View Single Post
Old 03-11-2006, 11:33 AM   #149
Joeİ
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Still playing guild wars
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
The anti-choice side here is arguing from fundamentally fallacious premises. In the anti-choice rhetoric, there are two implicit assumptions:

The first assumption is that it is possible to point to a stage in foetal development where the foetus suddenly and magically ceases to be a lump of chemicals and becomes a full human. In other words, there is an implicit assumption that there is a point at which contraception goes from completely unproblematic to completely unacceptable.
It has already been pointed out that fetuses development is incremental. A tree does not grow up as soon as the seed hits the ground; likewise a child is not born an adult. But your failure to offer a point when a lump of cells becoms a child does not give you the right to kill it, if you did you could very well kill a human because of your ignorence of the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
The second assumption is that there is no consideration that justifies compromise on this issue. That under no circumstances is it acceptable to even risk crossing the imaginary line imposed by the first assumption.
There is a reason that I (The Anti-choice Taliban as I have been called) dont feel there is room to compromise. It?s because of your failure to point out when they become a ?human? that it comes back too. So you very well may be killing a human being. Since it is my opinion that we should try to protect all human life form conception to natural death, and the fact that I know that those globs of cells are the building blocks of human life, the very things that make us individuals. You may say that It does not have a brain, or other organs, nerves whathave you. But only several weeks after conception that fetuses brain has already started growing. Are you going to kill it now? Im an adolescent. My brain will not be fully developed till my early to mid 20s. The point is that you cant slap a scientific principle on everything. Somethings you just must look at with logical perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
I would argue that the first assumption is stupid. In fact, there is no discontinuities during pregnancy that can justify such an assumption. Thus, if an ethical discontinuity is assumed where there is no biological counterpart, it will necessarily be an arbitrary distinction that can - in principle - be placed anywhere and everywhere. And no matter where it is placed, it will yield unacceptable conclusions.
I am sorry if I am misquoting you but I believe it is you who are assuming this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
Or take the principle that society shall never condone arbitrary killing - the very principle invoked by the anti-choice Taliban. This principle is unsustainable.
I will pretend to know what you are talking about.
Fine. Next time I am in a bad mood I will just run out into the street and go postal. [/sarcastic] For socitity to exist it must have a value system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
In war - for instance - we must be willing to accept the killing of innocents.
That innocents will be killed. Not that we are just going to start killing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
In medicine, we must be willing to accept the fact that some patients are going to die who could have been saved, had we spent sufficient resources on their treatment. But had we done that, those same resources could not have been spent on - say - providing clean drinking water to our citizens, or finding ways around antibiotics resistance in bacteria.
Incomparable analogy

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
Every decision involves a tradeoff between principles and practicality. To claim otherwise is to lie.
So you would chose practicality over principle? Just a yes or no will work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
In this case, the tradeoff is between the woman's self-evident right to practice her sexuality as she wishes, the woman's equally self-evident right to not be hampered unduely in her life by the exercise of said right, and the legitimate need of society to avoid using resources on caring for an unwanted child on the one hand, and the ethical problems associated with terminating a pregnancy on the other hand.
This is horrid. If the woman gets pregnant it is her and her partners fault for not having responsible sex. In our constitution there is no right to practice your sexuality, and then kill a child because you dont like the consequences. If people want to have sex, more power to them. BUT that does not give them the right to take away someone elses rights. Because in our constitution, there is a right to LIFE. Unlike your self-evident rights to be able to do whatever you want to without facing any consequences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
I never claimed - and will never claim - that it is completely unproblematic to terminate a pregnancy. What I do claim is that it is not equally unproblematic to terminate a pregnancy a minute after conception and a minute before birth. That pregnancy involves a gradual transition from non-human to human. Similarily, it is not equally beneficial for the mother to terminate the pregnancy early and late. The inconvenience imposed is obviously affected by many different factors, but it is equally obvious that the benefit of terminating the pregnancy decreases over time.
Again, you fail to tell us what you think makes someone human! Is it not enough to be conceived by two humans, to have the DNA, genes, cells and be in your mothers womb? AND the fact that every minute you are becoming more able to reach your potential, that being a fully grown active member of society. Sure some people may fail to reach that potential. They may make bad choices, like drop out of highschool, or do drugs, or in worse case they die before they can actually learn to enjoy life. This may mean they die in a car accident or any number of things. Snuffing out that ?Embryo? ?Fetus? ?baby? ?Human?, is denying them their right to life. And that is something no one has power to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
It follows that there is a point at which it is unacceptable to terminate a pregnancy/kill the infant. Where that point is depends in part on the current technological state of society.
I bet you can guess that I disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
In some prehistoric societies, suicide and infanticide were necessary as a means of controlling the size of the population, in order to avoid overstraining the environment that sustained the whole of society. I would argue that while such practices should not be taken lightly, they are not always unethical: Were they not carried out, the ensuing environmental collapse would kill far more people than the measures themselves (as, in fact, was the result when ignorant and intolerant missionaries put a stop to the practice). Similarily, as the ability to (and cost of) sustaining the foetus outside the womb and caring for it during infancy and childhood goes up, the point where abortion/infanticide is no longer acceptable is pushed back in time.
This has no bearing. There is nothing preventing us from taking care of these children if they are born. There are a wealth of options our there that would let mothers support their child.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTemplar
But biology and technology can only answer part of the question. There remains two distinct political decisions: How much relative weight should be given to the foetus, the mother, and to the interests of society as a whole? And how great a risk of overstepping the boundries of what we consider ethical are we willing - as a society - to take?

Both of these are non-trivial decisions. And neither has a cut-and-dried answer. But as long as the anti-choice taliban refuse to acknowledge that these are legitimate questions and that other people's answers have at leasts some merit, all discussion of these subjects will be fruitless.
*Sigh* back again. You can?t make that judgment unless you know when a fetus is human. I believe that since they contain everything they need to grow into what you call a human there is no reason to kill them and every reason for them to live. Until you can clarify when it is unacceptable to abort them, I cannot answer your arguments in a comprehensible way. Because for all reasons to debate about this we have to work together in a small degree.

Life is hard when your an anti-choice Taliban *sob*

::EDIT:: One last thing. I wish you would bring up when you consider a child to be human, whether through incremental development or just popping into awareness (I dont care which you pick just pick one and when you consider them to be human) I already stated my opinion on this and the fact stands. If I am wrong no humans will have died. If you are wrong that means that we have murdered thousands of people.

ty


Beer! Beer leads to drinking! Drinking leads to hangovers! Hangovers... Lead to suffering!

Yes I sense much Beer in you.

Last edited by Joeİ; 03-11-2006 at 12:04 PM. Reason: Something I wanted to add...
Joeİ is offline   you may: quote & reply,