Discussion Forums > Politics
Todd Akin wants abortion banned for rape victims
elvikun:
--- Quote from: Ixarku on August 24, 2012, 01:58:35 AM --- (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: elvikun on August 24, 2012, 12:54:40 AM ---By the same logic used here, you could say various rocks are pretty valuable because they will eventually turn into gems - and while that is mostly true, it's not a valid argument for anything. More extreme case, murder could be forgiven alltogether, seeing how human isn't much more than a ground fertilizer -eventually-. So no, you cannot treat something that is not human by any standards anyone can set, because there is a high chance that it could turn into human -eventually- when left alone. There is a reason why we treat things depending on what they are, not based on what will (likely) they become in the future.
--- End quote ---
You keep making essentially the same comparisons over and over, but just changing the individual object, and I don't think your examples are really applicable. A rock is not a human being. Why would anyone care whether a rock might turn into a gem in a million years? It's not like anyone is going to be around to harvest it if it did become a gem. If they were, maybe they would care. Pro-lifers see an inherent value in human life. I'm thoroughly Atheistic, I don't believe in any sort of divinity at all, but I can appreciate this point. At least in regards to the beginning of life, while innocence still exists.
If you choose to believe that an embryo is not human (kind of silly IMO) or not a person (a more reasonable stance, not one that I think is relevant, but certainly more reasonable), that's fine. It's not going to convince a pro-life person that the embryo is any less special, though. You keep arguing as if your stance is rooted in some sort of absolute inescapable logic, but on both sides of the issue, it's really a question of two different, incompatible moralities. Edit - if you don't see an inherent value in the life of the unborn, that's fine, but recognize it for what it is -- a moral decision, not something grounded in science or logic.
Murdering an adult is a whole different discussion. Executing an adult who has committed a crime, also a different situation. Context is everything.
--- Quote from: elvikun on August 24, 2012, 12:54:40 AM ---Also, this is not a justificaton, this is a fact. Embryo is not a human and / or a person with rights it is a mass of cells and only mass of cells unless you apply spiritual or religious meanings, which is what is happening here.
--- End quote ---
I'm not arguing that an embryo has 'rights'. 'Rights' are arbitrary, an intellectual construct intended as framework so we can all try to get along without killing each other and pillaging and looting everything in sight. In my book, the state decides what rights we all have, and they are subject to change under the rule of law. If the state rules that an embryo has no rights until it reaches a certain age, then it has no rights. There's only one truly fundamental characteristic (I hesitate to call it a 'right') that we all have -- free will.
--- Quote from: elvikun on August 24, 2012, 12:54:40 AM ---The flaw I see in what you say is very clear in your summarisation at the end. "Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?" - Wrong. That is a false, flawed statement. The thing will not become is person nor is one. The thing, given time, nourishment and several other factors has a certain chance of becoming a human. You may say that is getting close to semantics in a way, but it is important. "You will be fired." and "You will be fired , should you violate agreement stated in your contract." - do you see the difference here?
--- End quote ---
I don't get what you're trying to say here. The mother doesn't have to do anything in order for an embryo to develop into a fetus. All she has to do is to not die. It's in her own self-interest to stay reasonably healthy, and it's no coincidence that her good health also affects the good health of the fetus.
--- End quote ---
The countless comparisations were supposed to demonstrate that just because something has a chance to develop into a human does not mean we should or have to treat it as one at the given time (such as you don't treat simple carbon as a diamond just because it has the capacity to become one, it really wasn't supposed to show that rocks grow into humans).
You also say that not considering embryo a human is silly, but I just can't see how you can consider something that doesn't look like, doesn't think, doesn't feel and doesn't work like one at all a human.
And person, well, that is absolutely out of questions as it by definition requires self aware, thinking and individual being, which actually doesn't really apply on kids up to about 2+ years of age no matter how you look at it.
Not sure what's that about murder, unless that was on purpose. Just in case - Embryo -> Human, Carbon -> Diamond, Human -(dies)> Fertilizer.
And once again, flawed, if you do nothing, nothing happens. Embryo has a potential to grow into something if certain conditions are met, again, the work example was supposed to demonstrate something here. You say "X will happen." I say that is wrong, because "X will happen when condition Y is met.". It's really just about that little logical fallacy you did there.
The problem is that this is basically a debate about religion. It's no coincidence that countries with lower religious population are having smaller to nonexistant pro-life movements or for that matter, anti-homosexual movements. Just as atheist will rarely turn "true" believer, pro-choice is very unlikely to convince pro-lifer (and vice versa), because it all goes hand in hand.
Admittedly, I might have a little too "cold" approach to the matter, but even if I, for the sake of debate, would believe that pro-life has absolutely nothing to do with religious influence, then I still cannot see how you can value a life that could eventually exist, because then you'll get into the bad spot where you have to consider all things that "could be" as valid, just to avoid totally contradicting yourself.
