Home - List All Discussions

How Long Would You Make Her Wait??

A question for prochoicers

by: Tam

This is a question for prochoicers. Hypothetical scenario:

It is possible to determine conclusively (1) whether a particular fetus is viable and (2) if the fetus is not viable, how many weeks, days, or hours until viability.

Would you support a mandatory waiting period for mothers with unwanted pregnancies, in cases where the fetus was (a) viable or (b) within X of when the fetus would be viable, such that an early delivery could be performed to save the life of the child who would then be adopted, where X = whatever time frame you think is fair?

For example, if it were the case that if she waited one hour, the child would live, but if she didn't, the child would die, would you support a mandatory delay (with an exception for medical emergencies, obviously)? What about if it were one day? One week?

Obviously, once you get up to X = 9 months, you've crossed the line into being prolife. So prolifers don't need to answer this question, because their answer is obvious. I am curious about prochoicers, however. Would any of you make a woman wait even one minute if it would save a child's life? Or would even a one minute inconvenience be enough to justify killing a child who would otherwise live a presumably normal life? Ten minutes? Ten days? Where is the line for you?

Thanks in advance
Tam

reply from: yoda

A better question might be: How long will you have to wait for an answer?

reply from: Tam

Yeah, I do notice that there is a "deafening silence" about this one. LOL No big surprise there.

Look, it's just a simple question, folks. Speak right up.

reply from: RePit

concernedparent - you wouldn't happen to be a prolifetalk refugee would you? Any others here? I noticed darwin talk and prochoice talk are gone too.

Sorry for the brief hijack. Back on topic. I am pro-choice that believes life begins at conception. I don't speak for all pro-choicers though. Abortion is murder, depending on your definition of murder. Murder is a subjective term based on morals. Abortion certainly is killing. But I believe justified killing.

Why is killing a healthy newborn not ok? It is because for starters, if it has been born; it is wanted, someone loves it, the mother decided to carry the child to term, it is loved and expected. Love rules over all, especially a mothers love. If you kill it and the mother catches you - you're dead too. In the case it is born and not loved (maybe the woman has been forced to carry to term and did not want the child, or maybe she dies in childbirth) then someone else can take it. It can be adopted. It's already born, so it is stupid to kill it because it does not have to affect the birth mother any more.

It's obvious you cannot determine the exact time of viability. There are far too many variables. Although you can estimate pretty accurately. Speaking of viability - eggs fertilised in a petrie dish/test tube are viable. Then they can get implanted in a live mother. Then will become unviable again after establishment in the uterus because removing the foetus from it's little haven in the womb will kill it.

It doesn't have anything to do with viability. It has to do with if the unborn is wanted and valued. If the unborn is not valued by it's mother - then who else is going to value it? If the unborn has no value, it is justified to abort it.

reply from: dignitarian

RePit:

Your contribution to this thread is so incredibly shallow it is interesting.

So let me get this straight; if your mother doesn’t love you, you are worthless?

Look, I could respond in some analytical detail about the intrinsic dignity of every Being of Human Origin, but in this case, I think the following should suffice.

"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child."

Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: RePit

Wow a reply already!! cool...

Yep that's pretty much right - "if your mother doesn't love you, you are worthless".
I can show you why too, because it is consistant with the way humans value other life.

Sorry - i don't see what your Mother Teresa of Calcutta quote has to do with the value of human life. All it says to me is that Mother Teresa of Calcutta values a particular child and wants someone to give the child to her rather than killing it. Doesn't suffice sorry... i am a bit thick Maybe you could go into detail for me.

reply from: cali1981

I think it's quite obvious what that means. You said:

The Mother Teresa quote shows how little sense that makes. She - and anyone else - can value a child even if his/her mother does not.

reply from: RePit

ahhh, I get you now. So a woman is up the duff, she shouldn't abort it because someone else in the world might want it.

What I want to know is - why that 'someone else in the world' would want it so much.

reply from: cali1981

RePit...My wife and I thought for a long time that we were unable to get pregnant, because of issues with both of us. This was devastating because we wanted a child. Why do you think we wanted a child? Why does ANYONE want a child? Maybe because they want to share their love with another person. Maybe because they find it fulfilling to nurture and love a little person from infancy to adulthood. We didn't care if that little person was biologically ours; we looked into adoption for quite some time. You can love anyone no matter if they are biologically related to you.

Anyone who enjoys children and has love in their heart could want a child that someone else has given up. It's the same reason why anybody ever reaches out to anybody else in need.

reply from: dignitarian

cali1981:

What a great response!

(Quote)

"Why does ANYONE want a child? Maybe because they want to share their love with another person."

(Unquote)

Anyone who doesn't understand the importance of self-giving love within human relationship is doomed to a life deprived of real meaning. It is in this way that we are "hard wired".

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: RePit

hmmm, sorry - i will stick to the basic questions thread, it fits in there better.

edit: crap i meant to make a new post not delete the guts of this one.

reply from: dignitarian

Repit:

You're asking the same questions in two different threads.

(Quote)

"....what value does it have at this stage? Who loves it then? Why should it be valued then?"

(Unquote)

(Quote)

"....“I want to know why as a prolifer, you think a foetus/unborn life should be valued very highly.”

(Unquote)

I already submitted a response under "Some basic Questions", but haven't gotten an answer yet.

Thanks,

Dig

reply from: yoda

That's a very disturbing outlook. You are basing the moral value of a baby on it's value to others, as if it were a simple piece of property. Is that how you see babies, just property? Do you not recognize any intrinsic moral rights, even a right to life?

reply from: AshMarie88

So you admit abortion kills innocent lives, yet you're still okay with that.

You think it's justified if the mother doesn't want it. Well, what about the father? What about a couple that cannot have a child? A child is obviously wanted, don't you think?

The preborn humans do have value. The mothers are just too in this "I don't wanna be pregnant" mood. Just because a mother doesn't want her child, doesn't mean that child has no value.

reply from: mom5

That's a very disturbing outlook. You are basing the moral value of a baby on it's value to others, as if it were a simple piece of property. Is that how you see babies, just property? Do you not recognize any intrinsic moral rights, even a right to life?

