Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Right to Life Ethical Considerations
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 286 of 300 (346357)
09-04-2006 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by crashfrog
09-03-2006 3:09 PM


Re: misfortunes of nature
Maybe you could make that a little clearer by refraining from telling our opponents how "wonderful" they are when they smear us with these incredible ad hominems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2006 3:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 287 of 300 (346358)
09-04-2006 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by crashfrog
09-03-2006 3:09 PM


Re: misfortunes of nature
Maybe you could make that a little clearer by refraining from telling our opponents how "wonderful" they are when they smear us with these incredible ad hominems.
Perhaps you might learn something in recognising the irony of your own behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2006 3:09 PM crashfrog has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 288 of 300 (346359)
09-04-2006 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by crashfrog
09-03-2006 3:09 PM


sorry
It seems to me there is a serious miscommunication going on here. And I apologize for my lack of clarity, especially with regard to this...
dead on the money regarding recent posts by both crash and schraf. Summed up wonderfully in this...
That should have read "dead on the money regarding a specific argument within recent posts..." I totally see how what I wrote implies something much more than I meant. I thought I had reduced the scope enough using a specific quote which I thought was a very good analysis. But clearly I did not make it specific enough, especially on a reread.
Read again, Holmes.
I think you are reading more into 2ice's statement than is there. In your first reply to me on this you stated I (and he) claimed you "hated women" which to me is clearly not in the section you quoted. And though perhaps strongly worded, everything up to the last sentence (the one I viewed as a wonderful analysis) appears to me to be anger at a cosmic injustice... hating the situation. Perhaps I am reading too little into what he says but there it is.
our opponents how "wonderful" they are
I thought that sentence was a wonderful analysis by 2ice. I did not at all state or imply that 2ice is wonderful. I really do not understand your criticism of me here as I have repeatedly congratulated opponents against my position when they write something very well. I just happen to like really good writing, and pulling out crisp analysis of a difficult argument. I always mention it and it does not mean to suggest an overall superiority of anyone.
The worst writer in the world, and thus getting few if any "congratulations" from me, may still be 100% right and I agree with them totally.
you held a science position within the federal government. Your incredible communication gaffes would fit right in with the Bush administration.
How I write in a forum is not exactly how I would write at a job. Not to mention it would get some review by coworkers and managers before being approved. Not to mention I know my writing is not perfect and thankfully much of science work is NOT rhetoric, but organization and analysis.
I hate women because they can do something I can't? You think it's "dead on the money" to say that I hate children and I want them all aborted? Because that's exactly what you agreed with in your post.
Can you point to where he said that, because that looks like a gross mischaracterization of what he said. If you can get him to admit that is what he meant, and I will state right now if that is what he really meant, then I disagree with everything he said.
I think if you look again, you will see he is stressing that you are angry at the injustice (he said "unfairness") of the position women find themselves in.
You're an absolutely incompetent writer and your amazing communication errors are a distraction.
I am not 100% that's for sure, and I apologize for any lack of clarity in that previous post (or any posts for that matter). But I will tell you this seriously, to my mind you and schraf are poor in analyzing the arguments of others, and sometimes your own. And when confronted with evidence and logic which are solid are prone to rage which leads to arguing the man and away from debate. Willfull or not that is a problem.
Miscommunications happen everywhere, it is how you smooth them out to GET BACK to the logic and evidence which is what makes someone worthwhile. Concentrating on blunders and offenses is a waste of time... even assuming an opponent (like me) makes tons of them.
In all my years of writing and debate you are the first two to make the claims you have against me, and I have received commendation for my work. You can even see others at EvC agreeing with me. Might I venture that you two are not taking time to understand what i am saying, and blowing my statements way out of proportion in anger?
Where I come from "arguing the man" and especially claiming that someone "always gets my position wrong so I won't say anything more (namely clarifying their position)" is a dodge. One can always choose not to directly insult a person, and SHOULD always clarify a position when claiming a position has been mischaracterized. Both take up very little time, and put things back on track.
PS (complimentary): I really need to point out that I was positive about both of your overall positions and did say so. If you look you will see this is true. The very first sentence of my very first post in this thread was clearly stating that I agreed with schraf for the most part. In the post you are quoting from about you, I said I did not agree with the first sentence of 2ice's post, and in my reply delivered an argument defending your argument, and then extending it to a statement I though 2ice's overall position would fail.
Please check this and see I really was backing the both of you, even if I went on to criticize specific facets of your argument, and commend others for good analytical work.
Edited by holmes, : emphasize compliment

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by crashfrog, posted 09-03-2006 3:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2006 11:26 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 289 of 300 (346362)
09-04-2006 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-04-2006 2:38 AM