Edit: Ix, just to be clear - I'm not arguing, I'm really just "debating", which I really love to do, but many people misinterpret it as me being pissed off and that can get a bit awkward. Also, I think part of what we disagree on is an actual misunderstanding caused by the length of the posts and response time, prolly wouldn't happen on IM or similar. And yes, noticed your edit kinda late.
Nikkoru:
--- Quote from: Ixarku on August 24, 2012, 01:58:35 AM ---2nd edit - incidentally, I'm kind of glad that we can actually have a discussion about this topic without it turning into a bunch of name calling or vitriolic arguing. I have no problem with you & I disagreeing fundamentally on the finer points.
--- End quote ---
You misogynistic bastard.
AceHigh:
--- Quote from: Ixarku on August 24, 2012, 12:10:29 AM ---
--- Quote from: AceHigh on August 23, 2012, 09:42:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: Ixarku on August 23, 2012, 09:23:54 PM ---When you strip away all of the extraneous discussion, it distills down to, 'Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?'
--- End quote ---
While I don't have anything against the perspective of both sides, some of the argument annoy me. This is one of them, because you use a possible future as a criteria. Yes it may become a person in the future, but it is not a self aware person at the moment. When a descision is made in present time, the discussion should be around present, not future. Because otherwise by that logic you could say that we murder potential people by masturbating instead of having unprotected sex.
--- End quote ---
The flaw in your logic is that a sperm by itself is not going to turn into a person. A zygote will. It's not a question of potential people versus actual people. At the point that you have a human embryo, unless something goes wrong or some other process interferes, it's going to gestate and eventually turn into a baby.
--- End quote ---
Sperm can eventually turn into a person, just like fetus. The only difference is that sperm needs one more assisting factor in order for it to happen. Also the first weeks the female body is rejecting the fetus as a foreign object. Abortion is just what I would call rejecting it consciously with medical assistance.
Ixarku:
--- Quote from: elvikun on August 24, 2012, 02:52:23 AM ---Admittedly, I might have a little too "cold" approach to the matter, but even if I, for the sake of debate, would believe that pro-life has absolutely nothing to do with religious influence, then I still cannot see how you can value a life that could eventually exist, because then you'll get into the bad spot where you have to consider all things that "could be" as valid, just to avoid totally contradicting yourself.
--- End quote ---
I'm definitely not saying that pro-lifers aren't influenced by religion. That's well-established. I do think it's possible to be pro-life without being religious though, simply because one does have to be religious to place a value on human life. Again, I think it be can crystallized down to a moral decision. I suppose if I thought it was moral for me to impose my beliefs on someone else, that there was a morality that transcended human decision, then I might be a pro-lifer. Fortunately, I don't believe in either of those things, so I come down squarely on the pro-choice side. I won't argue further on the 'it may or may not be a person' aspect, since I think we're at impasse there.
--- Quote from: AceHigh on August 24, 2012, 08:46:24 AM ---Sperm can eventually turn into a person, just like fetus. The only difference is that sperm needs one more assisting factor in order for it to happen. Also the first weeks the female body is rejecting the fetus as a foreign object. Abortion is just what I would call rejecting it consciously with medical assistance.
--- End quote ---
This is obviously an interpretation of the event. Not necessarily one that I find fault with. Shooting a man because he's breaking into my house is also an abortion, although a very late term one. Anyway, the point being that, IMO, there aren't a lot of hard, objective facts when considering abortion. In the end, it comes down to a moral choice that each person has to decide for themselves -- which is the perfect reason for why the government should stay the hell out of it. I don't see how it could be anything else.
--- Quote from: Nikkoru on August 24, 2012, 05:05:58 AM ---You misogynistic bastard.
--- End quote ---
And here I've been hoping you tag in on this debate. I've been fighting off the wolves, but they've been wearing me down.
Burkingam:
Since the "what's a person" argument is bringing us to an impass, I will bring another which you might find more convincing.
If someone is dying and needs a new liver to survive, nobody has the legal obligation to give this person their one, not even if there is only one person on earth whose blood-type is compatible with him and it just so happen to be his/her parent, not even if this is the result to a road accident and his/her parent was one of the two drivers. You are simply of no legal obligation to give part of your body to someone else, especially if it would impact your own health.
Do you see where I'm coming? Pregnancy forces a women to provide part of her body to a fetus, in a way that could irreversibly damage her health or even kill her, rarely, and yet if she wants an abortion it's usually because the pregnancy is part of an accident.
Some people try to refute this argument by pointing out that the women was only taking this risk to gain sexual pleasure (except in the case of a rape) and so she should take the responsibility of her act, but again, if a driver is using his car to go eat an icecream, he's also taking a risk just for to gain some culinary pleasure and yet if someone gets hit by his car and the victim needs a new liver, nobody is trying to force him to give his own.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version