He sees it the same way most pro-choicers see it...he just has the guts to admit it. Got to give him credit for that at least.

reply from: yoda

You have a point, mom.

reply from: ScreamingIke

i have a reply te the original topic:
no waiting period
abortion on demand. no questions.
*stands rigidly at attention* take that.

reply from: AshMarie88

Even if the baby is a MINUTE from being born?

reply from: RePit

AshMarie, if the baby is a minute from being born, how would it be aborted? What procedure - D&C? No. Answer is that the mother would be induced. Now if the baby is a minute from being born, how is inducing the mother going to change the fact that it is going to be born in a minute's time. If it's a minute away, injecting the mother with drugs to induce labour will have no affect, it's already on it's way out.

reply from: RePit

Everyone who responded to my post - thank you. Now disturbing as you may find it, if you can understand I don't see an unplanned unborn as having any value, then you would have to understand that I believe the unborn to be expendable. So most of the stuff you say is a moot point to me - eg what about the father, what if it's 8 months gestating etc... So what you need to challenge me on is the value of the unplanned unborn and the value of human life in general. I am attempting to get answers to that question in the "Basic Questions" thread, so if you would care to share your arguments on that topic there - it would be most appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to focus on that thread and might not reply to questions here. cheers...

reply from: AshMarie88

Okay... what about 1 or 2 days then, Ike? Is it still okay?

reply from: ScreamingIke

concernedparent, can you quantify those claims?

reply from: ScreamingIke

quantify that "pro-choicers" are impossible to convince, and that it is not because they are right. you can't.
but i take issue with your claim that male pro-choicers just want "a way out". prove it. all it takes is one example to the contrary, and, as i am that example, your claim falls short.

reply from: RePit

Mate - I can give you more examples from men I know. Concernedparent - please be careful when making generalisations. Keep in mind that people you see on forums may not be representative.

There are people on either sides of the coin who don't really understand why they are on a particular side.

- There are pro-choicers who are so because they want an out to escape responsibility. They don't understand the importance of choice other than how it will affect them personally.

- There are pro-lifers who have a warm fuzzy feeling about saving life, but they show no evidence of having questioned or rationalised their fuzzy feellings. To them it "just is".

- Then there are those who have thought deeply about the issue, questioned things, looked at both sides of the story, and made a conclusion.

You can't argue with the first two categories because they have no arguments.

reply from: Sigma

Viability does not change the issue at all for me. The question would be: Which is easier on the woman, giving birth or acquiring an abortion? A late-term abortion is not without risks, and if it is one minute before birth it would be less tramatic on the woman's body to allow the birth to take place (most likely). If it would be easier on the woman to have an abortion, then there is obviously something very wrong with the birthing process and it would likely be a situation I would agree with an abortion medically anyway. I support no mandatory waiting period for the reasons you posted.

reply from: yoda

(Post ignored by RePit)
quote:
Originally posted by: RePit It doesn't have anything to do with viability. It has to do with if the unborn is wanted and valued. If the unborn is not valued by it's mother - then who else is going to value it? If the unborn has no value, it is justified to abort it.

That's a very disturbing outlook. You are basing the moral value of a baby on it's value to others, as if it were a simple piece of property. Is that how you see babies, just property? Do you not recognize any intrinsic moral rights, even a right to life?

reply from: Sigma

In the interest of time, I will not respond to all of your post. If I miss something that you feel is especially important, point it out and I will attempt to respond.

It does not. It boils down to rights, which are and should be the only consideration of the laws we make.

I read but am not responding to your tangent about growing up and empathizing. I'm certain you had some pointed but implied reason, most likely to paint pro-choicers as immature, but the passage has little to do with our topic.

This is not the ideal of those who framed the Constitution and is certainly not (and should not be) our value today. We value our rights above all else, the cornerstone of our society is that we have the right to live and think and do things that are contrary to what other people, or the gov't, may want us to do. Certainly we may not violate other's rights in this persuit, but other's cannot violate ours either. The gov't cannot Constitutionally violate our rights to save another, person or no. The Constitution was written specifically so the gov't has little power in our personal lives.

This is generally not the case, pro-choice people simply believe the woman's right to bodily integrity is more important.

No, it's really not.

Were this the case, they still would have no right to live attached to someone else, using that other's body to live.

School children are amazed by this, most likely because, as you stated, children are inherently selfish. You ask a child, and they are most likely amazed that abortions occur.

reply from: yoda

So deciding which is "easier on the woman" is more importan, IYO, than the life of the baby?

reply from: yoda

It does not. It boils down to rights, which are and should be the only consideration of the laws we make.
And right should be decided on what basis? Values, of course.

That's an incomplete sentence. More important than what?

That's a preposterous statement. Your claim is that no human being has an inherent right to gestate, as nature forces every human being to do. That is an inseparable part of the moral right to life, but perhaps you have no respect for that either?

reply from: Sigma

Concernedparent, I do not have time to respond to all of your posts, but I will get to them when I am able.

And all pro-life people have been born already too. This is a statement empty of meaning.

As to your first statement, no. Were there no other involved, I would, as you do, advocate that a fetus be allowed to fully gestate. However, given the fact that there is another involved, other considerations besides the fetus come into play. Given the circumstances of pregnancy the woman deserves more consideration than the fetus. Her rights should always come first before those of what grows inside her. Currently, the fetus has no rights so there is no conflict but even if the fetus had rights equal to you or I there would be no point that I believe it should have rights superior to the woman.

Not quite, no. My rights are to allow who I please to use my body. Any other I may disconnect at leisure. You may not be connected to me against my will, and the fetus may not be connected to me against my will.

Call me selfish if you wish. Call the woman involved irresponsible, selfish, careless or what-have-you. None of these things affect her right to bodily integrity in this situation. Your personal opinion of her does not disallow her the rights the Constitution guarantees.

yodavater

In the pregnancy relationship, the woman comes first in every consideration.

Not personal values, no. My personal values vs. your personal values has no affect on the rights either of us have.

Concernedparent said: I refer to those who place little or no value on the lives of unborn children. to which I responded with: This is generally not the case, pro-choice people simply believe the woman's right to bodily integrity is more important.

Pro-choice people do not necessarily place no value on the life of the fetus, generally pro-choice people simply view the right of the woman as greater than the non-existent right to live attached to someone else.

Where did this right come from, and why do you believe it is more important than the woman’s freedom?

Certainly I do. It isn’t a blanket belief, however, as yours seems to be.

reply from: yoda

The term "rights" has many meanings, do you expect me to know intuitively which one you are using? I don't think I want to waste my time discussing legal rights, as everyone here already knows about those. I am speaking about moral rights, which is of course subjective. And everyone assigns them according to their own value system.

The right to life is first and foremost among rights, since without it no one may have any other. Take it away and you have nothing more than the law of the jungle. Take it away selectively, and you have nothing more than a hedonistic, bloodthirsty society.