Re: misfortunes of nature
One cannot remove religion. All belief is religion. Wether organized and recognized or not.
Though I reserve some exceptions (such as factual claims like recognizing stages of physical development) I can basically agree to this point, especially with regard to abortion.
But that is why I am arguing that abortion laws are NOT permissable. It boils down to an enforced religion. In a society where gov't is not supposed to do such things, and people are free to have their own beliefs, a subject that is completely steeped in religious vantage point cannot be enforced.
That is wholly different than rights issues of blacks, women, etc. Although religion may play some part, there are clearly factual issues which fall outside of just religious vantage points.
I ask ...what are the motivations for the concepts.
First let me say that you have an interesting philosophy. I'm not going to try and nitpick it as such things are purely subjective at their core, and would throw us wildly offtopic.
Second, and more important, I think the question of motivation is unfair. There ARE other valid and interesting concepts of life.
Some do not view sex as inherently about pregnancy and parenthood, and one must admit there is plenty of sex which is not. And despite being proparenthood some may not view ANY AND ALL pregnancies as necessary. Sometimes it is a WISE choice as a prospective parent NOT to continue a pregnancy.
In years past, or even current 3rd world countries, abortion and infanticide were necessary for preserving the wellbeing of others (including the parent) due to poor resources. This can certainly be true for achieving maximum quality of life for onesself and/or the children one does want to raise.
And in choosing to control quality of life, it is intelligent to do so in a way that is more healthy for the parent and less of an issue of harming another individual.
And here is where we see a very real split. Without a concept of a soul, and viewing pregnancy as a natural process, one really can view stages of development as a nonperson growing into a person. It does not require some ulterior motive to reach this view.
A person can hold much of what you say as true, but if they don't view prebirth development as involving a child, just a portion of an activity that one must take seriously, then abortion is a valid option.
My values are rock solid. I am emotionally attached because it is what it means to truly experience being human. The minute you detach things lose thier deeper meaning. The only way to reach a deeper meaning is to invest yourself. Emotional detachment is fear of pain.... Being afraid to feel what it is to be human.
The values of others may also be rock solid. They can agree with everything in this last paragraph and much of the rest. They just happen to have a different view of the naturalness of life, how it works, and so come to different conclusions regarding what abortion means.
The question is how are these to coexist, especially in a pluralistic nation?
And as a small counterargument, one might ask if you are not afraid of the emotional pain of choice and loss; feeling what it is to be human and make a conscious decision which destroys potential happiness from a future child for the security and happiness for those that exist here and now... or future children years later when one is better situated? Thus you detach yourself from those issues and even how wonderful sex is outside of just parenting, to focus only on the end of parenting which is perhaps a simpler choice to make because it absolves one of hard choices.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-04-2006 2:38 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-04-2006 1:03 PM Silent H has not replied

JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 290 of 300 (346372)
09-04-2006 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
06-20-2006 12:53 PM


Does anyone have an absolute right to abortion?
The problem here is that you still think of abortion as the murder of a fetus. It's not.
It's the eviction of a fetus. The fact that the fetus can't survive anywhere but that one woman's womb is not her fault, or our fault. It's the fetus's fault for being there, as far as I'm concerned. It's a slight tragedy that the fetus might not have intended to be there, but there it is, and it's certainly taking actions that put the health of the mother in danger.
If she doesn't want it there, it has to go. End of story. She has an absolute right to determine what human beings are allowed to reside in her uterus, at any time.
Crashfrog, this argument is just as silly and unrealistic as the Right's argument against abortion. No one has an absolute right to do anything to another human being. That's what we have laws for - to protect the powerless against the powerful.
Unless a woman was raped, she's responsible for the foetus being there. If she chooses to have an abortion, then she's also responsible for terminating the life of a potential human being. That's the reality facing women who have an abortion. And that's why it's a difficult thing for most women to do, even when it's necessary. The argument you're using just trivialises the issue.
The leading cause of death, worldwide, for women ages 13-18 is pregnancy. You may have heard the term "complications from pregnancy", but that's a misnomer. The stresses that a developing fetus places on a mother's body simply kill the mother, sometimes.
Hmmm. This is the one issue that brings out the religious hysteric in you, isn't it Crashfrog? Generally I'm with you in most arguments (especially your enjoyable spats with Holmes), but here I think you're accepting feminist rhetoric too unquestioningly.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 06-20-2006 12:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by nator, posted 09-04-2006 10:07 AM JavaMan has replied
 Message 293 by Silent H, posted 09-04-2006 10:14 AM JavaMan has not replied
 Message 297 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2006 11:30 AM JavaMan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 291 of 300 (346394)
09-04-2006 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by JavaMan
09-04-2006 8:24 AM


