The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread!

[drz-400]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Oh, brother.

Okay, let's try again: What marks the first instant in the life of any human being? Not human sperm, not human egg, human being? That would be the core of the issue.

Well, then the core of the issue has been decided by the supreme court of the united states. It has never recognized an unborn child as having constitutionally protected rights. You can debate all day about whether abortion is right or wrong given your own personal, scientific, and metaphyscial views, but if we want to debate the legality/constitutionality of abortion laws then the laws definintion of personhood has already been decided.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

That depends on how you define a human being. Is a human being defined purely by genetics? Is it defined by brain function? Is it defined by the abillity to function on its own?

Personally, I think a human stops being a human when it loses its brain function. For example, infants that are born with just a brain stem are not human to me. They are just shells, with no capacity for thought or feeling.

Maybe you're having fun splitting hairs three or four times over, but that's not what I'm trying to do here -- nor do I have any interest in doing so.

All I'm trying to say is that the point at which we as a society recognize the commencement of humanity -- the point at which a human life begins and is legally recognized as a human life -- is the first thing we need to figure out as a society.

It is the first thing because once we agree on such a point, a lot of the other legal and moral issues sort themselves out, leaving us to but split hairs on some of the more complicated questions.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Well, then the core of the issue has been decided by the supreme court of the united states. It has never recognized an unborn child as having constitutionally protected rights. You can debate all day about whether abortion is right or wrong given your own personal, scientific, and metaphyscial views, but if we want to debate the legality/constitutionality of abortion laws then the laws definintion of personhood has already been decided.

No, not really. 9 people got together and formed an opinion on the matter based on a simple majority vote which then in turn changed the lives of hundred of millions of other people.

That's why I said "we as a a society."

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Oh, brother.

Okay, let's try again: What marks the first instant in the life of any human being? Not human sperm, not human egg, human being? That would be the core of the issue.

How are you defining 'human being'. In the biological sense (i.e. any member of the species homo sapiens), or in a broader philosophical sense. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or nit-pick here, but the answer to your question has two different meanings depending on how you're defining 'human being'.

Honestly, this is one of the difficulties of the abortion debate. Even when people are not intentionally using misleading language, a lot of the time two people can read the same sentence and come away with two very different meanings.

 

[mac]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Maybe you're having fun splitting hairs three or four times over, but that's not what I'm trying to do here -- nor do I have any interest in doing so.

All I'm trying to say is that the point at which we as a society recognize the commencement of humanity -- the point at which a human life begins and is legally recognized as a human life -- is the first thing we need to figure out as a society.

It is the first thing because once we agree on such a point, a lot of the other legal and moral issues sort themselves out, leaving us to but split hairs on some of the more complicated questions.

I agree that "person hood" or more accurately when it begins needs to be legally defined. To be completely honest, the right to privacy and person hood in general are both relatively vague in the Constitution and should be clarified for many issues, not just abortion. Personally, I feel that person hood is indeed so vague in the Constitution to get around the slavery problem of the time.

Once person hood is defined at any point, abortion would certainly (logically) be deemed murder after that point except in the case of self defense (health of the mother).

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

How are you defining 'human being'.

When an entity, however it is composed, begins to be legally recognized as a human being, at which point premeditated murder (absent an affirmative defense like self defense or inevitability) becomes a crime.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

I agree that "person hood" or more accurately when it begins needs to be legally defined. To be completely honest, the right to privacy and person hood in general are both relatively vague in the Constitution and should be clarified for many issues, not just abortion. Personally, I feel that person hood is indeed so vague in the Constitution to get around the slavery problem of the time.

Once person hood is defined at any point, abortion would certainly (logically) be deemed murder after that point except in the case of self defense (health of the mother).

Eeeeeeeexactly.

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Maybe you're having fun splitting hairs three or four times over, but that's not what I'm trying to do here -- nor do I have any interest in doing so.