Yes, I know. You reserve it for those you approve of, much like previous societies have done. History is full of examples of societies that slaughtered the powerless among them.

reply from: Sigma

yodavater,

The polite thing to do would be to ask, in that case.

Then under what authority do you say yours should be accepted, if all are subjective?

Oh? How so? How does removing the 'right to life' take away any other rights? In what way are you using rights, and where do these rights come from?

More slaughters are done in the name of morality than are done in the name of freedom, I would hazard.

reply from: yoda

That's YOUR strawman, YOU put the hat on him. (Hint: I've never said that.)

Now that's a real easy one to answer. Without the right to life, people often wind up dead. If you are DEAD, then you have NO rights, moral, legal, or otherwise.

It doesn't matter what "name" they are done in, what matters is that someone took it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner of a large group of people that they considered "inferior" to themselves. Kinda like proaborts consider unborn humans to be "inferior".

reply from: Sigma

yodavater,

Then you do not believe that others should accept your belief that abortion is wrong?

What is your proof of this? Putting an emphasis on freedom would perform the same job and give other benefits to boot. Life alone is a sorry existence, while freedom can include freedom from harm.

Having no right to life does not equal death.

And a bit like treating women as second-class citizens when a fetus has superior rights to the women who house them. There are very disgusting things done for your philosophy.

reply from: yoda

"Others" should follow their own conscience, as I try to.

That's probably the most naive statement made on this forum this year. Unborn humans have no "right to life", and 3 out of 5 of them in this country are aborted. Jews had no "right to life" in nazi Germany, and they didn't fare too well, did they? Get the picture?

If women are "second class citizens" because someone asks them not to kill their babies, what does that make the babies that they kill? Third or fourth class citizens?

reply from: Sigma

yodavater,

Then you would be considered politically "pro-choice". Those who disagree with abortion but feel women should choose for themselves is a pro-choice position. I have no quarrel with you if you believe women should choose for themselves.

Oh, are we now talking about a legal right to life? I thought that was a dead horse you didn't want to be a part of.

No, because you wish them to have superior rights to the women. This would put women at the bottom of the totem pole.

Concernedparent

Perhaps, but it wouldn't make it less true if it were. How about a man thinking women should have superior rights to the fetus within her (not her children, which have been born, they have equal rights), or society thinking the woman should have superior rights to the fetus within her? At what point is it not self-serving?

You cannot play that game with me. You and I have the right to disconnect anyone who is connected to us against our will. You do not wish pregnant women to have the same rights. You wish to give the fetus the right to live attached to the woman against the woman's will. You and I do not have that same right. You wish to give the fetus rights greater than any other, and you wish to reduce a pregnant woman's rights.

Equal rights would not allow the fetus to live attached to the woman in the way of pregnancy.

Whomever or whatever you believe makes the connection. God, Nature, Fate. If the woman did not desire the connection, it happens against her will. To require its continuation makes the gov't the agency that violates her rights after that.

There are few if any rights that are absolute. More than the 'right to privacy' was included, but that was indeed part of it.

You've quoted one Justice of that case that said this. Additionally, I have the perogative to disagree with that Justice, as you disagree with the Justices that state the fetus is not considered a person for the purposes of the Constitution.

Not all human beings are covered by the Constitution.

Your right, my personal opinion alone does nothing. However, it is not simply my personal opinion when it is backed by evidence. You simply ignore my evidence, and provide little of your own. You ignore the statements of the Justices yet hold up other statements as absolute truth and do not extend me the same courtesy.

You have absolutely no reasoning to show that if the fetus were considered a person it would disallow abortion except the one statement by the person you do not agree with on other major points. I have evidence that people do not have the rights you insist the fetus will have if it were considered a person. You do not accept this, but provide nothing besides that one statement to back up your claim.

reply from: galen

Where do you get that the constitution does not cover all persons.... were you referring to people in or outside the jurisdiction of the US. ?

Mary
I'll follow you into the dark

reply from: Sigma

Galen

Both, actually. We do not apply our Constitution to our foreign policy, and any application to non-citizens within our own country is limited.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent

And yet you disagree with SCOTUS in pretty much the entirety of the decision otherwise. I disagree with the opinion that fetal "personhood" disallows abortion. I have reasoning, you have the quote alone.

Your "reasoning" was the statement alone, it seems. You do not directly respond when I tell you that people do not have the right to live attached to others against the other's will.

This is getting tedious because you make unqualified statements, and disregard exceptions. There are human beings that are not covered by the Constitution. You cannot reasonably dispute this. Those that are outside the jurisdiction of the US cannot be and are not.

I was aware of the issue, but disagree that it disallows abortion. I have examined both Roe and other legal precedents. There is no evidence to suggest that this would be so, beyond the statement you provided.

Ok. Show me these things, without using the statement you have already provided. Show me how, from a legal standpoint, equal rights necessarily equals allowing the fetus to live attached to the woman against her will.

Indeed, show me that the fetus necessarily is a person. Dictionary definitions do not cover this situation.

You have no reasoning to show this is true.

reply from: yoda

That, sir, is an aggregious insult. This does NOT describe my position:

pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html ..

Absolutely not. Nazis did not believe that Jews has any MORAL right to life.

I see that question must have stumped you, because you rather abruptly changed the subject. I don't blame you, though, it's a tough question. Putting a baby so low on the scale or moral rights that it doesn't even have the very right to life is a disgusting, immoral, and indefensible thing.

reply from: Sigma

Yodavater,

I said: Those who disagree with abortion but feel women should choose for themselves is a pro-choice position

Does this describe you? You have stated that you wish eveyone to follow their conscience for morality and that abortion is legally a done deal. You do not seem to advocate making it illegal.

Certainly you are not pro-life.

Yes, you're right. However, that by itself does nothing. Many others believed that Jews did indeed have a moral right to life.

Keep in mind that one can believe a fetus has a moral right to life and still believe abortion should be legal.

What are you talking about, what question did I avoid? You asked: If women are "second class citizens" because someone asks them not to kill their babies, what does that make the babies that they kill? Third or fourth class citizens?

I answered with:
No, because you wish them to have superior rights to the women

Did you simply not understand my response? I'll explain. You wish that fetuses will have superior rights to women, and that makes women second-class citizens. Women would have inferior rights to fetuses. This does not make fetuses third or fourth class because fetuses would be superior to women, in terms of rights.

concernedparent,

Do you mean to say that you agree with the rest of the decision? I did indeed assume this were so, so please correct me if this is not the case.

Yet SCOTUS determined they were not for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Do you agree or disagree with SCOTUS?