Re: Does anyone have an absolute right to abortion?
The leading cause of death, worldwide, for women ages 13-18 is pregnancy. You may have heard the term "complications from pregnancy", but that's a misnomer. The stresses that a developing fetus places on a mother's body simply kill the mother, sometimes.
quote:
Hmmm. This is the one issue that brings out the religious hysteric in you, isn't it Crashfrog? Generally I'm with you in most arguments (especially your enjoyable spats with Holmes), but here I think you're accepting feminist rhetoric too unquestioningly.
The facts that Crash posted are not "feminist rhetoric".
The leading cause of death for women worldwide is due to pregnancy and childbirth.
Of course, if you have some statistics that show otherwise, I'd be very interested in seeing them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by JavaMan, posted 09-04-2006 8:24 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by JavaMan, posted 09-04-2006 11:02 AM nator has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 292 of 300 (346395)
09-04-2006 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by nator
09-03-2006 4:17 PM


schraf vs evidence
Then, you refuse to be corrected, insisting over and over again that your (usually hyperbolic) strawman is valid to the argument at hand.
Whoa whoa whoa. Suggesting a topic is relevant, when you don't think that is true, is totally different than my building a false position and claiming it is yours.
All you have ever had to do is clarify your position. Even when I think you are actually shifting your argument based on previous statements, I always accept the new position as the one you are holding and so the one I have to deal with.
I haven't really read your posts to me. I just scroll on by. Honestly.
Well that's an outright lie. Clearly you HAVE read the last couple emails of mine, you have even quoted from one. Only instead of choosing to discuss the posts and points which are clearly on topic and addressing your position by referring to real evidence (not just my own words), you select the portions you can use to argue about me.
Your slip is STILL showing.
Here AGAIN is a recent study (2006) regarding the negative effects of abortion on mental health.
Make your choice: Deal with the evidence --Or-- Totally dodge the subject by calling me names/pretending ignorance and repeating erroneous claims.
Edited by holmes, : fix

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by nator, posted 09-03-2006 4:17 PM nator has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 293 of 300 (346396)
09-04-2006 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by JavaMan
09-04-2006 8:24 AM


Re: Does anyone have an absolute right to abortion?
especially your enjoyable spats with Holmes
I cannot believe anyone enjoys the arguments he and I have been having lately. They seem embarassing, repulsive, and a general waste of time (because they keep leading off topic).
I certainly don't and it turns my stomach a bit to hear someone is getting some sort of satisfaction from them. Kind of like hearing people enjoying the car wreck one has just had.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by JavaMan, posted 09-04-2006 8:24 AM JavaMan has not replied

JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 294 of 300 (346407)
09-04-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by nator
09-04-2006 10:07 AM


Re: Does anyone have an absolute right to abortion?
The leading cause of death for women worldwide is due to pregnancy and childbirth.
Yes, I know. And I think the danger that illegal abortions pose to women's health is enough of a justification, on its own, for providing legal access to abortion.
The facts that Crash posted are not "feminist rhetoric".
Rhetoric is a way of getting us to accept a position by appealing to our emotions rather than our reason. Given the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death for women worldwide, there is no logical reason why we need to accept the conclusion that women have an absolute right to do anything they like with a fetus.
The apparent appeal to fact is actually an appeal to emotion.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by nator, posted 09-04-2006 10:07 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2006 11:36 AM JavaMan has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 295 of 300 (346410)
09-04-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-04-2006 3:53 AM


woah!
Please stop! If you are going quote a members past posts to demonstrate a point, keep it one post with links or not as you please.
Threads only run to 300 and this one is now pretty much run its course - a few more people would have had the opportunity to sum up their position had you been a little more conservative. Thanks.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-04-2006 3:53 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 296 of 300 (346414)
09-04-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Silent H
09-04-2006 4:13 AM


Re: sorry
I think you are reading more into 2ice's statement than is there.
Holmes!
quote:
This is your view and your issue. It is where all your anger comes from. Everything you say shouts that you hate what a womans body is and you take it out on others. The fact that women bare children is unfair to you. Your cynical non human view of the birth experience is as far to the right as they get. Care to challenge that claim? Run for any public office and speak as you have here...
Again...a shout that a fact of what it is to be a human female abhors you. Therfore you choose to deny it. You hate the fact that sex makes babies and women get "stuck" with it. To fix this injustice unborn children are not human to you. Emotional detachment.
What is wrong with you? I "abhor women." I'm "cynical" and my views are "non-human". I "hate women's bodies."
Are you just not reading the posts, or what? If you think 2B is making some kind of limited, uncontentious claim, you're insane. He couldn't possibly be clearer in his belief that I hate women for doing something I can't - generate children. He certainly hasn't denied that interpretation.
In all my years of writing and debate you are the first two to make the claims you have against me, and I have received commendation for my work.
Whoopy-shit, Holmes. Do you think you're the only one who's ever gotten a gold star?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Silent H, posted 09-04-2006 4:13 AM Silent H has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 297 of 300 (346415)
09-04-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by JavaMan
09-04-2006 8:24 AM