All I'm trying to say is that the point at which we as a society recognize the commencement of humanity -- the point at which a human life begins and is legally recognized as a human life -- is the first thing we need to figure out as a society.

It is the first thing because once we agree on such a point, a lot of the other legal and moral issues sort themselves out, leaving us to but split hairs on some of the more complicated questions.

Here is the problem with your logic, and I'm not sure why you aren't getting it or why you consider it "hair splitting".

Life does not end before conception, and therefore life does not begin at conception. Life is an ongoing process that has not ended for 3.5 billion years, and it is not something that begins with each conception of a human.

What you are trying to do is define the period between an individual human's inception and expiration as "life". That is an arbitrary argument, based on a Judeo-Christian conception of life rather than what life actually is. Life does not begin and end for each human being, it is an ongoing process that includes all living creatures.

Now you want me and everyone else in society to accept your arbitrary, Judeo-Christian definition of life rather than what life actually is, because you personally value the concept of the inception of a unique human being as important to when that individual truly exists and deserves rights.

I'm sorry, but human life does not begin at conception, because it never ended at conception. All offspring are simply a continuation of their parent's life, which is in turn a continuation of their parent's life, and so forth. So clearly this is not something we are going to agree on, because we don't even agree on the definition of "life".

 

[mac]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Here is the problem with your logic, and I'm not sure why you aren't getting it or why you consider it "hair splitting".

Life does not end before conception, and therefore life does not begin at conception. Life is an ongoing process that has not ended for 3.5 billion years, and it is not something that begins with each conception of a human.

What you are trying to do is define the period between an individual human's inception and expiration as "life". That is an arbitrary argument, based on a Judeo-Christian conception of life rather than what life actually is. Life does not begin and end for each human being, it is an ongoing process that includes all living creatures.

Now you want me and everyone else in society to accept your arbitrary, Judeo-Christian definition of life rather than what life actually is, because you personally value the concept of the inception of a unique human being as important to when that individual truly exists and deserves rights.

I'm sorry, but human life does not begin at conception, because it never ended at conception. All offspring are simply a continuation of their parent's life, which is in turn a continuation of their parent's life, and so forth. So clearly this is not something we are going to agree on, because we don't even agree on the definition of "life".

By that logic, none of us can be persons, and none of us have any rights. It's not judeo-christian determinations of life that matter, it's legal definition. Unless you want your toaster to sue you for compensation, that is.

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

By that logic, none of us can be persons, and none of us have any rights. It's not judeo-christian determinations of life that matter, it's legal definition. Unless you want your toaster to sue you for compensation, that is.

Sorry, but that is an appeal to consequences of belief fallacy and not a very good one.

The Framers of the Constitution rather arbitrarily granted us personhood at birth. This is actually in contention now, since science has improved our conception of fertilization. Now a group of people wish to arbitrarily grant us personhood at fertilization.

There is no universal answer for when a human being deserves to be considered a person based on life. People have to decide that for themselves as a society.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Here is the problem with your logic, and I'm not sure why you aren't getting it or why you consider it "hair splitting".

Or, conversely, why you are hair-splitting. :lol:

Life does not end before conception, and therefore life does not begin at conception. Life is an ongoing process that has not ended for 3.5 billion years, and it is not something that begins with each conception of a human.

What you are trying to do is define the period between an individual human's inception and expiration as "life". That is an arbitrary argument, based on a Judeo-Christian conception of life rather than what life actually is. Life does not begin and end for each human being, it is an ongoing process that includes all living creatures.

Now you want me and everyone else in society to accept your arbitrary, Judeo-Christian definition of life rather than what life actually is, because you personally value the concept of the inception of a unique human being as important to when that individual truly exists and deserves rights.

I'm sorry, but human life does not begin at conception, because it never ended at conception. All offspring are simply a continuation of their parent's life, which is in turn a continuation of their parent's life, and so forth. So clearly this is not something we are going to agree on, because we don't even agree on the definition of "life".

Actually, I'm not saying anything like that.

What I'm saying is that, for the purpose of law (since we live in a society of law), we need to -- as a society -- find a point at a particular individual's existence, agree that that point is where their individual life as a human being began, and draw the line there.

I'm not trying to tell anyone to accept my definition. I haven't even given a definition.

I'm just saying we need a definition.

As a pose to the existence of the species, the existence of the individual needs a legal starting point, a point at which they are recognized by law as an individual. We, as a society, need to decide what that starting point is and put it down on paper.

 

[mac]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Sorry, but that is an appeal to consequences of belief fallacy and not a very good one.

The Framers of the Constitution rather arbitrarily granted us personhood at birth. This is actually in contention now, since science has improved our conception of fertilization. Now a group of people wish to arbitrarily grant us personhood at fertilization.

There is no universal answer for when a human being deserves to be considered a person based on life. People have to decide that for themselves as a society.

The concept of rights are based on person hood. We define rights and we define person hood. Whether the starting point is arbitrary or not is irrelevant. What we use to get our starting point is irrelevant, what is relevant is what we decide the law should say. There is no "belief fallacy" there.

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

What I'm saying is that, for the purpose of law (since we live in a society of law), we need to -- as a society -- find a point at a particular individual's existence, agree that that point is where their individual life as a human being began, and draw the line there.

We can agree when their personhood began. As I've stated before, life does not end at conception. You are trying to use a word that is laden with Judeo-Christian value to push your point, instead of actually respecting what life is in the universal sense. Personhood is the legal recognition we give to a person that they are entitled to rights and is the neutral and most appropriate word for this context, as well as this thread since this is suppose to be the "emotion free" debate thread.

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

The concept of rights are based on person hood. We define rights and we define person hood. Whether the starting point is arbitrary or not is irrelevant. What we use to get our starting point is irrelevant, what is relevant is what we decide the law should say. There is no "belief fallacy" there.

I can agree with that. As long as you see that "life" and "personhood" are not synonmous concepts.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

We can agree when their personhood began. As I've stated before, life does not end at conception. You are trying to use a word that is laden with Judeo-Christian value to push your point, instead of actually respecting what life is in the universal sense. Personhood is the legal recognition we give to a person that they are entitled to rights and is the neutral and most appropriate word for this context, as well as this thread since this is suppose to be the "emotion free" debate thread.

I'm really not trying to push the Judeo-Christian line. I'm using the words that I have given the way I was raised. Since those aren't words you're comfortable with, I've been trying to make it crystal clear that I'm speaking with respect to the legal starting point for the individual.

Can you agree, then, that once we as a society come to some sort of agreement on when this point occurs, a lot of questions about who has what rights when are answered with respect to abortion?

 

[mac]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

I can agree with that. As long as you see that "life" and "personhood" are not synonmous concepts.

I didn't claim that is was. Life is a criteria of person hood. Nothing more, at least as far as this issue is concerned.

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

I'm really not trying to push the Judeo-Christian line. I'm using the words that I have given the way I was raised. Since those aren't words you're comfortable with, I've been trying to make it crystal clear that I'm speaking with respect to the legal starting point for the individual.

Can you agree, then, that once we as a society come to some sort of agreement on when this point occurs, a lot of questions about who has what rights when are answered with respect to abortion?

While I agree that it is important for society to determine some point at which individual's should be granted personhood, I don't think it is the sole factor to be considered. What also has to be considered is what makes us human.

For example, if they determine that a fetus has only developed a brain stem but can still be carried to term, then by my conception, that fetus is not human and is not deserving of personhood. I tend to believe that brain function is an attribute of being human.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

While I agree that it is important for society to determine some point at which individual's should be granted personhood, I don't think it is the sole factor to be considered. What also has to be considered is what makes us human.

For example, if they determine that a fetus has only developed a brain stem but can still be carried to term, then by my conception, that fetus is not human and is not deserving of personhood. I tend to believe that brain function is an attribute of being human.

If/when society determines a point at which individuals are granted "personhood," as you choose to call it, it is the only facor to be considered. All the other things you're bringing up go into making that decision.

 

[mac]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

While I agree that it is important for society to determine some point at which individual's should be granted personhood, I don't think it is the sole factor to be considered. What also has to be considered is what makes us human.

For example, if they determine that a fetus has only developed a brain stem but can still be carried to term, then by my conception, that fetus is not human and is not deserving of personhood. I tend to believe that brain function is an attribute of being human.

I agree that it is an attribute but not the sole determination.

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

If/when society determines a point at which individuals are granted "personhood," as you choose to call it, it is the only facor to be considered. All the other things you're bringing up go into making that decision.

If that were the case, then I would argue that personhood should not be established until there is measurable cerebral cortex activity. For most fetuses, that would be after approximately 120 days.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

If that were the case, then I would argue that personhood should not established until there is measurable cerebral cortex activity. For most fetuses, that would be after approximately 120 days.

Your thought sounds somewhat reasonable to me. I'd like to see it a bit sooner, but that's my opinion on the subject.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

That sounds a whole lot like the standard generally adopted by Europe, if I'm not mistaken -- either somewhere between the end of the first and second trimester, or at the end of the second trimester.

I'd be comfortable with that.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

I believe that all humans deserve human rights. A zef is still an individual human life. I believe that we should not strip them of their right to life, and that no one has the right to kill a zef unless the mother's life is at stake. I do not believe that individuals should be allowed to define personhood for themselves and others, and that abortion should only be legal in cases where the mother's life is in danger due to her pregnancy.

I do not believe in human rights at all, only civil rights. The value of a human life is based on its relationships with others in the Web of Obligation, and the unborn child has no name, no place in society, and thus no legitimate claim to legal protection. I believe that parenthood is a sacred obligation and should be undertaken joyously, and that the obligation that men and women owe to their living family demands that they only produce and raise those children which they are capable of raising honorably, and that no person can judge that capability more accurately than the prospective parents. Abortion should remain legal within reasonable aesthetic restraints, and infanticide should be not only condoned but encouraged in the case of defective infants. Subsidized abortion is the least expensive and the least coercive eugenic measure that the State can apply, and should be covered under all healthcare plans, especially those funded by the government.

It is a noble thought and perhaps sometime in the future a reality. However, since this is your belief, what about those people who do not share the same beliefs? Should they be forced to conform?

Yes. A million people may have their right to conscience, but society's only conscience is the law and there can only be one law to govern society.

 

[digsbe]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

So - how define that degree of danger?

Let us say this is someone who has a medical condition - a what level of "danger" does it become acceptable?

Take an example of the girl who while pregnant gets a viral myocarditis and ends with a diminished output from her heart. IF she makes it through the pregnancy she will be a cardiac cripple - she may or may not die. Are you going to force her to have a baby?

How about the woman with the genetic predisposition to clotting - pregnant women are "walking clots" (LOTS of physiological changes with pregnancy) - are you going to ask her to risk a pulmonary embolus (life threatening clot to the lung)

Let us take an even hairier scenario - the young girl with schizophrenia and multiple suicide attempts because the voices have told her to kill herself - after years she has been stabilised on medication - pregnancy will upset that and she will be back to square one. Fair to insist SHE continues the pregnancy?

These are the shades of grey that exist in the real world. There ARE no black and white colours.

This is why, even though abortion is illegal here there are almost as many performed each year as there are in America.

No one can determine the acceptable degree of health risk that another should take

I define the degree of danger where the woman is most likely going to die. I do believe that zef have the right to life, as they are human beings like we are. The only justification for killing would be in terms of self defense, meaning that the mother's life is in serious danger due to her pregnancy. Doctors can determine the degree of health risk and get second opinions.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

The only justification for killing would be in terms of self defense, meaning that the mother's life is in serious danger due to her pregnancy. Doctors can determine the degree of health risk and get second opinions.

I live in a state where it's considered self-defense if the decedent was in your house uninvited.