If we are to make any progress, we need to stop doing this. Can I have a direct response? If you do not have a right to live attached to me, I can prevent you from doing so. If you are already connected to me against my will and without my consent, I can disconnect you because you do not have a right to live attached to me. Do you disagree? And if you disagree, can you logically show why this cannot be the case? Can you show where one has the right to live attached to another person against that other's will?

That is my reasoning. No person has the right to live attached to another against the other's will. If the fetus were a person with rights equal to me, the fetus could not live attached to another because I do not have that right.

Can you show, logically, where the flaw in that is? No distracts, please.

We do not apply the Constitution to our foreign policy. This is a fact. It could indeed be interpreted the way you suggest, but it is not interpreted that way. I do not say it to "be right about something" but to show you an exception to your unqualified statement.

You misquoted me

I never declared that invalid. It is invalid if you dispute that the Constitution can be interpreted, but 'right to life' has indeed been interpreted from that section of the text.

I didn't say there was, as far as I know. The Constitutional support involves Substantial Due Process and a woman's personal liberty protected by the Fourteenth.

Yes, prove that. You can kill others for reasons other than murder. The list I provided was not meant to be comprehensive, it was to show that there are situations where killing is justified.

SCOTUS makes its decisions based upon precedents and upon the use of words contained therein. You would have to show a case where "person" were used pre-natally.

Ok. "the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn". This comes directly from the Roe decision.

You showed an opinion that if the fetus were considered a person, Roe is dismissed. I am saying, whether or not the fetus is considered a person does not disallow abortion. You have yet to show logical reasoning that considering the fetus a person disallows abortion.

reply from: yoda

As relates to abortion, women must choose for themselves. What they morally should do is another thing altogether. IMO, they should not choose to kill their babies.

No, technically I am anti-abortion, a.k.a. "anti-choice".

You asked if I was straying into legalities, and I responded negatively. So your point is...??

Only a person with no regard for innocent human life could take such a position.

HORSE MANURE. That's the equivilent of saying that anyone who opposed the Holocaust placed the Jews "above the nazis" because they gave the Jews "superior rights". Protecting innocent life has NOTHING to do with "superior rights" Only a person with no regard for innocent life could take such a position.

reply from: Sigma

yodavater,

I am glad you feel that way I respect your view that abortion is morally wrong, I only have a problem with those who feel it should be illegal.

I would not term you so. You are all for choice, you simply don't feel abortion is a moral choice. While perfectly valid, I would not think you anti-choice.

And you mentioned that Nazis (honestly, this is done to death. Another example would be preferable) did not believe Jews had a moral right to life. I mentioned that others, besides Nazis, did believe Jews had a right to life. I am waiting for you to continue your point that "no right to life=death" or whatever your point is.

I respect innocent human life and hold it in high regard, and hold this position. That would make you incorrect.

Actually, the pro-life position holds more similarity to this. Nazis determined that the German fetuses (with Aryan blood)had more rights than the Jewish mothers who carried them. Naturally those Jewish women would have no right to abort them because the fetuses had more rights than the woman.

Do not forget that in the pregnancy relationship if you support one set of rights you necessarily reduce or violate the other's (if you accept fetuses have rights). I can accept the woman having superior rights over the fetus, but I cannot accept the fetus having superior rights over the woman.

reply from: yoda

You have not seen me protect the legality of abortion, nor will you. For me it is a moral outrage to protect the legality of an (elective) immoral act which takes the life of an innocent human being, as if some other "consideration" was more important that the life of an innocent baby. NOTHING justifies the elective taking of innocent human life, absolutely nothing.

How difficult is it for you to understand vulnerability? How puzzling do you find the idea that because unborn babies have no legal right to life, they are vulnerable to every mother inclined to "take the easy way out"?

Your words say otherwise.

What is unclear to me is WHY you insist that one have a "superior right to life" over the other. Why do you see it as moral to give any human the moral right to electively take the life of another innocent human?

Does the slaughter of innocence have no meaning to you at all?

reply from: Sigma

yodavater,

I thought you were, but it seems I was wrong. I apologize that I was not more clear.

Obviously I disagree. There are situations were killing another is morally justified, and given the situation of pregnancy I believe abortion is morally justified.

I’m sorry, you keep switching between legal and moral right to life. Which is it you wish to discuss? Please, continue your point.

How so?

Not a superior right to life, no. That can be equal, for all I care. I mean that you wish the fetus’ right to life is greater than the woman’s other rights, such as her right to privacy, and her right to personal liberty. Her personal liberty includes a ‘right’ to bodily integrity. You wish the fetus’ right to life to be greater than her rights, while I wish the woman to have greater rights than the fetus.

Because there are situations that warrant and justify this. I believe pregnancy is one of them, given the nature of the relationship.

I understand the meaning of the terms contained, yes, but I do not apply it to abortion.

reply from: Tam

I understand the meaning of the terms contained, yes, but I do not apply it to abortion.

With which word is your objection--slaughter, or innocent?

reply from: Sigma

Tam

Both. I don't consider abortion slaughter, and the relvative innocence of the fetus is not part of my argument.

reply from: Tam

Both. I don't consider abortion slaughter, and the relvative innocence of the fetus is not part of my argument.

You don't consider abortion slaughter? Well, your consideration doesn't change a thing.

Now, your feelings aside, let's deal with reality. Do you deny that abortion is the act of killing? In this case, both meanings apply. Great numbers of human beings are killed in abortion. Which part do you deny--the "killing" part or the "human being" part?

reply from: yoda

Yes, I understand. In the end, this is a debate about values, pure and simple. You value social and economic considerations above the value you assign to the life of an unborn baby, and I think that is both barbaric and horrendous. We will have to disagree on that matter.

If at any time you think I'm speaking about legalities, and I have not specifically said so, you may assume that you are in error. I don't debate legalities, I thought I made that clear.
How so?
Anyone who valued innocent human life could not be so casual about disposing of it.

You contradict yourself badly. There is NO greater right than the right to life, since all other rights must by definition be based upon it. Therefore you dispute the "equality" of the baby's and the mother's "right to life" when you say that her killing the baby is "justified".

Why not? Do you deny the innocence of an unborn baby? Of what do you find them guilty?

reply from: yoda

If you have the stomach for it, click on the link at the top of this page that says: "100 Abortion Pictures", and tell us why those corpses do not appear to have been "slaughtered".

As far as innocence, it doesn't matter whether you incorportate it in YOUR argument or not, it is STILL a fact.

reply from: Sigma

It changes what word I object to. Your perception also changes nothing.