Re: Does anyone have an absolute right to abortion?
No one has an absolute right to do anything to another human being.
Indeed. For instance, no one has a right to demand that another human being make a space for them within their uterus. No one has a right to demand the physical resources of one other human being against their consent, even if they need it to live.
The right that I'm referring to is an absolute right to oneself. The right to determine what other human beings are allowed to reside within one's body is absolute.
If she chooses to have an abortion, then she's also responsible for terminating the life of a potential human being.
She's responsible for nothing more than evicting an unwanted squatter. That the squatter is going to die as a result is a tragedy, but how is that the woman's fault? Nobody can seem to tell me that.
This is the one issue that brings out the religious hysteric in you, isn't it Crashfrog?
Hrm. See if you can try your argument again, only without the ad hominem.
Generally I'm with you in most arguments (especially your enjoyable spats with Holmes), but here I think you're accepting feminist rhetoric too unquestioningly.
You're free to hold that position, of course, but I guess I'd like to see you support it with some evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by JavaMan, posted 09-04-2006 8:24 AM JavaMan has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 298 of 300 (346418)
09-04-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by JavaMan
09-04-2006 11:02 AM


Re: Does anyone have an absolute right to abortion?
Given the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death for women worldwide, there is no logical reason why we need to accept the conclusion that women have an absolute right to do anything they like with a fetus.
No one's asserted that anybody has an "absolute right to do anything they like with a fetus", so you're arguing against a strawman.
What has been asserted is that women have an absolute right to determine who is allowed to reside within their bodies at any time, just as all humans do. They have an absolute right to determine who may benefit from the resources of their bodies, just as all humans do.
If a dialysis patient kidnapped you and stole one of your kidneys, you would properly frame that as an assault on your person. Even though they needed it to live. If you don't think women have the same right, then you're simply being sexist. It's the classical definition.
You have an absolute right to refuse to be a donor in a kidney transplant, even if someone needs it to live. And make no mistake, thousands die every year waiting for the kidneys you're refusing to give them. But you have every right to refuse. You even have the right to consent and then back out at the last minute. You can change your mind at any time.
Women have the same right. That they may or may not have consented to sex is irrelevant. They have the absolute right to change their mind about who may live within them at any time, just as you do. They have every right to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason they see fit, or for no reason, because their right to determine who lives within them is absolute. That the fetus dies as a result of this eviction proceedure is a tragedy, but it's biological reality. How is that the mother's fault?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by JavaMan, posted 09-04-2006 11:02 AM JavaMan has not replied

2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 299 of 300 (346444)
09-04-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Silent H
09-04-2006 5:03 AM


Re: misfortunes of nature
[qs]That is wholly different than rights issues of blacks, women, etc. Although religion may play some part, there are clearly factual issues
which fall outside of just religious vantage points.
Really? How? I see it as exactly the same. One group thinking another is by degree...less than human. Worthy of less consideration or none.
Some do not view sex as inherently about pregnancy and parenthood, and one must admit there is plenty of sex which is not. And despite being proparenthood some may not view ANY AND ALL pregnancies as necessary. Sometimes it is a WISE choice as a prospective parent NOT to continue a pregnancy.
Yes. That is why though I do not agree with abortion I still see where it can be a choice where there is no good choice. I see both sides of the issue clearly.
And as a small counterargument, one might ask if you are not afraid of the emotional pain of choice and loss; feeling what it is to be human and make a conscious decision which destroys potential happiness from a future child for the security and happiness for those that exist here and now... or future children years later when one is better situated? Thus you detach yourself from those issues and even how wonderful sex is outside of just parenting, to focus only on the end of parenting which is perhaps a simpler choice to make because it absolves one of hard choices.
This is an interesting take and might be valid except it makes no more sense to me than If I would kill any member of my family to have less strain on limited resources, emotional or physical, so that I and those who I allow to remain can be less stressed and live happier lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Silent H, posted 09-04-2006 5:03 AM Silent H has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 300 (346451)
09-04-2006 1:42 PM


End of thread - closing
We have reached the 300 level, folk.
Closing this thread.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024