rather thin ice here and we have to tread very carefully.

GeoTheo · 10-28-2002, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:


I can present moral arguments against you going to the grocery store: it's dangerous (you might kill yourself and anyone else in your car as you drive), the gasoline purchases necessary to get to the store support evil petroleum empires and regimes, your food purchases support evil agricultural and industrial conglomerates, and so on.

But I do not propose that we restrict your freedom to go to the grocery store arbitrarily because it is immoral. The 'morals' argument doesn't hold in either that circumstance or in the abortion rights debate because both are issues of freedom and rights that transcend our individual opinions.

Your free to live your life; every women should be free, as well.

Rick

Rick,
Are you really sure you want to win this debate by saying all morality is totally relative? Isn't that a bit too broad of a solution to the issue?
Don't you in some sense have a moral code that ones choices should be free as long as they don't end someone elses life? If not than there is no justification for saying murder is wrong.
So you are saying If I kill people who piss me off, or just kill people for target practice, no one can condemn my actions? It is only wrong to kill people if I think it is wrong according to my own moral code?
The issue of a bortion is a tricky one for the very reason of the personhood of the fetus.
Weather or not the fetus is a person makes a big difference. If it is part of the womans body, I have no more right to tell her what do do with it than I have a right over weather she gets a tattoo or a body piercing or smokes or drinks.
But if the fetus is a person, it becomes a totally different issue entirely. Because then the fetus has rights of its own that need to be protected.
So there is your answer that is how personhood relates to abortion.
But if you are going to argue that no one has any moral grounds for condemning murder than We have nothing to discuss.

Dr Rick · 10-28-2002, 10:31 AM

[quote]Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Rick,
If there is no way to determine for sure, when a fetus becomes a person should not one err on the side of personhood?[quote]

No, because that is not even the issue.

Quote:

I mean, obviously no one thinks a sperm is a person. I never heard of a person having noctunal emissions being accused of manslaughter.

If personhood is to be the issue, why shouldn't they be? What in your opinion makes a sperm undeserving of personhood? What makes personhood the central issue in abortion other than your opinion?

Quote:

So since this line between personhood and non-personhood is so unclear in the case of the fetus,there is good reason to believe that fetuses that have crossed the "personhood Rubicon" if you will, are aborted.

The whole personhood argument is not the issue. A sperm is no less of a person than a zygote, in my opinion, so why shouldn't IUDs and oral contraceptives be condemned in the same way you condemn abortion?

Quote:

In that case, an injustice has been committed against a person by another person. If privacy issues can be construed as superseding the right to life, I ask on what grounds?

I ask you: why should your definition of personhood superseed anyone else's?

Quote:

[Surely privacy is somthing one would want when committing a murder, but how is it justified?

Abortion is murder in your opinion, but not mine.

Quote:

If a fetus is a person, than it is within a community of persons and therfore it's rights need to be valued and protected by other persons. And they should be valued over the rights of a person wishing privacy for the purpose of extinguishing its life.

Ditto for a gamete or cancer cell.

Rick

Dr Rick · 10-28-2002, 10:45 AM

Come-on, Ted: I'm not arguing for murder anymore than you are arguing in favor of slavery.

Ethical relativism does play a role in the abortion debate: you think it is unethical, and I don't. A pissing match on who is the better person because of his respective stance would be unproductive, I agree.

So let's skip that name-calling stuff: you haven't proven a fetus is a person, and I haven't proven it's not. You argue for giving the benefit of the doubt to your position, and I argue for giving it towards mine. I do not expect to win this debate, and neither should you. At the end of the day, you will be pro-life and I will still be pro-choice. We're just exchanging views here.

My position is pro-choice; I don't claim to know what is best for everyone, and so I won't try to impose my will on everyone else.

Rick

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

GeoTheo · 10-28-2002, 10:57 AM

Rick,
I admit you are usually an intelligent debator, but you are making no sense.
If "X" is a person, be it gamte cell, sperm cell or bologna sandwich ending the life of "x" is murder. There is no way around that.
If you try to get around the murder issue by denying personhood as a quality that can be defined you may perhaps be internally consistant in saying abortion is not murder, but you only do so at the expense of calling the whole basis of morality into question. You lose touch with reality.
Are you at least sure that you are a person?
I am being serious. If you really think a spermocytes and people are more or less the same then you have some serious problems. In that view eith mastubation is akin to murder and therefore a serious offense or else murder is akin to masturbation and more or less harmless.
You lost me.

GeoTheo · 10-28-2002, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
 You argue for giving the benefit of the doubt to your position, and I argue for giving it towards mine. I do not expect to win this debate, and neither should you. At the end of the day, you will be pro-life and I will still be pro-choice. We're just exchanging views here.

My position is pro-choice; I don't claim to know what is best for everyone, and so I won't try to impose my will on everyone else.

Rick

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Rick,
If you were under the impression that you were a potato and I was debating you that you were a person.
You may still be wong at the end of the day and think you are a potato but that doesn't make it true.
You are unjustified in your position. We agree that at some point a fetus becomes a person even if you say you don't. we agree that killing a person is wrong.
In cases where human life is at stake it is perfectly acceptable to make moral judgements.
And try to take actions to prevent it, at least through persuasion.

Dr Rick · 10-28-2002, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
If "X" is a person, be it gamte cell, sperm cell or bologna sandwich ending the life of "x" is murder. There is no way around that.

Yes, murder is murder, but we disagree still on what is a person or on whether or not that is even a central issue in the abortion rights debate.

Wearing a condom almost assures the deaths of millions of sperm.

Eating a bologna sandwich requires the antecendant murder of livestock.

What is your point? Are you arguing against condoms and meat?

Quote:

If you try to get around the murder issue by denying personhood as a quality that can be defined you may perhaps be internally consistant in saying abortion is not murder, but you only do so at the expense of calling the whole basis of morality into question. You lose touch with reality.

Than you must agree that condoms and bologna sandwiches are immoral.

If you don't, you lose touch with reality.

Quote:

Are you at least sure that you are a person?

Yes

Quote:

I am being serious. If you really think a spermocytes and people are more or less the same then you have some serious problems.

I don't, but you do; I've merely carried your rationale to its conclusion.

Rick

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Jamie_L · 10-28-2002, 12:16 PM

Okay, I'm really going to resist re-hashing my arguements from old threads. But really, REALLY go read that thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000075" target="_blank">here</a>. bd-from-kg, although I never met eye-to-eye with him on this topic, did some darn good arguing. Those of you who want a good foil to your "it's a woman's body, she can kill whatever's inside it" arguements should go read what he had to say.

Jamie

GeoTheo · 10-28-2002, 01:22 PM

I just read a couple pages of him and I would say I agree with him from what I have read and that I agree he makes excellent arguements.
I still don't understand Rick's position however.
So far I think it is:
I cannot exactly define when a fetus becomes a person therefore I have no right to judge anyone who has an abortion at any stage of development.
??????????
That means that somwhere along the line somone is killed through abortion. Rick doesn't know when this occurs so he would rather err and the side of assuming no fetus is a person?????
When all is said and done I am no different for erring by assuming they are human from conception.
???? Yeah, no different, except for the simple fact that under my view lives would be spared wheras in Ricks view the life of unborn babies have absolutely no protection or rights.

May not make a big difference to him, not being an unborn baby.

Pomp · 10-28-2002, 06:19 PM

Adding fuel to the fire, here's another <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000506" target="_blank">discussion</a> of the same topic, from a year or so ago. Yes, this is my topic, and I am exceedingly vain.

10-28-2002, 10:45 AM	#44
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	Come-on, Ted: I'm not arguing for murder anymore than you are arguing in favor of slavery. Ethical relativism does play a role in the abortion debate: you think it is unethical, and I don't. A pissing match on who is the better person because of his respective stance would be unproductive, I agree. So let's skip that name-calling stuff: you haven't proven a fetus is a person, and I haven't proven it's not. You argue for giving the benefit of the doubt to your position, and I argue for giving it towards mine. I do not expect to win this debate, and neither should you. At the end of the day, you will be pro-life and I will still be pro-choice. We're just exchanging views here. My position is pro-choice; I don't claim to know what is best for everyone, and so I won't try to impose my will on everyone else. Rick [ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-28-2002, 10:57 AM	#45
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Rick, I admit you are usually an intelligent debator, but you are making no sense. If "X" is a person, be it gamte cell, sperm cell or bologna sandwich ending the life of "x" is murder. There is no way around that. If you try to get around the murder issue by denying personhood as a quality that can be defined you may perhaps be internally consistant in saying abortion is not murder, but you only do so at the expense of calling the whole basis of morality into question. You lose touch with reality. Are you at least sure that you are a person? I am being serious. If you really think a spermocytes and people are more or less the same then you have some serious problems. In that view eith mastubation is akin to murder and therefore a serious offense or else murder is akin to masturbation and more or less harmless. You lost me.

10-28-2002, 12:16 PM	#48
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Okay, I'm really going to resist re-hashing my arguements from old threads. But really, REALLY go read that thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000075" target="_blank">here</a>. bd-from-kg, although I never met eye-to-eye with him on this topic, did some darn good arguing. Those of you who want a good foil to your "it's a woman's body, she can kill whatever's inside it" arguements should go read what he had to say. Jamie

10-28-2002, 01:22 PM	#49
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	I just read a couple pages of him and I would say I agree with him from what I have read and that I agree he makes excellent arguements. I still don't understand Rick's position however. So far I think it is: I cannot exactly define when a fetus becomes a person therefore I have no right to judge anyone who has an abortion at any stage of development. ?????????? That means that somwhere along the line somone is killed through abortion. Rick doesn't know when this occurs so he would rather err and the side of assuming no fetus is a person????? When all is said and done I am no different for erring by assuming they are human from conception. ???? Yeah, no different, except for the simple fact that under my view lives would be spared wheras in Ricks view the life of unborn babies have absolutely no protection or rights. May not make a big difference to him, not being an unborn baby.

10-28-2002, 06:19 PM	#50
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Adding fuel to the fire, here's another <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000506" target="_blank">discussion</a> of the same topic, from a year or so ago. Yes, this is my topic, and I am exceedingly vain.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.