----------------------
Main Entry: 1slaugh•ter
Pronunciation: 'slo-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse slAtra to slaughter; akin to Old English sleaht slaughter, slEan to slay -- more at SLAY
1 : the act of killing; specifically : the butchering of livestock for market
2 : killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre) : CARNAGE
----------------------

I deny that it is the act of killing livestock for market.

The second definition is not the act of killing, it is a noun. “An abortion” as a noun is killing one fetus. “A slaughter” kills a great many. I also object to “human being” applying to a fetus, as a “being” has a mind, a consciousness and existence in actuality. This is not the case for the majority of abortions done. Put your feelings aside and look at reality, eh? Good advice.

reply from: AshMarie88

It doesn't have to be. Slaughter is the ACT OF KILLING. And abortion is an ACT OF KILLING.

reply from: yoda

Okay, this was to Tam, but I gotta jump in here....... are you even vaguely aware that 45 million babies have been killed in abortion in this country since 1973? Is 45 million a "great many" to you?

(Oh my, Tam, we've got another "Craw" here!)
So where exactly did you get that definition of "being"? Did you pull it out of your ear?

Are you even slightly aware that multi-word phrases are NOT defined by taking them apart? Did you even suspect such a thing? Here, let me educate you a bit:

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/H0317900.html %20humanhuman being: NOUN: human

Meriam-Webster Online http://www.m-w.com Main Entry: human being Function: noun : HUMAN

reply from: Tam

I deny that it is the act of killing livestock for market.

Is this a game to you? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Do you have some need to make light of this subject?

The second definition is not the act of killing, it is a noun. “An abortion” as a noun is killing one fetus. “A slaughter” kills a great many.

Yeah--sometimes, one at a time.

Well, then I suggest you try taking it.

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88

Read the definition given. The first definition is the act of killing livestock for the market. Were this not so, any act of killing would be defined as ‘slaughter’. Killing bacteria would be slaughter, policemen killing in the line of duty would be slaughtering, you killing a rapist would be slaughter... etc.

yodavater,

You mischaracterize my argument, but you are right that we must agree to disagree on this matter.

You did, which is why I was confused. You said: How puzzling do you find the idea that because unborn babies have no legal right to life, they are vulnerable to every mother inclined to "take the easy way out"?

You mentioned a legal right to life, so I wanted to be clear about which we were talking about.

Ah. It’s “because you are pro-choice”. Not anything I specifically said

I don’t contradict myself, you simply disagree. That there is no greater right than the right to life is opinion. I happen to think freedom is more important than life. I love life, but life is a small thing if one is not free.

You have little in the way of an argument.

You truly don’t know what you are talking about. No matter your age, your childish antics are beginning to bore me.

To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am

I am not going to have that discussion with you in two threads. Tam would have to rescue you again

Tame,

I suppose this means you did not read the definition you posted. Either that or you did not understand it. The first definition of what you posted was the act of killing livestock for the market.

To answer your question yes this is a game, in a sense. A tournament or challenge, more like. Though I find little of the last, here.

That does not qualify under your definition.

I did, and you did not like that I defeated your argument without emotional rhetoric

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent,

Not philosophically. Being “human” and being a “human being” are separate then. A body without a brain is “human” but is not a “human being”.

You are using a different definition. I am not referring to the existence of the physical body. A physical body can exist without being an individual “being”.

You’re parsing words very thinly. Interesting.

No, it shows that the fetus has human DNA. I am using “fetus” to refer to all stages, by the way.

If you want to look at it that way. It is no more valid than my belief.

But “child” can refer to many things. How do I know you aren’t referring to JavaScript and the child window component? You are denying its humanity!

Please. “zygote”, “embryo” and “fetus” are medically accurate terms. I generally use “fetus” to describe all of the stages, and use “child” for those outside the womb. If you are confused as to what species I’m referring to, ask me and I’ll clarify. The purpose pro-lifers use “unborn child” or “child” is to attempt to draw a moral equivalency between abortion and infanticide.

reply from: Tam

I suppose this means you did not read the definition you posted. Either that or you did not understand it. The first definition of what you posted was the act of killing livestock for the market.

I read it--did YOU? Only a very clueless person would take away such a bizarrely limited meaning for the word slaughter. That is why it seems to me this is a big game to you. You don't even play fairly, you cheat.

Not to me.

That does not qualify under your definition.

Says you? How do you figure?

I did, and you did not like that I defeated your argument without emotional rhetoric

LOL That must have happened in another dimension, where all your fantasies come to life. In the real world, you are not presenting a serious argument, you are just playing little games.

reply from: Tam

Why bother using medically accurate terms if you use them in an inaccurate way??

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent,

And no brain means there is no 'being'.

Is a distinct chair an individual 'being', then? I distinguish physical reality from consciousness.

Yes, it does have distinct DNA from the mother. DNA does not make it consious or a being, DNA makes one human. Yes, my use of the word "fetus" is more casual than the strict definition, I told you this. Does it bother you? I can use "zef" if it does.

You're right. Nor do dictionary definitions have any affect on objective reality. We both know the objective reality, and the objective reality means very different things to both of us. We are trying to convey what this objective reality means to us to the other person. It's a philosophical discussion.



As was yours "zef" denies humanity? They are medically accurate terms, and theoretically neutral. If they bother you I would be ok with using others, but not "unborn child" or "child". Those are used by pro-life people for propaganda purposes and I don't wish to be a part of that.

As I told you, I was using fetus more broadly than it's definition. If that bothers you I will use "zef" but I prefer "fetus", as "zef" is not by itself a word. I did not define "child" completely, nor did I intend to.

This is not objective reality when you use emotionally charged words to lend weight to your argument. Does your argument not stand without their support?

reply from: Sigma

Tam,

Eh? I used the definition you posted, how could I possibly cheat? Do you mean to say there was more to the meaning that the definition did not convey? You are being a very sore loser.

1 : the act of killing; specifically : the butchering of livestock for market

It does not mean only the act of killing, otherwise, any act of killing would be slaughter. Policemen killing in the line of duty, killing a burglar, killing bacteria, etc. "Slaughter" refers to the killing of livestock for market by one definition.

I answered this in my first reply to you after the definition. "Slaughter" is a noun. "A slaughter" is killing a great many people. Abortion, as a noun, kills one fetus (or zef, if you prefer). Even if you equate the fetus with a person, abortion does not count as a slaughter under the definition given.

That is like equating "a gross" with one object. They just aren't equal.

Semantics arguments are linguistic games. Whenever you start arguing dictionary definitions you are playing a game, a meaningless game. Dictionary definitions do not determine reality, nor do they determine what people think about that reality. They have little or no place in this debate.

However, you wanted to play so I indulged you.

reply from: Sigma

No, I am trying to argue that a human without a brain is not a 'being' as I use the term. I am not using this as justification for anything. It is a personal belief.

No, I am arguing that physical reality is not related to a 'being' as I use the term.

I am not discussing personhood, or even rights. I am discussing my personal philosophy.

Yes! Thank you, you are mostly right. Dictionary definitions do not, however, cover every shading of meaning that one has when discussing philosophy. In those cases, we redefine the word as we are using it so that all involved can meaningfully discuss topics. To think that only dictionary definitions can be used, ever, limits your thoughts. I am using "human being" distinctly from "human" when discussing my personal philosophy. I gave the meaning I assign to the terms and if they conflict with your philosophy we can negotiate a meaning that satisfies both of us, and use that so we each know what each other are talking about. If no meaning suits both of us, then we would have to use more cumbersome methods.

If we were dicussing medical matters, standard definitions should be used.

And "unborn child" is used by those who wish to draw an equivalence between abortion and infanticide. So, what do we use to describe the fetus in the womb that satisfies both of us? If nothing, then I will use what I wish, and you use what you wish. Neither changes what it actually is.

This is an ignorant statement.

And perhaps if you cannot use accepted medical terms for a medical procedure you should reexamine why you need the weight of emotionally charged words.

reply from: AshMarie88

Pro-choicers:

What if there was proof a woman, who is schedualed to have an abortion, would die after that abortion. Would you talk her out of the abortion? (If there was proof... there isn't, but women have died from legal abortions.) Or would you just let her have it because "it's her choice"?

reply from: Sigma

I would definetly try to talk her out of it. It is, in the end, her choice though.

reply from: Sigma

So be it. Good night to you as well.

reply from: Tam

So Sigma, you are arguing that the word "child" is an emotionally-charged word? And you are further arguing that, if the first point is true and it IS emotionally-charged, no one should be permitted to use it when referring to children? Is that your point?

reply from: Sigma

I am arguing that using "child" in the abortion debate to refer to what the woman is carrying is using an emotional argument instead of an intellectual one. From what I have seen, it is an attempt to draw an equivalence between an abortion and killing a child. "but it is!" you cry, but that is a form of 'emotional blackmail', using emotion instead of a compelling argument to lend weight to your views. I consider it dishonest.

reply from: AshMarie88

I am arguing that using "child" in the abortion debate to refer to what the woman is carrying is using an emotional argument instead of an intellectual one. From what I have seen, it is an attempt to draw an equivalence between an abortion and killing a child. "but it is!" you cry, but that is a form of 'emotional blackmail', using emotion instead of a compelling argument to lend weight to your views. I consider it dishonest.

And like you don't use emotions when talking about "Oh the poor mothers that will preform abortions on themselves if it's not legal!!". Well, something around there...

It is a human, it is a life... If it's not a child, then what is it?

reply from: Tam

I am arguing that using "child" in the abortion debate to refer to what the woman is carrying is using an emotional argument instead of an intellectual one. From what I have seen, it is an attempt to draw an equivalence between an abortion and killing a child. "but it is!" you cry, but that is a form of 'emotional blackmail', using emotion instead of a compelling argument to lend weight to your views. I consider it dishonest.

So you are trying to say that abortion is NOT "killing a child." Presumably your argument is not with the word "killing" (correct me if I'm wrong) but with the word "child"--which you consider "dishonest" to use in this context. You say it is "emotional blackmail" to use the word "child" to describe an unborn human being.

Do you, or do you not, acknowledge that the word "child" applies to children who are in the womb?

Which is closer to your position:

A) The word "child" can be properly used to describe the unborn human being killed in abortion, but I am uncomfortable with that usage because it reminds me of the immoral act of killing born children, and I believe it is precisely and solely for that reason that anti-abortion persons use the word "child" in this context.

B) I deny that the word "child" can be properly used to describe the unborn human being killed in abortion, and I believe that anti-abortion persons misuse the word child in a dishonest attempt to fool people into thinking that children are killed in abortion.

reply from: Sigma

Ashmarie88,

If I phrased it that way, I would be guilty of something similar. Bolstering an intellectual argument by appealing to your sympathy would be dishonest in the same way. Whether you feel sympathy is your business, if your sympathy is my argument then there is a problem.

If I characterized your position as “anti-women”, I would be trying to arouse emotion against your position, instead of using an intellectual argument to convince people that your position is not right. In a debate such as this, that would be dishonest.

Tam,

No, actually. This is a philosophical point, so whatever you consider it to be is your business. I cannot dispute this, since you believe it to be so; if you consider them to be morally equivalent it is your business. It is only when you try to use language for propaganda purposes that I object to its use, not because I do or do not believe the fetus is a child. Its use lends emotional weight to arguments, support that is not warranted, and is, imo, dishonest in an intellectual debate.

I am not debating whether or not it can apply, Tam. That was not my point.

Position B is the closer of the two, but does not completely represent my view.

reply from: Tam

LOL Yes.

Tam,

No, actually. This is a philosophical point, so whatever you consider it to be is your business.

No, actually. This is a linguistic point, not a matter of opinion. Abortion either IS killing a child, or is NOT killing a child. If I "consider it to be" something it is not, I am wrong. If I "consider it to be" something that it is, I am right.

No, you cannot dispute it because it's based on logic and facts, not opinions and bullsh** like your reasoning (and I use that term loosely).

Whether killing an unborn child is morally equivalent to killing a born child is a matter of opinion. Whether abortion kills an unborn child is a matter of fact.

You object to the use of "child" to accurately describe a child, because you feel that the fact that the child is still in the womb means s/he is not a "real" child. THAT, my dear, is the propaganda, not the correct use of a word to mean that which it does, in fact, mean.

Your beliefs and mine are wholly irrelevant here. The fetus IS a child. It is not a matter of faith, a matter of opinion, or a matter of serious debate--it is a matter of fact, and I resent the implication that I, the one who is using language in accordance with the facts, am being accused of dishonesty by you, the one who is using language to misrepresent the facts.

The correct use of the word "child" lends emotional weight to arguments only when those arguments are presented to people who care about the lives of children. You feel that support is not warranted and is dishonest. Whether or not that support is warranted is a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours. Whether or not it is dishonest is NOT a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. I have not been dishonest; that would be you.

I am not debating whether or not it can apply, Tam. That was not my point.

When you accuse me of DISHONESTY, that IS your point, whether or not you realize it.

Position B is the closer of the two, but does not completely represent my view.

Position B. I thought as much. You deny that the word "child" can be properly used to describe the unborn human being killed in abortion, and you believe that anti-abortion persons misuse the word child in a dishonest attempt to fool people into thinking that children are killed in abortion.

How does your position differ from that described as position B?

reply from: Sigma

This is a philosophical point because we are discussing my personal philosophy. I said: I am arguing that using "child" in the abortion debate to refer to what the woman is carrying is using an emotional argument instead of an intellectual one

I am not arguing whether or not the word “child” can or cannot be used, nor am I arguing whether or not “child” can or cannot apply.

Both are my opinion. I believe using emotionally charged words in an intellectual debate is dishonest debating.

I believe pro-life people use the word “child” in a dishonest attempt to sway people’s opinions against abortion. It attempts to create the connection of infanticide and abortion and arouse protective feelings in the listener, in a sense “fooling them”. I feel both are dishonest ways to lending support to your argument in an intellectual debate.

Whether “child” can be properly used is irrelevant to my point, and I am not uncomfortable with the attempted connection.

reply from: yoda

No, not at all.

You are engaging in "revisionist linguistics". You are attempting to squelch the proper use of the language for your own emotional purposes.

To emotionally support your position requires that one abandon all emotional attachement to other human beings, and think of them coldly as objects, and nothing more. Therefore you are attempting to encourage others to use cold technical/scientific terms to discuss other human beings.

Your efforts will fail miserably, as they should. Those of us who keep our eyes open can see your attempts for what they are, misery seeking company.

reply from: Sigma

How fiendish of me.

My position requires no emotional support. Yours appears to require it. If your argument cannot stand without the support of emotional arguments in an intellectual debate I believe there is a problem with your argument.

How will I go on with your massive intellect slicing through all of my arguments *cry*

reply from: galen

Sig,
people who forget that others have emotions tend to be really good on paper but thier theories do not always hold up when applied to real world issues. Every mathamatician worth thier salt will tell you that. People are not particles and they are not governed only by algorythms. If you feel that logic is the only course to take then you missed the point of doing anything in this world.
You reminde me of a student i once had. he could not understand why a woman's epidural did not work as they had "done everything right". He spent the rest of her labour on that floors nursing station getting upset while she screamed in pain. he was mad at her for being in pain.

mary

reply from: yoda

Yes, your position does indeed require emotional support. It requires a person to have an emotional attitude of complete coldness and indifference to the killing of innocent human beings.

Also, what exactly do you have against honest emotions? Can you name a single human endeavor that can be successful without any emotional input? We are thoroughly emotional beings, we cannot be separated from our emotions.

Anytime someone tries to claim that emotions should be removed from a discussion, in essence they are, IMO saying that their desire to achieve their selfish goals ought not to be examined in light of the feelings of others. Selfishness is also an emotion.

None of your arguments against emotions make any sense to me.

reply from: Sigma

Galen,

I have not forgotten that people have emotions. I do not have to engage in a propaganda war to acknowledge this fact, however. If you think about the issues involved and are emotional because of that, so be it. When an argument uses emotionally charged words instead of a compelling argument, there is a problem. Then there is no thinking involved, only a decision because it “feels right”. Deliberately using those emotionally charged words in place of a compelling argument or to support a lacking argument is not honest debating.

yodavater,

Lack of emotional support does not equal emotional support, but thanks for playing. Additionally, my position does not require indifference. My position requires one to believe a woman is the most important participant in the pregnancy relationship. Whether you glorify in killing fetuses, sorrowfully acknowledge that one would be doubly wrong to restrict women’s freedom even to save lives, or to calculate the relative importance of the rights involved all I require is one to admit the woman’s rights should come first.

Were your understanding a requirement for anything, nothing would get done.

reply from: yoda

There is a good example of your "emotional" argument. WHY should the "woman's rights come first", to the extent that her "first" position justifies her killing her baby?

Can you give me a totally "non-emotional reason" to agree with your position?

reply from: Sigma

You're missing the point.

Whether my argument evokes emotions in the listener is not part of my point. Using emotionally charged words for that purpose is, especially in an intellectual debate. I, generally, do not use emotionally charged words and rely on the strength of my argument.

“Child” is one such emotionally charged word. "Baby" is another.

reply from: yoda

I'm not missing that point, I'm ignoring it. That's NOT the point of the question I asked you, and you subsequently ducked.

YOUR position comes from YOUR emotional attitudes. What "non-emotional" reason can you state for supporting your position? (Answer: NONE)

I gotta tell you, that is the most outrageous example of semantic revisionism I've ever seen. NEXT you will be telling us that "human being" is "too emotional", right?

No, you cannot disqualify vernacular terms that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years by claiming they are too emotional, that dog won't hunt.

Besides the fact that there's NOTHING wrong with honest emotion, the words that are the most commonly used ARE the most appropriate words to use in this discussion.

It's been said that he who defines the terms of the debate controls the debate, and I suspect that's where you're trying to go with this. It won't work. Give it up.

reply from: Sigma

I was ignoring your distraction and concentrating on the point that I made and we are discussing. If you wish to discuss something different, then make a new thread.

No, I do not believe so. "Child" and "baby" I object to because it is used by pro-life people to equate killing born children and babies with abortion. "Human being" does not do this. "Child" and "baby" arouse more of an emotive response, which is of course why pro-life people use them.

I can claim they are used for propaganda purposes in a certain instance, regardless how long they have been around.

Except I have not tried to stop you from using them, it is you who insist on using them (and anybody who does not is ignoring reality, I have seen argued on this board). If you could interchange what you use without affecting your argument then my point would not apply. However, your point depends on the emotional support you garner from emotionally charged words, as well as demonizing opposing viewpoints.

If either of us is guilty of trying to define the terms of the debate, it is the pro-life side.

reply from: Tam

I was ignoring your distraction and concentrating on the point that I made and we are discussing. If you wish to discuss something different, then make a new thread.

No, I do not believe so. "Child" and "baby" I object to because it is used by pro-life people to equate killing born children and babies with abortion. "Human being" does not do this. "Child" and "baby" arouse more of an emotive response, which is of course why pro-life people use them.

I can claim they are used for propaganda purposes in a certain instance, regardless how long they have been around.

Except I have not tried to stop you from using them, it is you who insist on using them (and anybody who does not is ignoring reality, I have seen argued on this board). If you could interchange what you use without affecting your argument then my point would not apply. However, your point depends on the emotional support you garner from emotionally charged words, as well as demonizing opposing viewpoints.

If either of us is guilty of trying to define the terms of the debate, it is the pro-life side.

That is not true, Sigma. It has been clear to people for a very long time that the baby in the womb is the same baby that comes out the birth canal at the end of pregnancy. It is pro-choicers who decided, quite recently I might add, that to call the baby a "baby" would remind people of that truth, and dishonestly started using the word "fetus" to describe a baby in the womb (dishonest, because "fetus" does not apply to all unborn children, whereas "baby" does). Later, in what was an attempt to appear more honest but was really an attempt to further control and skew the language of the debate, your side came up with the term "Z/E/F" and then later shortened even that to "zef"--which is a thoroughly dishonest term for the unborn child for two reasons 1) it is slang; and 2) it is not even accurate. So you think that by using this inaccurate non-word, you are the one being honest, and by using the proper word, prolifers are trying to remind you that the baby in the womb is the same baby that comes out the birth canal. The propagandists are the prochoicers, who want to call abortion "choice" and babies "zefs". Your position, that to refuse to use those BS terms is dishonest, is really far more dishonest than anything prolifers have done--let alone anything of which you've accused us.

reply from: Sigma

That is, of course, your opinion to which you are entitled.

reply from: Sigma

You mischaracterize my argument, but you’ve been doing that since day one.

Not generally, no. However, the aggressive use of that term, as in “it’s not a fetus it’s an unborn child!”, would qualify to me as attempting to use it for propaganda purposes. Its use in other forums has not bothered me, as it is what the person wishes to use and the distinction is made, as you said, between born and not so there is no confusion over what is meant.

I don’t generally use the term, so I cannot say. I feel using “child” and “baby” is dishonest debating, not because they can or cannot apply.

I don’t really have a problem with people morally or ethically opposing abortion, or being emotional about the issue. What I object to is the use of emotionally charged words to evoke those emotions instead of the listeners arriving at those emotions themselves by being convinced of a compelling argument. If “abortion is wrong because killing isn’t justified for freedom” that’s one thing. If “abortion is wrong because murdering babies is wrong! Baby-killers!” it’s another. It both dishonestly lends weight to your argument and dishonestly demonizes your opponents.

reply from: Tam

Oh CP, you just did such an awesome job of responding to that utter BS.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

you mean you could never hope to come up with something that actually wins? cp pwnz.... galen is usually good... you know... when she's not being pulled around and co-opted by the idiots on this forum... you, however, seem to want to get in the ring, but find yourself unable to locate it. next time, just buy a ticket and watch the fight.

reply from: yoda

das, do you have anything other than personal attacks to offer to this discussion?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

sure. abortion on demand.

reply from: yoda

How about post partum abortion, are you down with that too?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

not abortion. abortion is a term to describe the artificial shortening of a pregnancy, often, termination.
euthanasia, however... that is another topic entirely.

reply from: yoda

Uh huh.... there are a few proaborts who are asking that the "right to kill your child" be extended to 30 days post partum...... are you down with that, yes or no, without dodges, please?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

i don't think i do, but i have not heard their argument. it may be good.

reply from: yoda

I'm sure you'd love it. There's one abortion doctor in England who says that morally there is no difference between a 8 month fetus and a newborn, so if abortion is morally acceptable then infanticide ought to be also. Does that convince you?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

no.
i've long since abandoned the "personhood" argument. it's severly lacking in... common sense.
i prefer viability. it's more convincing.

reply from: yoda

Then by all means tell us how vulnerabilty, dependence, and weakness rob one of their moral right to life?

reply from: Sigma

And I thought you had gotten past making childish insults.

I have not accused you or others. Calm down.

I have told you I don’t have issue with using “unborn child” as simply a term to describe what the woman carries. I do believe it is overly emotional, but hardly on the scale of “child” or “baby”, of which the only use I’ve seen are propaganda purposes. If you wish to use “unborn child” it is your business.

Actually reading my posts might be even more interesting. To answer your question, no. It is when eliciting that response is why the word is used that it becomes dishonest, imo. It is when it is used to demonize your opponents and is an excuse to ignore or mischaracterize your opponent’s arguments that it becomes dishonest. This is the case, from what I’ve seen. Especially in this forum.

Case in point.

If you wish. You believe what you want and ignore the rest.

Then debate over whether one must use “child” has little meaning, eh? You would have exactly as strong an argument if you used “fetus”, “zef” or “child”, then?

I might believe that in other forums, but given the rabid attacks over the use of terms I do not believe that in this forum.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

tell me yoda... if i fell DEATHLY ill today, and the only way for me to survive would be for you to fly out here and touch my forehead, would you be MORALLY OBLIGATED to touch my forehead?
if i was similarly ill, and the only thing that could keep me alive would be if, in the middle of the night, and without your consent or mine, my family were to surgically attach us so that i may share your kidneys, would i have a right to remain attached?

reply from: yoda

Of course not, that's like asking us to debate the killing of baby seals by using their scientific names. What would be the point, other than trying to remove all feelings from the debate?

The use of medical/scientific terms in a moral debate is for one purpose only, to remove all feelings and insulate the conscience from the reality of what is being debated.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

trying to remove all feelings from debate is exactly the point.
then we can evaluate the situation objectively and rationally.

reply from: yoda

No, then you can appeal to selfish interests. Only by the inclusion of "feelilngs" can one consider empathy for others, and not just think selfishly.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

prove that.
and what value does empathy have?

reply from: yoda

You must ask what value empathy has? You must ask?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

proof surrogate. tell me.

reply from: yoda

You've pretty well explained your position by the fact that you had to ask what value empathy has. I can't add anything to that.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

no. argue to me the value of empathy. if it's a good argument, you'll convert me.

reply from: yoda

No thanks. You can't argue feelings. You either have them, or in your case you don't.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

is that an ad hominem?
regardless, it's wrong. i have feelings. i just choose to not let them influence my morals. i let my intellect determine my morals, and the resulting morals control my feelings.

reply from: MoaningMike

I think it was ad hominem. I'm glad you see too, juggernaut, that feelings should not influence morals. when will people understand that each and every person has their own different morals. No two people on earth have the exact same morals, which pretty much makes the argument supported by Yoda inconsequential. In most cases, morals are put into place by feelings, and that is where the start of the moral debate goes wrong.

reply from: yoda

That's completely wild. Of course feelings are the origins of moral standards, they are the only reason to even have moral standards.

"Logic" cannot guide us at all in that area. There is NO logical reason to have "morality". Logic is only a tool to help us accomlish what our emotions/feelings tell us that we want to have happen.

There is no morality without feelings/emotions, that's idiotic.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics