Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Well then you don't understand my reasoning. Not all murders are capital offenses. I've never once claimed here that because someone murdered another human being they ought to be put to death. Nor have I argued here that all fetuses are persons and thus deserving rights of an adult. In fact, the only thing I've said about abortion is in regards to medical emergencies and it being a fallacious reason for elective birth control via abortion. You should probably just respond to what is said vs respond to projections of what you believe someone thinks.
    True, that would save time. I'm limited in my understanding of other people's logical process, however, so I ask questions to try to clarify. Based on what you're saying here, I understand you think some fetuses do not have the same rights as people and some murderers do not deserve a death sentence and that medical risk associated with pregnancy is not a valid reason to make abortion legal in all cases. It seems that your reasoning still leaves room for some abortions to constitute murder that would be punishable by death. If you disagree with this, I'd like to hear your reasoning.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  2. #42
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    True, that would save time. I'm limited in my understanding of other people's logical process, however, so I ask questions to try to clarify. Based on what you're saying here, I understand you think some fetuses do not have the same rights as people
    Where did I say that exactly? Can you copy/paste so I know what you are referring to? I don't think I've said anything explicit in regards to the rights of fetuses but I can't recall every post and I'm too lazy to go back and re-read.

    and some murderers do not deserve a death sentence
    True.

    and that medical risk associated with pregnancy is not a valid reason to make abortion legal in all cases.
    Right.

    It seems that your reasoning still leaves room for some abortions to constitute murder that would be punishable by death. If you disagree with this, I'd like to hear your reasoning.
    I do disagree with it and it is an assertion I've never made, nor do I see how my reasoning leaves room for it. Can you be more precise as to how it does?

    Are you suggesting that anyone who favors capital punishment (which is the murder of another human being) and is pro-life because they view the fetus as a person, must necessarily believe that the ending of the life of a fetus is a capital offense and therefore must be executed in accordance with the law of the state in which the abortion took place? If not, then what? If so, then the answer is simple. The type of murder that qualifies for capital punishment varies from state to state. Many require special circumstances to be involved or a number of other aggravating factors. There is no universal standard by which a crime is defined as a capital offense because this is left to the state. In addition, in order for a pro-lifer (such as we have described above) to necessarily believe abortion to be a capital offense, it must be the case that the pro-lifer agrees with the standard by which the abortion is deemed a capital offense. This means there must be agreement to the aggravating factors and or special circumstances.

    I think you have tried to force the abortion argument into a rather complicated legal and ethical structure Zorak and it just doesn't work. The pro-lifer can maintain that execution is an appropriate response to a capital crime, believe that abortion is immoral and ought to be illegal, and still hold that it not be a capital crime (thus not eligible for the death penalty).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  3. #43
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Where did I say that exactly? Can you copy/paste so I know what you are referring to? I don't think I've said anything explicit in regards to the rights of fetuses but I can't recall every post and I'm too lazy to go back and re-read.
    I'm too lazy as well . . . I think I deduced this from a negative statement, like, you said, 'I don't believe x', and I said, 'so you think not x', and you said, 'no I just said that I didn't believe x, not that I believed not x'.

    True.
    Curious how you distinguish -- in your opinion, how would you distinguish between murder deserving of death penalty and otherwise? Is it based on past actions or future risk or both?


    Right.
    cool

    I do disagree with it and it is an assertion I've never made, nor do I see how my reasoning leaves room for it. Can you be more precise as to how it does?
    You explained your position well, below. I was considering very specific situations, low-probability ones, but interesting from the perspective of debating moral and ethical stuff -- e.g. case 1, a physician who has provided multiple late-term abortions . . . worthy of the death penalty? Or, case 2, a woman who has had multiple late-term abortions in the context of heavy substance abuse' e.g., worthy of death penalty?


    Are you suggesting that anyone who favors capital punishment (which is the murder of another human being) and is pro-life because they view the fetus as a person, must necessarily believe that the ending of the life of a fetus is a capital offense and therefore must be executed in accordance with the law of the state in which the abortion took place?
    No, I believe: "some people . . . ", not "anyone" or "everyone"

    If not, then what?
    If some people, then is there an error in their ethical thinking that leads to them bombing abortion clinics or is bombing abortion clinics ethical or unrelated to this type of thinking.

    If so, then the answer is simple.
    Whenever you say this, it is followed by an incredibly convoluted explanation. For example:


    The type of murder that qualifies for capital punishment varies from state to state. Many require special circumstances to be involved or a number of other aggravating factors. There is no universal standard by which a crime is defined as a capital offense because this is left to the state. In addition, in order for a pro-lifer (such as we have described above) to necessarily believe abortion to be a capital offense, it must be the case that the pro-lifer agrees with the standard by which the abortion is deemed a capital offense. This means there must be agreement to the aggravating factors and or special circumstances.


    Here's my question: would you, as a juror member (feel free not to answer, this is private stuff) forgive persons 1 and 2, above, the act of suicide, if they had done so as self-punishment for the crime of abortion?

    I think you have tried to force the abortion argument into a rather complicated legal and ethical structure Zorak and it just doesn't work. The pro-lifer can maintain that execution is an appropriate response to a capital crime, believe that abortion is immoral and ought to be illegal, and still hold that it not be a capital crime (thus not eligible for the death penalty).
    That's a well-stated position and I agree that it's somewhat forced.

    One moral question that concerns me with abortion is that if it is wrong, then there must be some appropriate punishment, even if it is to know that you have done something wrong. But is guilt alone (as well as any shame, opportunity cost, monetary cost, physical suffering, etc.) sufficient punishment for the immoral act of abortion? What additional, if any, punishment is appropriate in specific situations such as case 1,2 above and how should this punishment, if any, be dispensed? If not by the individual, then by the church or by the government, both, neither?

    If you conclude that no additional punishment is required, then why make abortion 'illegal'?
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  4. #44
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    I'm too lazy as well . . . I think I deduced this from a negative statement, like, you said, 'I don't believe x', and I said, 'so you think not x', and you said, 'no I just said that I didn't believe x, not that I believed not x'.
    Well since I don't recall saying it and you aren't aware of where it is said, there is no need to expand on something that apparently doesn't exist.

    Curious how you distinguish -- in your opinion, how would you distinguish between murder deserving of death penalty and otherwise? Is it based on past actions or future risk or both?
    I don't know. I've not given it much thought. I don't think an issue as serious as this is something I can address with a quick opinion formulated off the top of my head. I would imagine that most state qualifiers are sufficient, but I couldn't say with what degree of certainty they are without examining the details and I don't have enough of an opinion or knowledge of the issue to formulate my own position at this time.

    You explained your position well, below. I was considering very specific situations, low-probability ones, but interesting from the perspective of debating moral and ethical stuff -- e.g. case 1, a physician who has provided multiple late-term abortions . . . worthy of the death penalty? Or, case 2, a woman who has had multiple late-term abortions in the context of heavy substance abuse' e.g., worthy of death penalty?
    For both scenarios, I don't know (for reasons explained above). My first instinct is to say "no" due to the issue of needing to show special circumstances and adequately define what those certain circumstances are. That is, there'd be a debate on the issue of whether or not "multiple late-term abortions" constitute those special circumstances and on the surface, I don't see how they could be.

    No, I believe: "some people . . . ", not "anyone" or "everyone"
    This is inconsistent wording then it seems. If something is necessarily the case, than all those with X belief, to be consistent, would have to also carry that over to other situations (by necessity). But if something is not necessarily the case (and I realize you never used the term "necessarily" here) then there really is no legitimate objection that can be made about it IMO because it doesn't require a carry over to other situations.

    All you could do would be to object IF someone tried to carry over that reasoning to another issue and that could easily be done by showing that there is no necessary transfer of reasoning (which is required for a charge of inconsistency).

    Any of that make sense? Weird wording it seems...not sure how to get that idea out there properly...

    If some people, then is there an error in their ethical thinking that leads to them bombing abortion clinics or is bombing abortion clinics ethical or unrelated to this type of thinking.
    I suspect the reasoning behind such bombings is that it is ethical to prevent further loss of life by taking life. That the life of a "murderer" ending prevents further "atrocities." That isn't my reasoning however as I believe it is unethical to bomb clinics and take lives.

    Whenever you say this, it is followed by an incredibly convoluted explanation.
    Well, it's simple to me. And I'm the only person here who counts.

    /kisses biceps

    Here's my question: would you, as a juror member (feel free not to answer, this is private stuff) forgive persons 1 and 2, above, the act of suicide, if they had done so as self-punishment for the crime of abortion?
    "Forgive the act of suicide?" This seems like a rather odd question considering it isn't up to me to forgive someone else for taking their own life.

    One moral question that concerns me with abortion is that if it is wrong, then there must be some appropriate punishment, even if it is to know that you have done something wrong. But is guilt alone (as well as any shame, opportunity cost, monetary cost, physical suffering, etc.) sufficient punishment for the immoral act of abortion? What additional, if any, punishment is appropriate in specific situations such as case 1,2 above and how should this punishment, if any, be dispensed? If not by the individual, then by the church or by the government, both, neither?
    I don't know. Adultery is immoral, how should that be punished and by whom? Finding someone's wallet on the street, keeping their cash and throwing the rest away is immoral...how should that be punished and by whom? Talking bad behind someone's back (gossiping) is immoral, how should that be punished and by whom? Yelling at children out of anger is immoral, how should that be punished and by whom?

    Just because we can identify a moral value of an act doesn't mean we have the solution to a) prevent it and b) how to properly respond to it, especially considering the fact that we live in a dynamic and diverse society built upon rights and freedom. Nor does it mean that it necessarily requires punitive action, which is a specific type of appropriate response.

    One way that unwanted behavior is addressed is by attempting to change societal values through public discourse...sometimes even education. Civil rights is an excellent example of this and it eventually led to legislation which implemented a variety of punitive responses on the state and federal level. But first, there had to be a change of values and educating others. This is known as "moral reform." It is true there are a variety of types of punishment, but the type of punishment you seem to be referring to or wanting to draw out, are that which is more judicial in nature. But that is skipping a step here. It's forgetting that before a society enforces a moral value through law, the moral value must be identified and even agreed upon by the society by and large. Are we there yet with abortion? I don't think we are. At least not those who believe it is immoral. The "moral" position obviously won that argument as their position has been legislated (and abortion is legal). To say we ought to punish those who provide or get abortions first requires the acknowledgment that in a democratic society the moral value of the act must be acknowledged and the act be made illegal (since judicial punishment is a matter of law). Then we can identify similar crimes and determine similar punitive responses.

    I do believe that elective abortion for the purposes of birth control is immoral. But this does not mean that I necessarily hold that those providing legal abortions and those getting legal abortions ought to be punished in accordance with the law. It would be contradictory for me to suggest that they ought to be when a) punishment in this sense requires judicial authority, b) legislative acknowledgement and c) moral value identification. At most, I could assert that an appropriate response to an immoral act that is defended by law (of which I believe abortion to be) is that those giving abortions could be picketed/boycotted (although I seriously doubt its effectiveness) and those getting abortions could be educated on other possible alternatives. In addition, both the provider or receiver of abortions could have their minds (and thus values) changed through civil discourse or some outreach campaign (online, group meetings, peer meetings, media, etc...). Is this really a punishment though? Not in a traditional sense. I think it is more of an employment of reason as an appropriate response to address what is believed to be an immoral act.

    To be clear, it is certainly possible that an immoral act be met with a punitive response, but this isn't necessarily the only type of response. Another response for example could be correction of reason. That, is, by using reason we could persuade the other party that their reasoning and/or values are not what they should be and thus, we have corrected future unwanted or "bad behavior."

    If you conclude that no additional punishment is required, then why make abortion 'illegal'?
    Law defends the values of a society. If a law defends the value that is contrary to a particular segment of society, that segment is morally obligated to seek change (this is known as "duty"). It doesn't matter what the issue is, it doesn't matter what the portion of the segment we are talking about is. There are a variety of ways to seek change (meaning there are a variety of ways to fulfill one's duty. There are huge mass movements, there are publications, there is research, there is education, there is community involvement, there is even just simple dialog on a casual basis (such as this debate forum or even something more casual). None of which however, are contingent upon a judicial response (punishment). The implementation of punitive action has no bearing on whether or not a moral value ought to be defended through legislature. An appropriate response (in some cases, punishment) is merely the response that is necessary when a law is broken or an immoral act occurs. And in each case, that particular response will depend upon the circumstances (a judicial response for a violation of a law is not the same as a societal response to a violation of a moral value).
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; August 5th, 2012 at 03:46 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    there is no need to expand on something that apparently doesn't exist.
    By which, I assume you mean God. I agree and accept your apology. Moving on,

    For both scenarios, I don't know (for reasons explained above). My first instinct is to say "no" due to the issue of needing to show special circumstances and adequately define what those certain circumstances are. That is, there'd be a debate on the issue of whether or not "multiple late-term abortions" constitute those special circumstances and on the surface, I don't see how they could be.
    One hypothesis would be that mass-picketing, harassment and occasional killings of doctors who have performed abortions, especially late-term abortions, has somewhat narrowed the field of providers for that medical service. So, it might not be so uncommon (it is, in fact, the case) that there are frequently only one or two physicians per state who perform late term abortions. This results in them performing multiple late-term abortions. They are then killed by radical religious types. Seems a strange sacrifice to make to one's God, no?

    Physicians vow to 'do no harm'. Unfortunately, every act has the potential for causing harm. That's why most doctors are on the golf courses by noon.

    This is inconsistent wording then it seems.
    Yes, let's revise to:

    Some who favor both capital punishment and are pro-life might reason that it is ethical to punish, severely, anyone who has participated in an abortion.


    If something is necessarily the case, than all those with X belief, to be consistent, would have to also carry that over to other situations (by necessity). But if something is not necessarily the case (and I realize you never used the term "necessarily" here) then there really is no legitimate objection that can be made about it IMO because it doesn't require a carry over to other situations.
    I disagree with this sentiment for the following reason:

    Even if there is a small risk of a terrible thing happening, it is logical to avoid taking that risk. Human extinction due to overpopulation, for example, would be a terrible thing. Increased rates of homicide committed by those who grew up in a household where they were neglected and only received attention for radical behavior, would be a terrible thing. Increased rates of women self-terminating, becoming septic, dying would be a terrible thing. Even guilt and shame, among women, would be harmful and potentially increase the rates of suicide in women who chose abortion, which would be terrible.

    pro-Life reference:
    In a survey of teenaged girls, researchers at U. Minn found that the rate of attempted suicide in the six months prior to the study increased 10 fold—from 0.4% for girls who had not aborted to 4% for teens who had aborted in the previous six months
    http://www.aaplog.org/complications-...ernal-suicide/

    I know there's a lot more in your post, sorry I can't attend fully to it at this time. Duty calls, as they say.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  6. #46
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    By which, I assume you mean God. I agree and accept your apology. Moving on,
    Cute...but just an example of how bad reasoning consumes atheists.

    One hypothesis would be that mass-picketing, harassment and occasional killings of doctors who have performed abortions, especially late-term abortions, has somewhat narrowed the field of providers for that medical service. So, it might not be so uncommon (it is, in fact, the case) that there are frequently only one or two physicians per state who perform late term abortions. This results in them performing multiple late-term abortions. They are then killed by radical religious types. Seems a strange sacrifice to make to one's God, no?
    No. The issue wasn't "What are the possible outcomes that protesting and even killings of doctors may have on the medical field with regards to late-term abortions?" which you have addressed. Instead, the issue was "What are the special considerations that qualify an act of murder to be eligible for capital punishment?"

    You just committed a red herring fallacy there partna'.

    Yes, let's revise to:

    Some who favor both capital punishment and are pro-life might reason that it is ethical to punish, severely, anyone who has participated in an abortion.
    True. Just as it is is possible that some atheists who believe that religion has no place in the state (government) also believe that religion ought to be outlawed and banned entirely.

    It's also true that some men who are married stalk and rape women. It's also true that some Germans who feel a deep patriotic duty also legitimize the killing of those who they believe "taint" their ideal state. It's also true that some Democrats who value freedom and rights of all people also disagree with same sex marriage.

    The two issues (capital punishment and abortion) are not necessarily contingent upon one another. People being people, are diverse in their values, experiences, perceptions and desires. All you've done here is make an observation that we all agree with. Yes, people like that exist. There are also people who roll their poo into little balls and eat crayons. An observation is not an argument. An argument is a conclusion that is supported by reasons. Or more simply put, an argument (or factual claim) is one or more ideas that support another idea. What we discuss here are arguments. We analyze arguments to determine their strength (and even soundness) and we do this by evaluating both form and the dependability (quality) of the reasons offered.

    The statement: "Some who favor both capital punishment and are pro-life might reason that it is ethical to punish, severely, anyone who has participated in an abortion" is merely an observation and gives us nothing to work with as there is just nothing to respond to. It neither seeks to persuade us nor to assert any particular value.

    I'm not trying to be rude or condescending here so my apologies if it comes across as such, and it is certainly fine to clarify our statements (in fact, it ought to always be done when necessary). I do agree with your statement...but I don't know if it really lends any value to the discussion here.

    The issue is not whether they exist, but rather if one view necessarily requires the other...and it doesn't, so it's really a non-issue it seems.

    I disagree with this sentiment for the following reason:

    Even if there is a small risk of a terrible thing happening, it is logical to avoid taking that risk.
    You don't really believe this. If you did then...


    • You would not drive your car.
    • You would not fly in an airplane.
    • You would not work with needles.
    • You would not prescribe medication.
    • You would not bring a baby into the world.
    • You would not walk outside in an unfamiliar area.
    • You would not have a pet.
    • You would not travel to other countries.
    • You would not travel.
    • You would not eat any fatty or high sodium foods.
    • etc....


    Other people should not...


    • skydive
    • go deep sea fishing
    • go snorkeling or scuba diving
    • participate in marital arts competitions
    • race vehicles
    • perform stunts in film and tv or even live shows
    • become electricians
    • become astronauts
    • become law enforcement officers
    • become fire fighters
    • enlist in the military
    • etc...


    There is nothing inherently wrong with risk. Where risk becomes an issue is when it is an unnecessary or high risk, not merely a "small risk." However, none of this has anything to do what what I said (it is a newly introduced, irrelevant point from you), and I'll explain why below.

    Human extinction due to overpopulation, for example, would be a terrible thing. Increased rates of homicide committed by those who grew up in a household where they were neglected and only received attention for radical behavior, would be a terrible thing. Increased rates of women self-terminating, becoming septic, dying would be a terrible thing. Even guilt and shame, among women, would be harmful and potentially increase the rates of suicide in women who chose abortion, which would be terrible.

    pro-Life reference:
    In a survey of teenaged girls, researchers at U. Minn found that the rate of attempted suicide in the six months prior to the study increased 10 fold—from 0.4% for girls who had not aborted to 4% for teens who had aborted in the previous six months
    http://www.aaplog.org/complications-...ernal-suicide/

    I know there's a lot more in your post, sorry I can't attend fully to it at this time. Duty calls, as they say.
    NONE of this addresses the issue of "Do those who support capital punishment necessarily believe that those who perform abortions or get abortions are eligible for capital punishment?" which was the issue of my argument that you quoted. I think if you had read the rest of my post you'd have seen the argument in more detail and understood how it is not the case at all.

    That there is an increased rate of suicide among a certain segment of women who did not get an abortion is entirely irrelevant to the issue. The issue you are trying to address, and the one that has never been made or asked, is "Is there any negative psychological health risks or consequences of young women who get an abortion?"

    Lastly, your citation is in favor of pro-life, not pro-choice. Women are regretting the choices they made, primarily the younger women. This is a statistic that supports the claims made early on that a younger woman (although in the scenario she was apparently drug addicted and irresponsible) don't have the experience, maturity, and general where-with-all to properly evaluate all the variables (present and future) involved in this very serious decision.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; August 6th, 2012 at 07:15 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Cute...but just an example of how bad reasoning consumes atheists.
    Hilarious. No, Apok, becoming an atheist won't eliminate bad reasoning, I'm afraid. I hope that's not the only reason you became an atheist, or it must be really disappointing.

    As an Agnostic, I'm guessing that we're all wrong, about almost everything, most of the time. After all, we have imperfect observational and communication skills, frequently incorrect assumptions, limited imaginations and imperfect reasoning. I just like debating over who is the least wrong.

    No. The issue wasn't "What are the possible outcomes that protesting and even killings of doctors may have on the medical field with regards to late-term abortions?" which you have addressed. Instead, the issue was "What are the special considerations that qualify an act of murder to be eligible for capital punishment?"

    You just committed a red herring fallacy there partna'.
    I think you may have made some assumptions about where I'm going in the debate which are unfounded, as well. That's probably my fault, however, as I've not been explicit. If you concede that providing or receiving multiple late term abortions are not acts that, in and of themselves, deserve a death penalty, then I'm not terribly interested in debating the specific considerations that would qualify an act of murder to be eligible for capital punishment.

    I'm more interested in discussing the pro's and con's of approaching the issue of abortion from the moral high-ground, insisting that it is wrong, worthy of changes in legislation and some form of punishment and requiring 'justification', especially at a public level. You have stated that medical emergencies are not justification for abortion. This suggests that you think abortion needs further justification, correct? Even if you're not sure what punishment is appropriate, you maintain that it's wrong and that society should continue to discuss it until we figure out what punishment would be appropriate? I'm reading between the lines a bit, so feel free to correct me on your actual position.


    True. Just as it is is possible that some atheists who believe that religion has no place in the state (government) also believe that religion ought to be outlawed and banned entirely.

    It's also true that some men who are married stalk and rape women. It's also true that some Germans who feel a deep patriotic duty also legitimize the killing of those who they believe "taint" their ideal state. It's also true that some Democrats who value freedom and rights of all people also disagree with same sex marriage.

    The two issues (capital punishment and abortion) are not necessarily contingent upon one another. People being people, are diverse in their values, experiences, perceptions and desires. All you've done here is make an observation that we all agree with. Yes, people like that exist. There are also people who roll their poo into little balls and eat crayons. An observation is not an argument. An argument is a conclusion that is supported by reasons. Or more simply put, an argument (or factual claim) is one or more ideas that support another idea. What we discuss here are arguments. We analyze arguments to determine their strength (and even soundness) and we do this by evaluating both form and the dependability (quality) of the reasons offered.

    The statement: "Some who favor both capital punishment and are pro-life might reason that it is ethical to punish, severely, anyone who has participated in an abortion" is merely an observation and gives us nothing to work with as there is just nothing to respond to. It neither seeks to persuade us nor to assert any particular value.

    I'm not trying to be rude or condescending here so my apologies if it comes across as such, and it is certainly fine to clarify our statements (in fact, it ought to always be done when necessary). I do agree with your statement...but I don't know if it really lends any value to the discussion here.

    The issue is not whether they exist, but rather if one view necessarily requires the other...and it doesn't, so it's really a non-issue it seems.
    Perhaps, let's see. I put, in bold, your assertion that there is no correlation between believing that abortion is murder and the desire to murder individuals who provide abortion. I'd like you to support your assertion that there is no correlation. Do you think a pro-lifer is more or less likely to bomb an abortion clinic than someone who has no opinion on the matter? I assume you're not suggesting that it's o.k. for pro-lifers to be homicidal because members of other groups are also homicidal?


    You don't really believe this. If you did then...


    • You would not drive your car.
    • You would not fly in an airplane.
    • You would not work with needles.
    • You would not prescribe medication.
    • You would not bring a baby into the world.
    • You would not walk outside in an unfamiliar area.
    • You would not have a pet.
    • You would not travel to other countries.
    • You would not travel.
    • You would not eat any fatty or high sodium foods.
    • etc....


    Other people should not...


    • skydive
    • go deep sea fishing
    • go snorkeling or scuba diving
    • participate in marital arts competitions
    • race vehicles
    • perform stunts in film and tv or even live shows
    • become electricians
    • become astronauts
    • become law enforcement officers
    • become fire fighters
    • enlist in the military
    • etc...


    There is nothing inherently wrong with risk. Where risk becomes an issue is when it is an unnecessary or high risk, not merely a "small risk." However, none of this has anything to do what what I said (it is a newly introduced, irrelevant point from you), and I'll explain why below.
    You're comparing individual choices to enforced legislation in a way that doesn't make sense in this argument. A small risk of a terrible thing, multiplied by a huge population is still very worth considering. For example, we have seat belt laws in this country, we have strict laws regarding air traffic safety, just to address the first couple items on the impressive list you've created. The third item, sewing with a needle, doesn't confer any life-or-death risk, so it's a bad example.

    NONE of this addresses the issue of "Do those who support capital punishment necessarily believe that those who perform abortions or get abortions are eligible for capital punishment?" which was the issue of my argument that you quoted. I think if you had read the rest of my post you'd have seen the argument in more detail and understood how it is not the case at all.
    Again, not as you've written the statement, using the word, 'necessarily'. That's why I discussed the 'risk'. Not everyone who is in a motor vehicle accident, without their seat belt, dies. But their risk is higher without one, so we have a law. In our debate, the question is whether anti-abortion rhetoric constitutes a risk to innocent people. We know that doctors have been killed and abortion clinics bombed and women harassed and finally . . .

    That there is an increased rate of suicide among a certain segment of women who did not get an abortion is entirely irrelevant to the issue. The issue you are trying to address, and the one that has never been made or asked, is "Is there any negative psychological health risks or consequences of young women who get an abortion?"

    Lastly, your citation is in favor of pro-life, not pro-choice. Women are regretting the choices they made, primarily the younger women. This is a statistic that supports the claims made early on that a younger woman (although in the scenario she was apparently drug addicted and irresponsible) don't have the experience, maturity, and general where-with-all to properly evaluate all the variables (present and future) involved in this very serious decision.
    The increased risk of suicide in women who have had an abortion isn't related to having an abortion. There is virtually never any kind of horrific post-operative pain they're trying to escape from. It's related to feeling ashamed of having an abortion, of feeling guilty and defective and worthless. So, why do they feel this way? Could it have been the dozens of screaming protesters who blocked their way into the clinic? The multiple billboards with pictures of babies and hearts and statements like, 'abortion is murder'? I believe there's an obvious and direct correlation and that such rhetoric, on the part of the anti-abortion movement, is dangerous to both providers and recipients of abortion.

    The saddest part of this, for me, is that it seems that one of our best qualities, as human beings, that we want to protect our young and nurture children, is what is manipulated and corrupted by anti-abortion rhetoric and turned into both homicidal and suicidal behaviors by it. What enrages me most is that this topic was brought into political discussions by Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" and the Christian Right in order to influence elections and deceive voters into thinking that conservatives had their best interests in mind.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  8. #48
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    Hilarious. No, Apok, becoming an atheist won't eliminate bad reasoning, I'm afraid. I hope that's not the only reason you became an atheist, or it must be really disappointing.

    As an Agnostic, I'm guessing that we're all wrong, about almost everything, most of the time. After all, we have imperfect observational and communication skills, frequently incorrect assumptions, limited imaginations and imperfect reasoning. I just like debating over who is the least wrong.
    Fine...so you are agnostic. That still doesn't absolve of you of your bad reasoning. Bad reasoning is bad reasoning no matter your metaphysical views.

    I think you may have made some assumptions about where I'm going in the debate which are unfounded, as well.
    Not at all. I'm addressing what you have posted and argued. If you wish to create a new argument that is fine, but you cannot respond to one issue by creating a new issue. That is called a red herring Zorak.

    That's probably my fault, however, as I've not been explicit. If you concede that providing or receiving multiple late term abortions are not acts that, in and of themselves, deserve a death penalty, then I'm not terribly interested in debating the specific considerations that would qualify an act of murder to be eligible for capital punishment.
    Considering that:

    1) It's never been my position that providing or receiving late term abortions in and of themselves, deserve the death penalty...
    2) I've never argued such a thing
    3) It's not the issue I presented

    There is nothing to concede.

    I'm more interested in discussing the pro's and con's of approaching the issue of abortion from the moral high-ground, insisting that it is wrong, worthy of changes in legislation and some form of punishment and requiring 'justification', especially at a public level.
    That's fine, but you would be starting either a new argument or furthering one that was presented in this thread by someone other than me. In this thread, I've not argued much of anything other than the issue of how medical emergencies relate to abortions, period. That's the only issue I'm really interested atm. If you are wanting the typical "Abortion is good vs abortion is bad" debate that has been done before so many times already, I'm not yer guy. It's boring to me (at least, right now). I've just no interest in the issue, which is why I've never made an argument one way or another about it here.

    [quoet] You have stated that medical emergencies are not justification for abortion.[/quote]
    That is not what I stated. I said that medical emergencies are not justification for elective birth control. Meaning when a woman's health is at risk, it is an acceptable measure. When there are no signs of risk, then there is no such measure taking place as an emergency abortion because there is no medical emergency and at that time, it's just an elective measure.

    Whether or not elective abortion is right/wrong and should be addressed via legislative changes is an entirely different issue that I'm not interested in. The issue I am addressing is the fact of whether or not an emergency procedure justifies an elective procedure. My position is that it doesn't, for reasons explained in previous posts.

    This suggests that you think abortion needs further justification, correct? Even if you're not sure what punishment is appropriate, you maintain that it's wrong and that society should continue to discuss it until we figure out what punishment would be appropriate? I'm reading between the lines a bit, so feel free to correct me on your actual position.
    This is irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing.

    Perhaps, let's see. I put, in bold, your assertion that there is no correlation between believing that abortion is murder and the desire to murder individuals who provide abortion. I'd like you to support your assertion that there is no correlation.
    I didn't say there was no correlation. This is what I said:

    Apok: The issue is not whether they exist, but rather if one view necessarily requires the other...and it doesn't, so it's really a non-issue it seems.

    We know that this is not the case because we know of the existence of people with one view but not the other. End of story. As long as there is a distinction to be made, one cannot argue there is no distinction Zorak. Obviously, a distinction does exist.

    All you are saying then is that SOME people who believe X ALSO believe Y. And this is irrelevant to any argument for reasons explained before the statement you are addressing. See "crazy people rolling poo."

    Do you think a pro-lifer is more or less likely to bomb an abortion clinic than someone who has no opinion on the matter? I assume you're not suggesting that it's o.k. for pro-lifers to be homicidal because members of other groups are also homicidal?
    This is irrelevant. Do you think an atheist is more likely to want to ban all religious activity, private or public or a religious practitioner?

    You're comparing individual choices to enforced legislation in a way that doesn't make sense in this argument.
    No it isn't. You made a statement and didn't qualify it, thus the examples provided are indeed, relevant to that statement. If you wish to further qualify your statement so it isn't so broad and it is more applicable, that's fine, but it is not the case that the examples given do not address your statement.

    A small risk of a terrible thing, multiplied by a huge population is still very worth considering. For example, we have seat belt laws in this country, we have strict laws regarding air traffic safety, just to address the first couple items on the impressive list you've created.
    This doesn't address anything. There is still a small risk of structural and personal damage regardless of wearing seat belts.

    The third item, sewing with a needle, doesn't confer any life-or-death risk, so it's a bad example.
    Needles are used in medical facilities silly.

    Again, not as you've written the statement, using the word, 'necessarily'. That's why I discussed the 'risk'.
    This doesn't seem like a complete thought or response. I don't know what you are trying to say here.

    Not everyone who is in a motor vehicle accident, without their seat belt, dies. But their risk is higher without one, so we have a law.
    Not everyone who travels from home to another location dies, but their risk is greater when in a vehicle. Thus, higher risk. And apparently, "higher risk" is something that ought to be avoided according to you (and your still, unqualified statement).

    In our debate, the question is whether anti-abortion rhetoric constitutes a risk to innocent people. We know that doctors have been killed and abortion clinics bombed and women harassed and finally . . .
    First you must defend the assertion that "all that which causes risk should be banned."

    Then you need to explain why the 1st Amendment ought to be thrown out or that only people you disagree shouldn't be afforded that right.

    Then you need to explain why only those with an opposing view to yourself should be disallowed to speak their mind because it creates a small risk and we ought to ignore other views that cause a small risk even though you may personally agree with them.

    The increased risk of suicide in women who have had an abortion isn't related to having an abortion. There is virtually never any kind of horrific post-operative pain they're trying to escape from. It's related to feeling ashamed of having an abortion, of feeling guilty and defective and worthless. So, why do they feel this way? Could it have been the dozens of screaming protesters who blocked their way into the clinic?
    Could it have been self-guilt? The realization that they didn't need to abort and they had other options such as giving up for adoption? Could it have been regretting the decision because they realized later they could have taken care of the baby after all?

    You have not demonstrated the cause of guilt. And the study you cited does not address such cause. If that was the reason you provided the study, then you used bad reasoning and should start reading my 5 part essay on evidence (part 1 is found on the home page at this time).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  9. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Fine...so you are agnostic. That still doesn't absolve of you of your bad reasoning. Bad reasoning is bad reasoning no matter your metaphysical views.
    You're certainly right about that. I hope you weren't expecting perfection on my part.

    Not at all. I'm addressing what you have posted and argued. If you wish to create a new argument that is fine, but you cannot respond to one issue by creating a new issue. That is called a red herring Zorak.
    My purpose was not to create a new argument but to point out the irony of anti-abortion rhetoric, which is that it creates the type of person they hate the most.

    There was no intention of distracting from the main argument. I simply misunderstood your intent. You had said, 'there would be a debate on what special circumstances would be involved in determining the guilt of an abortion provider', and I assumed you wanted to take the debate in that direction. I complied by setting up a counter-argument, a crude sketch, for us to begin that dialogue. I'm fine if you don't want to take the debate in that direction. However, I find it tiresome to have every small deviation from your desired debate protocol brought up, repeatedly.

    Considering that:

    1) It's never been my position that providing or receiving late term abortions in and of themselves, deserve the death penalty...
    2) I've never argued such a thing
    3) It's not the issue I presented

    There is nothing to concede.
    Yes, I should have said, 'agree' rather than 'concede'. We agree on that topic, then, which is all I wanted to know.

    That's fine, but you would be starting either a new argument or furthering one that was presented in this thread by someone other than me. In this thread, I've not argued much of anything other than the issue of how medical emergencies relate to abortions, period. That's the only issue I'm really interested atm. If you are wanting the typical "Abortion is good vs abortion is bad" debate that has been done before so many times already, I'm not yer guy. It's boring to me (at least, right now). I've just no interest in the issue, which is why I've never made an argument one way or another about it here.
    Well, we could continue in that direction. I'd point out that not all medical risks associated with pregnancy are evident early in the pregnancy, that the risks associated with abortion increase as time goes on and that none of the treatments for life-threatening pregnancy-related illnesses are perfect. In short, women take a risk when they decide to go through pregnancy and less of a risk when they do not. The figure I've heard is a 10-fold increase in risk comparing abortion to completing pregnancy.

    Here's just one complication to consider:

    How Common Are High Blood Pressure and Preeclampsia in Pregnancy?
    High blood pressure problems occur in 6 percent to 8 percent of all pregnancies in the U.S., about 70 percent of which are first-time pregnancies. In 1998, more than 146,320 cases of preeclampsia alone were diagnosed.

    Although the proportion of pregnancies with gestational hypertension and eclampsia has remained about the same in the U.S. over the past decade, the rate of preeclampsia has increased by nearly one-third. This increase is due in part to a rise in the numbers of older mothers and of multiple births, where preeclampsia occurs more frequently. For example, in 1998 birth rates among women ages 30 to 44 and the number of births to women ages 45 and older were at the highest levels in 3 decades, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Furthermore, between 1980 and 1998, rates of twin births increased about 50 percent overall and 1,000 percent among women ages 45 to 49; rates of triplet and other higher-order multiple births jumped more than 400 percent overall, and 1,000 percent among women in their 40s.

    Who Is More Likely to Develop Preeclampsia?
    Women with chronic hypertension (high blood pressure before becoming pregnant).
    Women who developed high blood pressure or preeclampsia during a previous pregnancy, especially if these conditions occurred early in the pregnancy.
    Women who are obese prior to pregnancy.
    Pregnant women under the age of 20 or over the age of 40.
    Women who are pregnant with more than one baby.
    Women with diabetes, kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, or scleroderma.
    How Is Preeclampsia Detected?
    Unfortunately, there is no single test to predict or diagnose preeclampsia. Key signs are increased blood pressure and protein in the urine (proteinuria). Other symptoms that seem to occur with preeclampsia include persistent headaches, blurred vision or sensitivity to light, and abdominal pain.

    All of these sensations can be caused by other disorders; they can also occur in healthy pregnancies. Regular visits with your doctor help him or her to track your blood pressure and level of protein in your urine, to order and analyze blood tests that detect signs of preeclampsia, and to monitor fetal development more closely.

    http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/publ...p/hbp_preg.htm

    That is not what I stated. I said that medical emergencies are not justification for elective birth control. Meaning when a woman's health is at risk, it is an acceptable measure. When there are no signs of risk, then there is no such measure taking place as an emergency abortion because there is no medical emergency and at that time, it's just an elective measure.
    There are often no signs of risk until late in the pregnancy.
    Whether or not elective abortion is right/wrong and should be addressed via legislative changes is an entirely different issue that I'm not interested in. The issue I am addressing is the fact of whether or not an emergency procedure justifies an elective procedure. My position is that it doesn't, for reasons explained in previous posts.
    And yet it will be a debate like this one that determines the legality of abortion and people's thinking on the nature of abortion, which is of interest to me.

    This is irrelevant to the issue I'm addressing.


    I didn't say there was no correlation. This is what I said:

    Apok: The issue is not whether they exist, but rather if one view necessarily requires the other...and it doesn't, so it's really a non-issue it seems.

    We know that this is not the case because we know of the existence of people with one view but not the other. End of story. As long as there is a distinction to be made, one cannot argue there is no distinction Zorak. Obviously, a distinction does exist.

    All you are saying then is that SOME people who believe X ALSO believe Y. And this is irrelevant to any argument for reasons explained before the statement you are addressing. See "crazy people rolling poo."


    This is irrelevant. Do you think an atheist is more likely to want to ban all religious activity, private or public or a religious practitioner?
    I'm not interested in debating that. I'm interested in debating whether anti-abortion rhetoric increases homicidal and suicidal behaviors. You've said it's irrelevant because it doesn't necessarily increase that behavior in all cases. I'm arguing that it increases, slightly, the risk of something really bad. It's relevant.

    No it isn't. You made a statement and didn't qualify it, thus the examples provided are indeed, relevant to that statement. If you wish to further qualify your statement so it isn't so broad and it is more applicable, that's fine, but it is not the case that the examples given do not address your statement.
    certainly: people who hear anti-abortion rhetoric are more likely to develop homicidal and suicidal behaviors than those who do not.

    This doesn't address anything. There is still a small risk of structural and personal damage regardless of wearing seat belts.
    Sure, but the risk is reduced by wearing a seat belt. that's why I used the comparison.

    Needles are used in medical facilities silly.
    oops, I forgot. Well, in that case, perhaps I could discuss how we now have safety needles which immediately retract after use and are disposed in biohazard containers on every wall in every room in the hospital so nurses aren't walking around with HIV-laden shivs.

    This doesn't seem like a complete thought or response. I don't know what you are trying to say here.
    let me know if it's still unclear

    Not everyone who travels from home to another location dies, but their risk is greater when in a vehicle. Thus, higher risk. And apparently, "higher risk" is something that ought to be avoided according to you (and your still, unqualified statement).
    Unless there's some other consideration in place. For example, an individual may decide it's worth the risk of commuting to work every day in order to make more money. It still makes sense for them to wear a seat belt. What reason do you have to support the rhetoric of anti-abortion groups? Assuming for a moment it's causing a risk of increased homicidal and suicidal behavior?

    First you must defend the assertion that "all that which causes risk should be banned."
    That was never my argument. You interpreted it that way and I may have been unclear. However, I doubt we disagree on the basic ethical principles here. It's risky to eat hamburgers, for example. However, that's a matter of personal choice, is it not?

    Then you need to explain why the 1st Amendment ought to be thrown out or that only people you disagree shouldn't be afforded that right.
    I never argued that the 1st amendment should be thrown out, only that free speech ought to be practiced in a responsible way, one that does not risk lives.

    Then you need to explain why only those with an opposing view to yourself should be disallowed to speak their mind because it creates a small risk and we ought to ignore other views that cause a small risk even though you may personally agree with them.
    what risk are you referring to?

    Could it have been self-guilt? The realization that they didn't need to abort and they had other options such as giving up for adoption? Could it have been regretting the decision because they realized later they could have taken care of the baby after all?
    All guilt is 'self-guilt'! Meanwhile, our ideas are heavily influenced by the images and ideas around us, especially related to understanding what is taboo and 'immoral' vs. what is acceptable. We're a very social species, so we learn what behavior is acceptable so that we can fit into our society and increase our chances of survival and reproduction. Believing that a behavior was wrong and will result in continued rejection, spurning and misery is what leads to suicide, not the recognition that they could have raised the baby. Realizing they could have raised the baby would only have led to feelings of sadness, which do not result in suicide unless associated with feelings of hopelessness (that the sadness will never end). However, most people realize that sadness is not like that, as they've been sad many times and cried, and then felt better.

    You have not demonstrated the cause of guilt. And the study you cited does not address such cause. If that was the reason you provided the study, then you used bad reasoning and should start reading my 5 part essay on evidence (part 1 is found on the home page at this time).
    Thanks, I'm sure it's a great read and that I'd learn a thing or two. However, I'm already well aware of the difficulties associated with establishing a cause and effect relationship. The only means of doing this in a meaningful way would be to conduct an experiment that would be unethical to conduct.

    The data on whether women who have received abortion are at greater risk for mental health problems seem to be mixed. For example:

    Steinberg and Finer’s analysis, just published online in Social Science & Medicine, examined the same dataset as Coleman et al. (the National Comorbidity Survey) and found that in every case, the proportions of women experiencing mental health problems reported by Coleman were much larger, sometimes more than five times as large, as Steinberg and Finer’s results. The Coleman findings were also inconsistent with several other published studies using the same dataset and sample.
    “We were unable to reproduce the most basic tabulations of Coleman and colleagues,” says Steinberg, postdoctoral fellow at UCSF. “Moreover, their findings were logically inconsistent with other published research—for example, they found higher rates of depression in the last month than other studies found during respondents’ entire lifetimes. This suggests that their results are substantially inflated.”

    http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2.../13/index.html

    I hope that this is true. However, I would posit that the most likely reality is one in which a small percentage of women are susceptible to the rhetoric of anti-abortion groups and are likely to experience depression and suicidal behaviors as a result of those pressures. There is a tremendous body of evidence to support the correlation between peer pressure and self-esteem, depression, especially in younger adults.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  10. #50
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    You're certainly right about that. I hope you weren't expecting perfection on my part.
    I expect nothing less than perfection!

    My purpose was not to create a new argument but to point out the irony of anti-abortion rhetoric, which is that it creates the type of person they hate the most.
    What is that type?

    And do you mean to say that it can create or that it necessarily creates?

    There was no intention of distracting from the main argument. I simply misunderstood your intent. You had said, 'there would be a debate on what special circumstances would be involved in determining the guilt of an abortion provider', and I assumed you wanted to take the debate in that direction. I complied by setting up a counter-argument, a crude sketch, for us to begin that dialogue. I'm fine if you don't want to take the debate in that direction. However, I find it tiresome to have every small deviation from your desired debate protocol brought up, repeatedly.
    I understand. But (1) I was merely explaining what would normally be done through the process of determine such factors and (2) referring specifically to this issue (of which, the factors would be irrelevant). As you phrased it, it brings out a whole new ball game:

    Zorak: I'm more interested in discussing the pro's and con's of approaching the issue of abortion from the moral high-ground, insisting that it is wrong, worthy of changes in legislation and some form of punishment and requiring 'justification', especially at a public level.

    Which isn't specific the issue of "Should those giving and receiving late-term abortions receive capital punishment?"

    And on that issue, as I've said right now I'd most likely argue "no" as I just don't see any justification for it. If there was a discussion that explored how special circumstances could be applied, it would be an interesting discussion, and one that may (but may not) change my position on the issue, but also one that I'd probably not have time for right. I need to pick and choose my topics these days due to other commitments. I've made the mistake of spreading myself thin in the past and disappointing others involved in the discussion. So my strategy now is to just participate in a couple discussions that interest me the most, lurk in a couple that interest me somewhat, and ignore all the rest.

    Well, we could continue in that direction. I'd point out that not all medical risks associated with pregnancy are evident early in the pregnancy, that the risks associated with abortion increase as time goes on and that none of the treatments for life-threatening pregnancy-related illnesses are perfect.
    This again, is a red herring fallacy Zorak because it tries to cover up the real issue by throwing in the irrelevant variable of time. It doesn't matter if the need for an emergency procedure is recognized early or late in the pregnancy, it's still an emergency procedure.

    In short, women take a risk when they decide to go through pregnancy and less of a risk when they do not. The figure I've heard is a 10-fold increase in risk comparing abortion to completing pregnancy.
    OK...perhaps now we are getting somewhere.

    Is your argument then as follows?

    Women ought to abort instead of give birth because giving birth is an unnecessary risk and is more dangerous than aborting the child.

    If not, then how is this consistent with your argument that if there is a "small risk of a terrible thing happening, it is logical to avoid taking that risk"? If you are trying to suggest that abortion as a form of elective birth control because of the risk of medical emergency (even though there isn't any recognized), you are then saying that it is illogical for a woman to give birth to a child. Do you really wish to defend that position?

    Also, what is the relevance of your statement? How does it pertain to this discussion exactly? What are we to do with it here?

    Here's just one complication to consider:
    There are potential complications in EVERYTHING we do Zorak. We don't "not do something" or "do something" just because there is potential for something. It is only when the risk is relevant and it is significant enough to do something that we take action.

    Again, you seem to be arguing that because there is at least a risk in giving birth (which may or may not cause a medical emergency until it is too late to do something about*) that this is sufficient justification to abort instead of carrying through to pregnancy. Or if not "instead", then at least advocating abortion as an elective form of birth control in light of a potential yet not recognized medical emergency*.


    * There is a difference between recognized medical emergency and an unseen medical emergency that is too late to do anything about. I've already argued that in the cases of ANY recognized medical emergency the patient may legitimately (in terms of ethics and reason) use abortion as a medical procedure as advised/recommended by her physician. This means that you must be referring not to the former (recognized medical emergency) but rather the latter scenario (an unseen medical emergency that is too late to do anything about, thus resulting in serious harm or death to the mother). So, since we've isolated the scenario...what are the facts of this scenario? How many cases occur in which the physical or medical team failed to recognize a medical emergency, were too late to do anything about it, and the result was harm or death to the mother? Since this is your assertion here, you need to turn it into an argument by providing evidence for it.

    How Common Are High Blood Pressure and Preeclampsia in Pregnancy?
    High blood pressure problems occur in 6 percent to 8 percent of all pregnancies in the U.S., about 70 percent of which are first-time pregnancies. In 1998, more than 146,320 cases of preeclampsia alone were diagnosed.

    Although the proportion of pregnancies with gestational hypertension and eclampsia has remained about the same in the U.S. over the past decade, the rate of preeclampsia has increased by nearly one-third. This increase is due in part to a rise in the numbers of older mothers and of multiple births, where preeclampsia occurs more frequently. For example, in 1998 birth rates among women ages 30 to 44 and the number of births to women ages 45 and older were at the highest levels in 3 decades, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Furthermore, between 1980 and 1998, rates of twin births increased about 50 percent overall and 1,000 percent among women ages 45 to 49; rates of triplet and other higher-order multiple births jumped more than 400 percent overall, and 1,000 percent among women in their 40s.

    Who Is More Likely to Develop Preeclampsia?
    Women with chronic hypertension (high blood pressure before becoming pregnant).
    Women who developed high blood pressure or preeclampsia during a previous pregnancy, especially if these conditions occurred early in the pregnancy.
    Women who are obese prior to pregnancy.
    Pregnant women under the age of 20 or over the age of 40.
    Women who are pregnant with more than one baby.
    Women with diabetes, kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, or scleroderma.
    How Is Preeclampsia Detected?
    Unfortunately, there is no single test to predict or diagnose preeclampsia. Key signs are increased blood pressure and protein in the urine (proteinuria). Other symptoms that seem to occur with preeclampsia include persistent headaches, blurred vision or sensitivity to light, and abdominal pain.

    All of these sensations can be caused by other disorders; they can also occur in healthy pregnancies. Regular visits with your doctor help him or her to track your blood pressure and level of protein in your urine, to order and analyze blood tests that detect signs of preeclampsia, and to monitor fetal development more closely.

    http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/publ...p/hbp_preg.htm
    This is irrelevant for reasons explained above. It isn't about "any existing risk", but about unseen medical emergencies that are too late to recognize and thus too late to do anything about, thus resulting in harm or death of the mother.

    There are often no signs of risk until late in the pregnancy.
    A sign of risk is a sign of risk. I never said "only risk which is noticed early." I said any recognition of medical emergency, so the time window is entirely irrelevant. I'll go on to clarify and expand my position...

    In the event of an immediate emergency, abortion ought to be done (it is an emergency procedure).
    In the event that a relevant and significant risk that will probably result in a medical emergency, abortion can be done (it is an emergency procedure) at the recommendation of the tending physician.

    And yet it will be a debate like this one that determines the legality of abortion and people's thinking on the nature of abortion, which is of interest to me.
    Right, but it is an entirely different issue. I'm only addressing 1 issue in this thread: "Does the necessity of an emergency abortion justify all other cases in which abortion is used as an elective form of birth control?" I do not care about any other issue...so if you wish to discuss an issue other than this one, I'm not your guy. If you do wish to have that kind of a discussion, then you should:

    1) respond to it if someone has made it in this thread
    2) create a new thread about that issue

    Just because abortion is the larger umbrella topic, it doesn't mean that all issues involving abortion will be relevant in all abortion threads. We try to contain threads to the issue of the argument that is made. It's the best way to drive traffic, keep participants interested, and keep the discussion relevant and on topic.

    I'm not interested in debating that. I'm interested in debating whether anti-abortion rhetoric increases homicidal and suicidal behaviors. You've said it's irrelevant because it doesn't necessarily increase that behavior in all cases. I'm arguing that it increases, slightly, the risk of something really bad. It's relevant.
    Which is the same reasoning used for the atheist banning all religion. I used that as an example to illustrate why it is bad reasoning. You can't just say that this type of reasoning be applied ONLY to abortion but nothing else. We are still using the framework of the argument and it is under contention. Specifically, that "framework" is "Since some people in Group A do X, we should disallow Group A." That is essentially what you are arguing here Zorak. It's a mesh of the hasty generalization, biased sample, and unrepresentative sample fallacies.

    And using this same fallacious reasoning, we could address an even more serious risk than people carrying babies...we could outlaw Islam! After all, Islam is a religion that allows for the relevant and significant risk of Muslim Extremists who kill more people than giving birth does in this country as well as the incalculable economic and psychological damage they are responsible for. If we accept such fallacious reasoning Zorak, to be consistent, we must also unite to ban the religion of Islam! Surely...you don't support such a thing, do you? If not...then you must concede that you are inconsistent with your reasoning and the only reason you apply it to abortion is out of emotional appeal and bias (neither of which is an attribute of good reasoning).

    certainly: people who hear anti-abortion rhetoric are more likely to develop homicidal and suicidal behaviors than those who do not.
    People who are atheists are more likely to want to ban religion entirely (private or public).
    People who are Muslim are more likely to be radical, religious extremists bent on destroying people and nations that do not share such extreme values and views.

    This is just bad reasoning Zorak.

    Sure, but the risk is reduced by wearing a seat belt. that's why I used the comparison.

    oops, I forgot. Well, in that case, perhaps I could discuss how we now have safety needles which immediately retract after use and are disposed in biohazard containers on every wall in every room in the hospital so nurses aren't walking around with HIV-laden shivs.
    Reduction of risk is irrelevant as it is still an unqualified statement. But I think we have more than enough to chew on in the discussion so I don't know that these points are necessary any longer (unless you bring them up the unqualified statement again.

    let me know if it's still unclear
    Not really, because you emphasize the use of the word "necessarily." But as I mention above, perhaps there's enough meat to chew here that this point is minor enough to exclude?

    Unless there's some other consideration in place. For example, an individual may decide it's worth the risk of commuting to work every day in order to make more money. It still makes sense for them to wear a seat belt. What reason do you have to support the rhetoric of anti-abortion groups? Assuming for a moment it's causing a risk of increased homicidal and suicidal behavior?
    I would imagine that anti-abortion groups disagree with abortion being used as elective birth control as a justification due to the existence of medical emergencies because:
    1) It's bad reasoning.
    2) They believe it is immoral.
    3) They believe all life ought to be protected and a fetus is considered human life.
    4) They may be operating from a deep, religiously held conviction and obligation to protect life.

    But I don't know, you'll have to ask them. I'm not a part of any anti-abortion group and never have been.

    That was never my argument. You interpreted it that way and I may have been unclear. However, I doubt we disagree on the basic ethical principles here. It's risky to eat hamburgers, for example. However, that's a matter of personal choice, is it not?
    Well, the way it was worded left it open to interpretation, if you are clarifying the position that's fine. Can you do so now? And yes, I agree that hamburgers are risky, but that it is a matter of personal choice. But you are making a distinction somehow...and you haven't stated what that distinction is.

    I never argued that the 1st amendment should be thrown out, only that free speech ought to be practiced in a responsible way, one that does not risk lives.
    Well...then what are you proposing? I can get behind this statement...in fact, I've consistently argued for this position. My objection has been your inclusion of an evil act (killing people who give or receive abortions) with those who merely object to abortions on moral grounds. There's a huge difference and your argumentation doesn't seem to be making that distinction.

    what risk are you referring to?
    The media reporting certain military events that are underway (potentially causes soldiers to be at risk by giving intel to the enemy) is one example.

    All guilt is 'self-guilt'!
    Right, I'm referring to the cause though. You offered some potential causes, I offered some. Some are due to personal morals or later insights. I'm referring to those as being self-caused...vs something that was an external mechanism.

    Meanwhile, our ideas are heavily influenced by the images and ideas around us, especially related to understanding what is taboo and 'immoral' vs. what is acceptable. We're a very social species, so we learn what behavior is acceptable so that we can fit into our society and increase our chances of survival and reproduction. Believing that a behavior was wrong and will result in continued rejection, spurning and misery is what leads to suicide, not the recognition that they could have raised the baby. Realizing they could have raised the baby would only have led to feelings of sadness, which do not result in suicide unless associated with feelings of hopelessness (that the sadness will never end). However, most people realize that sadness is not like that, as they've been sad many times and cried, and then felt better.
    I'll defer to your expertise on this one with the exception of the bold....

    Believing that a behavior was wrong and will result in continued rejection, spurning and misery is what leads to suicide

    To be clear...the reason that the majority of these women committed suicide wasn't just because they believed they committed a horribly immoral act by killing a person, but rather they committed a wrong which will result in continued rejection, spurning and misery (from other people), is this correct?

    And even so, how is it then not the reasonable solution to properly counsel women who are considering elective abortion (vs disallowing people to peacefully protest and voice their position about abortion in allowance with the 1st Amendment)?

    Thanks, I'm sure it's a great read and that I'd learn a thing or two. However, I'm already well aware of the difficulties associated with establishing a cause and effect relationship. The only means of doing this in a meaningful way would be to conduct an experiment that would be unethical to conduct.

    The data on whether women who have received abortion are at greater risk for mental health problems seem to be mixed. For example:

    Steinberg and Finer’s analysis, just published online in Social Science & Medicine, examined the same dataset as Coleman et al. (the National Comorbidity Survey) and found that in every case, the proportions of women experiencing mental health problems reported by Coleman were much larger, sometimes more than five times as large, as Steinberg and Finer’s results. The Coleman findings were also inconsistent with several other published studies using the same dataset and sample.
    “We were unable to reproduce the most basic tabulations of Coleman and colleagues,” says Steinberg, postdoctoral fellow at UCSF. “Moreover, their findings were logically inconsistent with other published research—for example, they found higher rates of depression in the last month than other studies found during respondents’ entire lifetimes. This suggests that their results are substantially inflated.”

    http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2.../13/index.html

    I hope that this is true. However, I would posit that the most likely reality is one in which a small percentage of women are susceptible to the rhetoric of anti-abortion groups and are likely to experience depression and suicidal behaviors as a result of those pressures. There is a tremendous body of evidence to support the correlation between peer pressure and self-esteem, depression, especially in younger adults.
    If there isn't a clear answer one way or another...then it doesn't seem reasonable to try to support it with this type of study in your argument. Or perhaps I'm missing the point of this portion of your post?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    I expect nothing less than perfection!
    Brace for disappointment, then!
    I've made the mistake of spreading myself thin in the past and disappointing others involved in the discussion. So my strategy now is to just participate in a couple discussions that interest me the most, lurk in a couple that interest me somewhat, and ignore all the rest.
    True, that. I don't know how you do as much of this as you do. I scarcely have time to keep up with 2 debates. I'll also keep it brief:

    You interpreted my argument as:
    Women ought to abort instead of give birth because giving birth is an unnecessary risk and is more dangerous than aborting the child.
    What I've actually been arguing is: Women deserve the right to decide, for themselves, after receiving accurate education regarding the potential risks and benefits associated with each option, whether to continue a pregnancy to term or to abort the pregnancy.

    I'll go on to clarify and expand my position...

    In the event of an immediate emergency, abortion ought to be done (it is an emergency procedure).
    If there's really no time, then yes. Usually there's time to ask for informed consent -- 'you're in danger due to excessively high blood pressure. we'd recommend a surgery to remove the baby, that could save your life; there's only a small risk associated with the procedure to you. Your baby has X chance of surviving with the procedure, Y without it. May we perform the surgery?"


    In the event that a relevant and significant risk that will probably result in a medical emergency, abortion can be done (it is an emergency procedure) at the recommendation of the tending physician.
    Can you specify what you mean by 'probably'. Greater than 50% chance of something lethal happening? A ten-fold increased risk of mortality? Would you expect everyone to agree on that number? If not, would you feel justified imposing the risk you feel comfortable with a woman taking with her life to produce a child for adoption, onto someone else? I, personally, do not. Here's where I'm the one in favor of smaller government, perhaps.

    [I]"Does the necessity of an emergency abortion justify all other cases in which abortion is used as an elective form of birth control?"
    I assume you mean, 'does the necessity of an emergency abortion in some cases justify abortion as an elective form of birth control in all cases'. If so, then, I would say 'no', it's not another person's emergency that justifies our choices. It isn't several or a few emergencies, either. It is the overall risk of all negative outcomes associated with abortion. Apparently about 1 in 6 pregnancies experience some kind of complication. It's not just the one thing you are interested in debating (the risk to a woman's life), it's everything that might be important in her life. It's not just that she might die of undiagnosed preeclampsia or have to undergo emergency surgery which is more risky than planned surgery, or that she has an increased risk of an embolus going to her brain and having a stroke and never moving the left side of her body again or never talking again or dying. It's the risk of having a miscarriage and dying of internal hemorrhaging and the risk of developing gestational diabetes and dying from that or of having a graft-vs-host disease that kills her or prevents her from having other children. It's also the risk to her reproductive opportunities in the future, the risk to her employment and education, the risk of losing a desirable partner, the risk of post-partum depression (a staggering 11% of women develop this after delivery and some go on to end their lives) and psychosis and the risk of any treatment used to help with any of these and many other problems.

    http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html

    This again, is a red herring fallacy Zorak because it tries to cover up the real issue by throwing in the irrelevant variable of time. It doesn't matter if the need for an emergency procedure is recognized early or late in the pregnancy, it's still an emergency procedure.
    I don't think we're on the same page, but I'm not sure why. A woman is automatically at increased risk, the moment she gets pregnant, of having a complication associated with pregnancy. That risk is much higher than the risk of getting an abortion and increases as time goes on. Abortion is safer earlier in the pregnancy, so it doesn't make sense to wait around to see if some horrible life-threatening thing is going to happen. Waiting increases the risk. It makes sense to let women know their odds and decide for themselves. Time is absolutely of the essence in this decision-making process, especially considering the wait-times to see the few qualified physicians out there who still offer this service despite being told they are evil and they're going to be killed, on the way into work every morning.


    Which is the same reasoning used for the atheist banning all religion. I used that as an example to illustrate why it is bad reasoning. You can't just say that this type of reasoning be applied ONLY to abortion but nothing else. We are still using the framework of the argument and it is under contention. Specifically, that "framework" is "Since some people in Group A do X, we should disallow Group A." That is essentially what you are arguing here Zorak. It's a mesh of the hasty generalization, biased sample, and unrepresentative sample fallacies.
    That's not what I've been saying, though. I have never called for banning any group. I'm not demanding that Catholics get abortions. If a woman is pro-life or pro-choice, I'm fine with her decision to have her baby or not have her baby. I honestly don't see how it's any of my business and I don't care one bit. I'm asking for women to have the right to choose and not be judged or have to justify their decision to anyone, ever again. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. That's fine with me. I won't force you.

    People who are atheists are more likely to want to ban religion entirely (private or public).
    People who are Muslim are more likely to be radical, religious extremists bent on destroying people and nations that do not share such extreme values and views.

    This is just bad reasoning Zorak.
    what is? I don't think pro-lifers should threaten doctors or guilt-trip teens. I don't think muslims should be encouraging other muslims to become terrorists or that atheists should threaten muslims or other theists. what inconsistency are you referring to?

    And even so, how is it then not the reasonable solution to properly counsel women who are considering elective abortion (vs disallowing people to peacefully protest and voice their position about abortion in allowance with the 1st Amendment)?
    These are huge issues, each deserving of a page or two. I don't have that time or energy. In short, it's fine to offer counseling but not to mandate it. For example, if someone felt guilty for having an abortion, they have a right to maintain a value system that defines abortion as wrong. It's not anyone's decision but theirs. So long as they believe what the did was wrong, they'll feel guilty. I'd offer help but not force it.

    Secondly, it depends on how you define a peaceful protest. These things often get out of hand. Praying in one's church would be a nice peaceful protest, in my opinion. However, anything that would shame a girl from going to see her doctor would be a horrible abuse of that 1st Amendment right as it would violate her right to get medical care, in general, not just an abortion. I think it's about 1% of the funding for Planned Parenthood goes to abortion.
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  12. #52
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    Brace for disappointment, then!
    Drat!

    What I've actually been arguing is: Women deserve the right to decide, for themselves, after receiving accurate education regarding the potential risks and benefits associated with each option, whether to continue a pregnancy to term or to abort the pregnancy.
    OK, so let's clarify your argument. The issue we are discussing is:

    "Is a abortion, as necessary medical procedure to save the mother's life, justification for abortion to be used as elective birth control?"

    So your response to it, given the above statement by you, is: "Yes, abortion as elective birth control is justified by abortion as a medical procedure because women have the right to do so."

    Is that accurate? If not, can you clarify? If it is accurate...do you see the problem with that response as it pertains to the issue? The justification isn't actually "abortion as a medical procedure"...your justification for the elective birth control is "women have the right to do so." In other words, you aren't addressing the issue, you've given us another issue to address instead. This is what is called the red herring fallacy Zorak. It is an error in the reasoning process.

    We are asking "Is X justified by Y?"

    X = abortion as elective birth control
    Y = abortion as a necessary medical response

    What you are saying is: "X is justified by Z"

    Z = women have rights to decide for themselves

    If there's really no time, then yes. Usually there's time to ask for informed consent -- 'you're in danger due to excessively high blood pressure. we'd recommend a surgery to remove the baby, that could save your life; there's only a small risk associated with the procedure to you. Your baby has X chance of surviving with the procedure, Y without it. May we perform the surgery?"
    We agree here.

    Can you specify what you mean by 'probably'. Greater than 50% chance of something lethal happening? A ten-fold increased risk of mortality?
    I don't know. I'll defer to the physician on this. If you note, I did say "at the recommendation of the tending physician." The physician is in a much better place to make that determination as to what to do than I. This is why I'm accepting of the physician's recommendation as to what to do.

    I assume you mean, 'does the necessity of an emergency abortion in some cases justify abortion as an elective form of birth control in all cases'.
    I see no difference between the use of the qualifier "some" and the use of the qualifier "other" here. See below for explanation.

    If so, then, I would say 'no', it's not another person's emergency that justifies our choices. It isn't several or a few emergencies, either. It is the overall risk of all negative outcomes associated with abortion.
    But the argument that is given by pro-choicers and the argument I'm objecting to, is the idea that because there are instances of where a medical emergency is necessary (which we can say are other than this one we are about to use in the example) that in any specific case a mother may legitimately use abortion as elective birth control (meaning...in a case that there is no medical emergency and doctors have not recommended an emergency procedure).

    Apparently about 1 in 6 pregnancies experience some kind of complication. It's not just the one thing you are interested in debating (the risk to a woman's life), it's everything that might be important in her life. It's not just that she might die of undiagnosed preeclampsia or have to undergo emergency surgery which is more risky than planned surgery, or that she has an increased risk of an embolus going to her brain and having a stroke and never moving the left side of her body again or never talking again or dying. It's the risk of having a miscarriage and dying of internal hemorrhaging and the risk of developing gestational diabetes and dying from that or of having a graft-vs-host disease that kills her or prevents her from having other children. It's also the risk to her reproductive opportunities in the future, the risk to her employment and education, the risk of losing a desirable partner, the risk of post-partum depression (a staggering 11% of women develop this after delivery and some go on to end their lives) and psychosis and the risk of any treatment used to help with any of these and many other problems.

    http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html
    Let's deal and clarify your last statement here.

    11% of women are diagnosed with PPD after giving birth.

    This is not the same thing as saying "A woman has an 11% to develop PPD after pregnancy." Do you understand the distinction?

    In addition, using this statistic is contrary to what you said before:

    it's not another person's emergency that justifies our choices. It isn't several or a few emergencies, either. It is the overall risk of all negative outcomes associated with abortion.

    The overall risk is the specific risk to the specific mother.

    Also, just because a woman has PPD, it does not mean that harm will fall on either mother or child. Most women recovery just fine. In fact, the actual number of what you should have reported (since PPD is in itself, not the issue but rather Postpartum Psychosis is instead), is the very small number of .01% to .02%...which is the % of women who experience postpartum psychosis.
    http://www.womens-wellbeing-and-ment...epression.html
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...cary-treatable

    In order for the potential for PPD to mean anything relevant here we need to know:

    1) what the odds are of the specific mother getting PPD (not how many women get PPD) and what are the odds of that developing into PPP (whatever it is, it is extremely, extremely low).
    2) and in order for #1 to be relevant, we need to know how many women with PPP don't recover and end up hurting themselves or someone else (the total over all cases would be even lower than .01%-.02% because this # represents all women who come down with PPP, not women who are are treated.

    To be clear...it isn't PPD that women have to fear, it is PPP.

    I don't think we're on the same page, but I'm not sure why. A woman is automatically at increased risk, the moment she gets pregnant, of having a complication associated with pregnancy. That risk is much higher than the risk of getting an abortion and increases as time goes on. Abortion is safer earlier in the pregnancy, so it doesn't make sense to wait around to see if some horrible life-threatening thing is going to happen. Waiting increases the risk. It makes sense to let women know their odds and decide for themselves. Time is absolutely of the essence in this decision-making process, especially considering the wait-times to see the few qualified physicians out there who still offer this service despite being told they are evil and they're going to be killed, on the way into work every morning.
    The issue you are addressing though, is:

    "Does the risk of pregnancy justify elective abortion?"

    An interesting issue, but not one I'm discussing. It ought to be made in a separate thread to attract attention and traffic of those who wish to engage in a discussion about that issue.

    The issue I am referring to is specific:

    "Is a abortion, as necessary medical procedure to save the mother's life, justification for abortion to be used as elective birth control?"

    That's not what I've been saying, though. I have never called for banning any group. I'm not demanding that Catholics get abortions. If a woman is pro-life or pro-choice, I'm fine with her decision to have her baby or not have her baby. I honestly don't see how it's any of my business and I don't care one bit. I'm asking for women to have the right to choose and not be judged or have to justify their decision to anyone, ever again. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. That's fine with me. I won't force you.
    But you were suggesting that because there exists anti-abortion rhetoric, this allows for the possibility of someone to get the idea in their head to go bomb and kill abortion clinics.

    Zorak: In our debate, the question is whether anti-abortion rhetoric constitutes a risk to innocent people. We know that doctors have been killed and abortion clinics bombed and women harassed

    Did you forget this particular discussion? You just said that the anti-abortion rhetoric (the outspoken position that abortion ought not to be engaged in) constitutes a risk. You then argued that what has a risk ought not to be engaged in. Which means that people ought not be allowed to speak out against abortion (which is anti-abortion rhetoric) because of the risk that it has to innocent people (the risk = some people who hear the anti-abortion rhetoric go out to harm other people...and this is the commission of the fallacious reasoning I have been explaining to you).

    I think either you misspoke or may be backpedaling here.

    what is? I don't think pro-lifers should threaten doctors or guilt-trip teens. I don't think muslims should be encouraging other muslims to become terrorists or that atheists should threaten muslims or other theists. what inconsistency are you referring to?
    I agree that pro-lifers should not threaten others and that Muslims should not encourage others to do harm. The inconsistency here though, is the idea that anti-abortion rhetoric ought to be disallowed because it causes a risk through those who hear the anti-abortion rhetoric and go out to do harm, even though their actions are not condoned by those engaging in anti-abortion rhetoric.

    These are huge issues, each deserving of a page or two. I don't have that time or energy. In short, it's fine to offer counseling but not to mandate it. For example, if someone felt guilty for having an abortion, they have a right to maintain a value system that defines abortion as wrong. It's not anyone's decision but theirs. So long as they believe what the did was wrong, they'll feel guilty. I'd offer help but not force it.

    Secondly, it depends on how you define a peaceful protest. These things often get out of hand. Praying in one's church would be a nice peaceful protest, in my opinion. However, anything that would shame a girl from going to see her doctor would be a horrible abuse of that 1st Amendment right as it would violate her right to get medical care, in general, not just an abortion. I think it's about 1% of the funding for Planned Parenthood goes to abortion.
    To be clear, the 1st Amendment exercise of speaking out against abortion ought to be done privately, not publicly. Right? And you do realize, that as a result this is contrary to the 1st Amendment...right?

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Speaking freely and peacefully assembling includes doing so in a public place, Zorak. A church is private property.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  13. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    OK, so let's clarify your argument.
    It'd be nice if someone would do that for me, yes.

    The issue we are discussing is:

    "Is a abortion, as necessary medical procedure to save the mother's life, justification for abortion to be used as elective birth control?"

    So your response to it, given the above statement by you, is: "Yes, abortion as elective birth control is justified by abortion as a medical procedure because women have the right to do so."
    It went like this:

    Apok: So, Zorak, you're saying women ought to have abortions due to blah-de-flim-wah
    Zorak: No, I'm saying women deserve the right to choose whether to have an abortion due to flim-wah-dee-doodle

    I only wanted to clarify that I am not arguing that all women ought to have an abortion the moment they get pregnant. That practice would bode ill for the survival of our humble species.

    I'm also underscoring that I do not see abortion as an immoral act that requires justification. I understand that you see it as immoral and requiring justification, however, and I'm delighted to have the 1st amendment right to discuss that in this forum. Whoever created this is a true Patriot.


    We are asking "Is X justified by Y?"

    X = abortion as elective birth control
    Y = abortion as a necessary medical response

    What you are saying is: "X is justified by Z"

    Z = women have rights to decide for themselves
    By my calculation, the train will arrive at the station at precisely three o'clock.

    We agree here.
    Really? Then I'm even more confused . . . You see it as appropriate, in emergency situations at least, to prioritize a woman's right to decide the fate of her body and the fate of her fetus? I would have expected you to argue that the mother and fetus have equal rights to life and that the fetus deserves a voice in the decision-making process.

    I don't know. I'll defer to the physician on this. If you note, I did say "at the recommendation of the tending physician." The physician is in a much better place to make that determination as to what to do than I. This is why I'm accepting of the physician's recommendation as to what to do.
    Hm, that's interesting to me as well. I would not want physicians to have the actual decision-making capacity when it came to procedures. Consider, for example, a woman who was extremely pro-life. If her physician did not share that viewpoint, then he might make decisions that would be very different from what she wanted. The opposite is true, as well.

    I see no difference between the use of the qualifier "some" and the use of the qualifier "other" here. See below for explanation.
    I was differentiating between logical arguments of this form:

    a. some people have died after going to Australia. Therefore, we shouldn't go to Australia.
    b. our chances of dying, if we go to Australia, are X. Hence, we would prefer to stay right here, thank you very much.

    But the argument that is given by pro-choicers and the argument I'm objecting to, is the idea that because there are instances of where a medical emergency is necessary (which we can say are other than this one we are about to use in the example) that in any specific case a mother may legitimately use abortion as elective birth control (meaning...in a case that there is no medical emergency and doctors have not recommended an emergency procedure).
    What is your reasoning?


    Let's deal and clarify your last statement here.

    11% of women are diagnosed with PPD after giving birth.

    This is not the same thing as saying "A woman has an 11% to develop PPD after pregnancy." Do you understand the distinction?
    Yes, there are several distinctions. Are you referring, in particular, to an individual woman's chances, as opposed to the group's risk?

    In addition, using this statistic is contrary to what you said before:

    it's not another person's emergency that justifies our choices. It isn't several or a few emergencies, either. It is the overall risk of all negative outcomes associated with abortion.

    The overall risk is the specific risk to the specific mother.
    Certainly. Even if we know all the data, there's still a lot of error in those predictions, however.

    Also, just because a woman has PPD, it does not mean that harm will fall on either mother or child. Most women recovery just fine. In fact, the actual number of what you should have reported (since PPD is in itself, not the issue but rather Postpartum Psychosis is instead), is the very small number of .01% to .02%...which is the % of women who experience postpartum psychosis.
    http://www.womens-wellbeing-and-ment...epression.html
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...cary-treatable

    In order for the potential for PPD to mean anything relevant here we need to know:

    1) what the odds are of the specific mother getting PPD (not how many women get PPD) and what are the odds of that developing into PPP (whatever it is, it is extremely, extremely low).
    2) and in order for #1 to be relevant, we need to know how many women with PPP don't recover and end up hurting themselves or someone else (the total over all cases would be even lower than .01%-.02% because this # represents all women who come down with PPP, not women who are are treated.

    To be clear...it isn't PPD that women have to fear, it is PPP.
    That's not entirely true. PPD is a terrible disease. The last patient I treated with it had attempted suicide three times, been hospitalized for several weeks and was receiving ECT treatment and had lost many of her most precious memories, as a result. PPP is terrible, that's true. However, PPD is no laughing matter.

    The issue you are addressing though, is:

    "Does the risk of pregnancy justify elective abortion?"

    An interesting issue, but not one I'm discussing. It ought to be made in a separate thread to attract attention and traffic of those who wish to engage in a discussion about that issue.

    The issue I am referring to is specific:

    "Is a abortion, as necessary medical procedure to save the mother's life, justification for abortion to be used as elective birth control?"
    Yes, and I apologize for making this more complicated than it may need to be, but are you trying to justify abortion to someone in particular or to everyone, generally? I don't need you to justify abortion to me. I'm fine if you don't think it's justified, too.

    But you were suggesting that because there exists anti-abortion rhetoric, this allows for the possibility of someone to get the idea in their head to go bomb and kill abortion clinics.
    Yes, I believe there is a non-negligible risk for certain anti-abortion rhetoric to trigger behaviors, though intended to protect babies, results in harming adults.
    Zorak: In our debate, the question is whether anti-abortion rhetoric constitutes a risk to innocent people. We know that doctors have been killed and abortion clinics bombed and women harassed

    Did you forget this particular discussion? You just said that the anti-abortion rhetoric (the outspoken position that abortion ought not to be engaged in) constitutes a risk. You then argued that what has a risk ought not to be engaged in. Which means that people ought not be allowed to speak out against abortion (which is anti-abortion rhetoric) because of the risk that it has to innocent people (the risk = some people who hear the anti-abortion rhetoric go out to harm other people...and this is the commission of the fallacious reasoning I have been explaining to you).
    Just to make sure I understand, can we just play, 'true-false' for a moment?

    a. Not all people who hear such rhetoric will act in violent ways
    b. Limiting such rhetoric violates the rights of citizens
    c. There is no causal link between anti-abortion rhetoric and violence aimed at abortion providers
    d. Deciding to limit free speech on such grounds would require silencing many other groups whose rhetoric might lead to violence
    I think either you misspoke or may be backpedaling here.
    I do draw a distinction between peaceful and violent language. For example, one could say:

    a. "All Christians gotta die because they're bombing abortion clinics left and right"

    or one might say,

    b. "Some pro-Lifers are putting innocent women and doctors at risk"


    similarly, there's a difference between:

    c. "Would you like to learn more about a pro-Life perspective on abortion?"

    and

    d. "You have blood on your hands, baby-killer. Blood on your hands for all eternity!!!!!"

    I agree that pro-lifers should not threaten others and that Muslims should not encourage others to do harm. The inconsistency here though, is the idea that anti-abortion rhetoric ought to be disallowed because it causes a risk through those who hear the anti-abortion rhetoric and go out to do harm, even though their actions are not condoned by those engaging in anti-abortion rhetoric.
    That's a good point, I think. I still place free will above duty, however. You may believe that a person who is certain they are correct about their opinions on abortion is duty-bound to inform others. I don't think that. I think it's fine to invite that discussion with others, but not to impose one's opinion on others.

    A few other thoughts related to this:

    If a large group of people are headed up to the castle with torches (because it's dark) and pitchforks (because they just got off work in the fields), and all they wanted was to make a strong impression on the King as to their opinions regarding a recent tax increase . . . and just one of those people in the crowd is a bit slow, mentally . . . then there's some risk for that person to make some dangerous decisions. When people are angry, they tend to communicate poorly, using a lot of hyperbole. 'The king is a fink', shouts one. There is an uproar of applause. 'The king is Satan', shouts another. There's an even more boisterous applause. The confused guy shouts, 'The king deserves to die'! There's laughter and cheering. People are getting out their angst and enjoying themselves. The king then appears on the road, on horseback, riding towards town for a sandwich and the confused guy stabs him in the chest with a pitchfork, laughing, 'I killed the king, see!'. Everyone in the crowd goes silent and is horrified.

    Tell me that doesn't suck.

    To be clear, the 1st Amendment exercise of speaking out against abortion ought to be done privately, not publicly. Right? And you do realize, that as a result this is contrary to the 1st Amendment...right?
    Well, that was hyperbole on my side, I"m afraid. Double-drats! No, I don't think pro-Lifers need to be confined to the church. It'd be great if they got out more, in fact. And I'm not talking about repealing their 1st Amendment rights, either. Here's what I'd prefer, though:

    Instead of saying X, say Y:

    X. Abortion is Murder --> Y. I would adopt your child and love them.
    X. Abortion stops a beating heart --> Y. Would you like information on the biology of fetal life?
    X. Abortion cannot be justified by medical emergency --> Y. I would prefer that women not have abortions unless there's an imminent medical risk

    In the last case, you don't even need to justify those preferences, in my opinion. Those are your preferences and it's your 1st Amendment right to shout them out in the street. Go for it!

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Speaking freely and peacefully assembling includes doing so in a public place, Zorak. A church is private property.
    Well, o.k., I suppose you can keep your tongue, for now.

    Seriously, though, I not only support the 1st Amendment, I'm currently celebrating it -- I'm expressing a preference regarding the rhetorical style of not just anti-abortion groups, but of all groups and people. I'm also glad that you're able to express your opinion that medical emergencies are not an adequate moral justification for a woman using abortion as birth control. Perhaps you would want to donate to Planned Parenthood, then, so that they can provide a more diverse array of choices for contraception?
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  14. #54
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    It went like this:

    Apok: So, Zorak, you're saying women ought to have abortions due to blah-de-flim-wah
    Zorak: No, I'm saying women deserve the right to choose whether to have an abortion due to flim-wah-dee-doodle

    I only wanted to clarify that I am not arguing that all women ought to have an abortion the moment they get pregnant. That practice would bode ill for the survival of our humble species.

    I'm also underscoring that I do not see abortion as an immoral act that requires justification. I understand that you see it as immoral and requiring justification, however, and I'm delighted to have the 1st amendment right to discuss that in this forum. Whoever created this is a true Patriot.
    Yes yes, I'm aware of that. I was referring to the bigger argument, the one I've been focusing on, the one I have to for some reason, keep bringing you back to as you seem to wander off a lot...specifically:

    "Is an abortion, as a necessary medical procedure to save the mother's life, justification for abortion to be used as elective birth control?"

    So, once again, what is your answer to that question? And I'm not referring to moral justification, but logical justification. I suspect there is a problem here because you may be unfamiliar with some necessary rules of reasoning (see next).


    By my calculation, the train will arrive at the station at precisely three o'clock.
    By this, I can only assume you are not aware of what the argument was. Are you familiar with propositional logic? I'm trying my best to stay away from it, but felt the need to at least bring in applicable variables to show how the form of the argument is setup. I'm showing you how your answer thus far to the question re: logical justification, has always been a red herring. You are responding to the question with a new issue (which is a result of fallacious reasoning). Do you understand why? Do I need to explain a bit more?

    I don't know how much further this can proceed with you understanding some of these concepts Zorak. There really are rules to proper reasoning and if they are not used or if they are abused, it leads to bad conclusions.

    Really? Then I'm even more confused . . . You see it as appropriate, in emergency situations at least, to prioritize a woman's right to decide the fate of her body and the fate of her fetus? I would have expected you to argue that the mother and fetus have equal rights to life and that the fetus deserves a voice in the decision-making process.
    1) It's the position I've maintained throughout this thread.
    2) It's the position I've maintained throughout every discussion where this has come up.
    3) Nowhere I have said or posted anything that could be construed otherwise.

    It's why it is important to pay attention to what is actually said instead of respond to what you believe other participants in a discussion think.

    Hm, that's interesting to me as well. I would not want physicians to have the actual decision-making capacity when it came to procedures. Consider, for example, a woman who was extremely pro-life. If her physician did not share that viewpoint, then he might make decisions that would be very different from what she wanted. The opposite is true, as well.
    I didn't argue for any such thing. Again, this is an example of how bad reasoning leads to bad conclusions. I'm addressing the issue of "what constitutes legitimate risk." You ask what I thought the threshold was...50%, 10X? I explained that I would not pretend to come up with any line to draw and that I would defer to the judgement of the professional as to where that line ought to be. This does not mean that the physician gets to take over all decisions about such procedures. It only addresses the issue of what is considered to be a risk that should cause alarm.

    I was differentiating between logical arguments of this form:

    a. some people have died after going to Australia. Therefore, we shouldn't go to Australia.
    b. our chances of dying, if we go to Australia, are X. Hence, we would prefer to stay right here, thank you very much.
    1) I do agree with the distinction. And I made that very distinction later in the post.
    2) I don't see how your use of the word change makes that distinction however.

    Regardless, since we both seem to agree that the distinction between the statistics of what has happened and the odds of it happening to a particular individual are entirely different values, we should be able to move on from this point.

    What is your reasoning?
    A necessary medical procedure is a variable that is applicable only those who need to have one, not to all women who are pregnant. It's like saying that "Since we can call the fire department when we do have fires, we can call them any time we want even when we don't have fires" or "Since we call 911 for an emergency, we can call 911 for non-emergencies."

    It's one thing to argue that women ought to be able to have an elective abortion because they have the right to do so and it is not immoral. It's quite another to say women ought to be able to have elective abortions because some women need to have abortions as a necessary medical procedure. It is bad reasoning. It's a non sequitur as well as red herring.

    Yes, there are several distinctions. Are you referring, in particular, to an individual woman's chances, as opposed to the group's risk?
    Yes, it's the same type of distinction you made above w/ your points a. and b.

    Certainly. Even if we know all the data, there's still a lot of error in those predictions, however.
    True. But it is not the case that it is an 11% chance for all women. And that is the point I am making, and the distinction we both should be agreeing on here.

    That's not entirely true. PPD is a terrible disease. The last patient I treated with it had attempted suicide three times, been hospitalized for several weeks and was receiving ECT treatment and had lost many of her most precious memories, as a result. PPP is terrible, that's true. However, PPD is no laughing matter.
    Not saying it isn't terrible. I'm saying that it is not the case that because someone has PPD they will do harm to themselves or others. I'm also saying that it is not the case that even most women who have PPD do harm. I'm also saying that it is not the case that a woman has an 11% chance of developing PPD. To assert ANY of these is highly misleading and results in bad reasoning.

    Yes, and I apologize for making this more complicated than it may need to be, but are you trying to justify abortion to someone in particular or to everyone, generally? I don't need you to justify abortion to me. I'm fine if you don't think it's justified, too.
    No, I'm only arguing 2 things here...

    1) It is fallacious to logically justify elective abortion because some women need to have it as an emergency procedure (this is an argument that is common amongst the pro-choice crowd and it is a fallacious argument).
    2) That most if not almost all pro-lifers do not necessarily take issue abortion as a medical procedure, only abortion as an elective form of birth control. There is a distinction to be made.

    Whether or not you see abortion as being moral or amoral, a right that ought to stay and be defended...are entirely irrelevant to both of these points. Do you understand why or how? I am not disagreeing with you in my argument that abortion is necessarily immoral or that it should be rescinded legally (even though those are positions I hold, they are not positions I'm asserting in this thread, and I think you may be getting tripped up by this, not being used to just addressing arguments that are made and instead wanting to argue points that you think others would maintain, even if not stated).

    Yes, I believe there is a non-negligible risk for certain anti-abortion rhetoric to trigger behaviors, though intended to protect babies, results in harming adults.
    Good, we are clear on this point then. The issue it seems is what ought to be done about it (if anything). Let's see if it plays out here...

    Just to make sure I understand, can we just play, 'true-false' for a moment?

    a. Not all people who hear such rhetoric will act in violent ways
    b. Limiting such rhetoric violates the rights of citizens
    c. There is no causal link between anti-abortion rhetoric and violence aimed at abortion providers
    d. Deciding to limit free speech on such grounds would require silencing many other groups whose rhetoric might lead to violence
    a. True.
    b. True, as long as it is in accordance with the law of course (all free speech is limited in some way or another).
    c. Sort of. It's not true or false. In other words, it isn't as black and white as that. We can't say that "Video games are the direct cause of a kid going into his school and killing other kids." Why not? Because if video games did this, then all kids would be killing others at school as a result of playing video games. The same is applied to speaking out against abortion. There is something else 'brewing' in the psyche of the radical who corrupts the message and twists it to mean or justify something that it actually doesn't (such as using it to legitimize the killing of other people).
    d. True (as long as we maintain it is necessary to be consistent).

    I do draw a distinction between peaceful and violent language. For example, one could say:

    a. "All Christians gotta die because they're bombing abortion clinics left and right"

    or one might say,

    b. "Some pro-Lifers are putting innocent women and doctors at risk"


    similarly, there's a difference between:

    c. "Would you like to learn more about a pro-Life perspective on abortion?"

    and

    d. "You have blood on your hands, baby-killer. Blood on your hands for all eternity!!!!!"
    I concur. There is a responsible way to protest and an irresponsible way. I may be a little more hard-line than some on this actually. I actually favor the disallowance of hate speech for example. I realize that technically, that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. But I believe it ought to be amended. I don't think people like the Westboro goons ought to be allowed to protest the funerals of military servicemen and women, nor gays. I don't think that the KKK ought to spread their filth in derogatory ways. I don't think that pro-lifers ought to be hateful and disrespectful to those they disagree with (practitioners and receivers of abortions). I believe that each group CAN protest and speak their mind, but ought to do so in a respectful way.

    Here's the admitted problem with that: Who or what determines what is respectful and responsible? I don't have a good answer to that. My answer is admittedly, rather subjective and biased against all these groups. It isn't an issue I've fully explored, but one I've "experimented" with in a few discussions from time to time.

    That's a good point, I think. I still place free will above duty, however. You may believe that a person who is certain they are correct about their opinions on abortion is duty-bound to inform others. I don't think that. I think it's fine to invite that discussion with others, but not to impose one's opinion on others.
    Isn't protesting a form of free will? Yes, it is. So what you mean is that there are some issues that free will (when expressed through protest) not be allowed or be severely limited. I agree with the limitations, but as explained above, there it is problematic.

    A few other thoughts related to this:

    If a large group of people are headed up to the castle with torches (because it's dark) and pitchforks (because they just got off work in the fields), and all they wanted was to make a strong impression on the King as to their opinions regarding a recent tax increase . . . and just one of those people in the crowd is a bit slow, mentally . . . then there's some risk for that person to make some dangerous decisions. When people are angry, they tend to communicate poorly, using a lot of hyperbole. 'The king is a fink', shouts one. There is an uproar of applause. 'The king is Satan', shouts another. There's an even more boisterous applause. The confused guy shouts, 'The king deserves to die'! There's laughter and cheering. People are getting out their angst and enjoying themselves. The king then appears on the road, on horseback, riding towards town for a sandwich and the confused guy stabs him in the chest with a pitchfork, laughing, 'I killed the king, see!'. Everyone in the crowd goes silent and is horrified.

    Tell me that doesn't suck.
    It does indeed. For as we all know..."It's good to be the king." But this serves as a perfect example of what I said above.


    Apok:
    c. Sort of. It's not true or false. In other words, it isn't as black and white as that. We can't say that "Video games are the direct cause of a kid going into his school and killing other kids." Why not? Because if video games did this, then all kids would be killing others at school as a result of playing video games. The same is applied to speaking out against abortion. There is something else 'brewing' in the psyche of the radical who corrupts the message and twists it to mean or justify something that it actually doesn't (such as using it to legitimize the killing of other people).

    Well, that was hyperbole on my side, I"m afraid. Double-drats! No, I don't think pro-Lifers need to be confined to the church. It'd be great if they got out more, in fact.
    My church gets out several times a month to help clean up schools, community low-income housing areas, to give food to the needy, raise money for charity by having community events, and going to Mexico to help out in impoverished villages. I'm not quite sure the "need to get out" assertion is something that applies to many Christian churches as every church I've attended is rather involved in their community. I realize that it was more of a smarky little remark than an argument however.

    And I'm not talking about repealing their 1st Amendment rights, either. Here's what I'd prefer, though:

    Instead of saying X, say Y:

    X. Abortion is Murder --> Y. I would adopt your child and love them.
    X. Abortion stops a beating heart --> Y. Would you like information on the biology of fetal life?
    X. Abortion cannot be justified by medical emergency --> Y. I would prefer that women not have abortions unless there's an imminent medical risk

    In the last case, you don't even need to justify those preferences, in my opinion. Those are your preferences and it's your 1st Amendment right to shout them out in the street. Go for it!
    I'm fine with it and really take no issue with it (w/ exception of the bad reasoning of the third, as explained throughout my argument ). I don't like negative campaigns, I don't like aggressive or hostile sells. There is a right way and wrong way to compel others to your position. Rarely is it the case that one can be scared or bullied into it (not at least in any sincere measure of acceptance).

    Well, o.k., I suppose you can keep your tongue, for now.

    Seriously, though, I not only support the 1st Amendment, I'm currently celebrating it -- I'm expressing a preference regarding the rhetorical style of not just anti-abortion groups, but of all groups and people. I'm also glad that you're able to express your opinion that medical emergencies are not an adequate moral justification for a woman using abortion as birth control. Perhaps you would want to donate to Planned Parenthood, then, so that they can provide a more diverse array of choices for contraception?
    I donate what I can, but I do so for what I believe to be much needier and worthy causes.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  15. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Yes yes, I'm aware of that. I was referring to the bigger argument, the one I've been focusing on, the one I have to for some reason, keep bringing you back to as you seem to wander off a lot
    whu, . . . huh? Oh, hello there.

    I do see why you're frustrated, I do wander off. Meanwhile, I wouldn't say I'm focused on the 'smaller argument'. I'm focused on the big picture. I don't see a need to support the argument that 'emergency abortions' are a reason to justify 'casual abortions'. It isn't necessary to support the conclusion that elective abortion is justified. Therefore, I think it didn't seem that interesting to me.

    ...specifically:

    "Is an abortion, as a necessary medical procedure to save the mother's life, justification for abortion to be used as elective birth control?"


    That's a great question. Someone should debate that sometime.

    See, I can be snarky, too!

    So, once again, what is your answer to that question? And I'm not referring to moral justification, but logical justification. I suspect there is a problem here because you may be unfamiliar with some necessary rules of reasoning (see next).
    As I said previously, I can't see how someone else's emergency abortion authorizes your casual abortion. It's like showing up and saying, 'I've heard you offer emergency abortions, I'd like one'. Doc says, 'sure, what's the emergency'. Patient says, 'I'm pregnant'. Doc says, 'technically, that's not an emergency'.

    However, if the girl says, 'well, I'd like one, anyway', then I'd say it's the doctor's decision whether to provide it.

    That's on account of the 'big picture', which is that kids are going to have sex and it's immoral to punish them, severely, for being human. One (irrelevant, you will say) argument is that there are down-sides to every type of birth control. Eliminating the abortion option means choosing between attempting abstinence* or some other form of birth control. There's no evidence for abstinence and many other forms of birth control are significantly worse than elective abortion. For example, if they take the pill, they could get fatal blood clots. If they use an IUD, they could get an infection that renders them infertile. etc. Just as no person is perfect, none of these forms of protection are perfect, so elective abortion is the default 'backup' method when life happens.

    *Abstinence? Hardly.

    'Abstinence-only programs have been discredited by a wide body of evidence, including a Congressionally-mandated study in 2007 which found these programs ineffective in stopping or delaying teen sex, reducing the number of reported sexual partners, reducing sexually transmitted infections, or otherwise beneficially impacting young people’s sexual behavior. Additionally, no study in a professional peer-reviewed journal has found abstinence-only programs to be broadly effective'

    http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/r...only-education

    Expanding, (irrelevantly, you will say) on this argument, a true discussion of the 'big picture' will include a look at consequences. We don't need to 'justify' casual abortion with emergent abortion. There are real reasons to do that. For one, it's dangerous to deny women casual abortions. Specifically, it would be dangerous to provide pregnant women with an incentive to cause medical emergencies, in order to receive an abortion. Also, it would be inappropriate to eliminate a woman's right to remain silent, e.g. a woman who was the victim of rape or incest might not want to disclose her reason for choosing an abortion, for very legitimate reasons. And it wouldn't be practical to conduct lie detection tests on all girls claiming this. Furthermore, an inevitable consequence of allowing abortions only in the case of emergency is that it would increase a girl's incentive to give herself an abortion. Some might try it and many of them would die in the process. It is also the case that a woman might have restricted access to contraceptives or she might have had sex prior to being aware of the risk of pregnancy or her boyfriend might not know what he was doing. Denying her an abortion would be 'cruel and unusual' in the event that she does not want either adoption or motherhood. Nobody deserves a 9-month time-out for making a mistake, in my opinion. I could go on, but I know you see it as irrelevant.


    My church gets out several times a month to help clean up schools, community low-income housing areas, to give food to the needy, raise money for charity by having community events, and going to Mexico to help out in impoverished villages. I'm not quite sure the "need to get out" assertion is something that applies to many Christian churches as every church I've attended is rather involved in their community. I realize that it was more of a smarky little remark than an argument however.
    No problems, 'smarkiness' is one of your better qualities! Just kidding, I think that's awesome.

    Out of curiosity, do you offer education on birth control in that community?
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  16. #56
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    whu, . . . huh? Oh, hello there.

    I do see why you're frustrated, I do wander off. Meanwhile, I wouldn't say I'm focused on the 'smaller argument'. I'm focused on the big picture. I don't see a need to support the argument that 'emergency abortions' are a reason to justify 'casual abortions'. It isn't necessary to support the conclusion that elective abortion is justified. Therefore, I think it didn't seem that interesting to me.
    I understand, but we are approaching this in 2 different ways. You are wanting to approach it from a socio-moral standpoint, and I'm approaching it from a purely critical thinking standpoint. That is, you see no need to justify anything because it is both legal and moral. But I'm not addressing that type of justification. I'm referring to the reasoning used to lead us to the conclusion. The "justification" I'm referring to is the "reasoning". We are using the term in 2 different ways.

    I see the definite need to justify the REASONING that one uses when they claim that elective abortions ought to be condoned because some people need emergency abortions. That is, the only reason I entered this discussion was to correct bad reasoning (not to make moral judgments). In other words, someone like yourself, who is a pro-choicer, can just as easily attack the stated logical justification that is offered through that argument. And when they do so, they are not attacking the moral nature of abortion, nor the legal aspects, nor are they suggesting that abortion laws ought to be amended, nor are they suggesting in any way that someone shouldn't get an abortion.

    What they, and anyone focusing on showing others how to properly reason is focusing on, is the bad reasoning that was used to arrive at that conclusion. Bear with me here as I explain a little more about proper reasoning (tiz the TA and minor in philosophy in me coming out now)...

    That argument is an invalid argument. Every argument has a particular form, and when that form is not followed, the argument is simply a bad (invalid) argument.

    Here's an example of proper form:

    All X is Y.
    All Y, is Z.
    Therefore, All X is Z.

    You can substitute whatever you want in those variables, and it will 100% of the time result in a valid argument. How so? Because it follows proper form.

    All Cats are Mammals.
    All Mammals are warm-blooded.
    Therefore, All Cats are Warm-blooded.

    This is a valid argument. Also, because each premise is true, the conclusion is true. And when the argument has both proper form and a true propositions, it is a sound argument.

    ************************************************** *******************
    ************************************************** *******************

    N not to confuse the issue, but you can have a valid argument that is not true (thus, not sound). We could substitute the following for example:

    All cats are dogs.
    All dogs have floppy ears.
    Therefore, all cats have floppy ears.

    That is a valid argument. It is not true of course. It has one or more (2) premises that are false. But it follows proper form so proper reasoning was used. To defeat it, we merely need to show that 1 or more premise was untrue. We don't need to go into the biology or science of it at all! We merely address the unsound argument where there is a mistake. It is a valid argument, but not sound (because a sound argument requires it to be both valid and true).

    ************************************************** *******************
    ************************************************** *********************

    A sound argument is something we ought to strive to present to others because it is without error. It is the most compelling, it contains truth, and it is valid reasoning. You should never want to provide a bad argument for your position. All the opponent has to do is point out where the argument went wrong and voila! Position is defeated. And that is what happened here with that particular argument. Here is the original argument that was used that I objected to...

    ...but also let's say if a girl got pregnant and her health is poor, should she risk her life and have the baby anyway?

    This is a similar to the argument I often see from pro-choicers saying that "BECAUSE some women in poor health need an emergency abortion, ALL woman should be able to freely abort as a form of birth control even when there is no emergency health concern."

    You can still object to that argument, while maintaining the conclusion "All women ought to be able to freely abort." That is your position, you accept this proposition, that is fine. What is NOT fine, is the reasoning behind it in this particular case. The REASON does not support the CONCLUSION. On the other hand if we were to reword the argument to:

    The law supports the women's right to choose, THEREFORE (a conclusion identifier) all women ought to be able to freely abort." You can come up with numerous reasons for it that are applicable and true. But you cannot come up with an unlimited number of reasons that are. Most sentences that we can formulate will not support the conclusion. And the sentence or proposition "A few women need an emergency abortion" happens to be one of them. it results in improper form that renders the argument invalid. There are a few ways to analyze and restate this argument, all of which are bad. Here is just one example so we don't beat a dead horse too much longer here:

    P1. Elective abortion is a freely chosen form of birth control that is legal in the US.
    P2. Very few women need emergency abortions.
    P3. Therefore, all women ought to be able to have an elective abortion as a means of birth control.

    There is a big problem with this argument as it is stated. P1 and P2 are true, but the middle-term is not distributed and it results in an invalid conclusion. The middle-term is to be introduced in P2 and is what shows the commonality between our other terms. It is what holds the argument together. That doesn't even exist here. It just makes a jump from one proposition to another.

    Now, jumping from one prop. to another is fine if it is done properly. It's called a polysyllogism. It looks like this...

    It is raining.
    If we go out while it is raining we will get wet.
    If we get wet, we will get cold.
    Therefore, if we go out we will get cold.

    Breaking it down because we (or I) am anal like that:

    It is raining.
    If we go out while it is raining we will get wet.
    Therefore, if we go out we will get wet.

    If we go out we will get wet.
    If we get wet, we will get cold.
    Therefore, if we go out we will get cold.

    So let's see how the abortion argument given to us above plays out as a polysyllogism...

    1. A few women who are pregnant are in extremely poor health.
    2. Being in extremely poor health causes the woman to risk her life.
    3. Sacrificing one's life to give birth to a baby ought not be mandated.
    4. Therefore, all women should be able to have non-emergency abortions.
    There's no connection between 2-3, 3-4.

    There is just no way around this argument as it was stated...it is simply a bad argument and I'm confident that if you were to take that very argument to any prof of philosophy, logic, or crit thinking, they'd say the same.

    The challenge you are having I believe, is the separation of being able to properly reason the particular argument (the reason I entered this discussion) with the idea a socio-moral issue having a particular value (the reason you entered the discussion).

    As I keep saying...if you want to discuss the moral nature of abortion, you need to find another participant. It's not a topic that interests me at this time, and certainly not an issue I was focusing on in this thread.

    As I said previously, I can't see how someone else's emergency abortion authorizes your casual abortion. It's like showing up and saying, 'I've heard you offer emergency abortions, I'd like one'. Doc says, 'sure, what's the emergency'. Patient says, 'I'm pregnant'. Doc says, 'technically, that's not an emergency'.
    ...ok...well...this is a prime example of why people ought to read posts in their entirety before beginning to respond. Could have saved me a lot of time by not having to create the above explanations about proper reasoning.

    However, I'm sure that someone may find it useful so I'll leave it there.

    It would seem then, on this particular issue, the issue I was focusing on, that we both agree.

    However, if the girl says, 'well, I'd like one, anyway', then I'd say it's the doctor's decision whether to provide it.
    Can you clarify? Is the girl asking for a "medical procedure" that is an abortion or just an elective, more "casual" (weird using that word as an adjective on this issue) abortion? Either way, it may not matter much I suppose and I would agree it should be up to the doctor to provide it.

    Curious...do doctors have to specialize in the procedure of abortions in order to give them? If so, then would a family doctor or even a gyno have to refer the patient to another doctor/facility? If so, then it doesn't seem that the doctor who would be performing the procedure really has much of a decision do they? After all, that is what they do if they are the only ones who do it and that is all they do. But I'm ignorant on how this works so I am probably missing something here. I just found the idea curious that a "doctor would decide to provide it" or not.

    I could go on, but I know you see it as irrelevant.
    Yes, but not to the issues of "Should abortions remain to be legal?" or "Are abortions moral?" I think the reasons you offered are relevant to those issues. But I do see it irrelevant to the issue I've been explaining I'm focused on above.

    Out of curiosity, do you offer education on birth control in that community?
    I've never been a part of any church project that involved birth control, period. Admittedly, I'm not involved in every project and I'm not involved a lot with the high school group yet (since my kids are younger). I expect however, that any church that I've attended, if they do have any type of position on birth control, it would be about abstinence. I can't say for sure though as it isn't the focus of the groups and activities I've participated in. There very well may be some projects that they've participated in that are focused or related to birth control.

    My daughter is just now starting to enter that age where it is an issue to be addressed. I told her that if she even holds hands with a boy, her hair will fall out; and that if she kisses a boy or drinks from the same cup as a boy, she will get pregnant. Is that wrong?
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; August 11th, 2012 at 11:11 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  17. #57
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post

    Here's an example of proper form:

    All X is Y.
    All Y, is Z.
    Therefore, All X is Z.

    You can substitute whatever you want in those variables, and it will 100% of the time result in a valid argument. How so? Because it follows proper form.

    All Cats are Mammals.
    All Mammals are warm-blooded.
    Therefore, All Cats are Warm-blooded.

    This is a valid argument. Also, because each premise is true, the conclusion is true. And when the argument has both proper form and a true propositions, it is a sound argument.

    ************************************************** *******************
    ************************************************** *******************

    N not to confuse the issue, but you can have a valid argument that is not true (thus, not sound). We could substitute the following for example:

    All cats are dogs.
    All dogs have floppy ears.
    Therefore, all cats have floppy ears.

    That is a valid argument. It is not true of course. It has one or more (2) premises that are false. But it follows proper form so proper reasoning was used. To defeat it, we merely need to show that 1 or more premise was untrue. We don't need to go into the biology or science of it at all! We merely address the unsound argument where there is a mistake. It is a valid argument, but not sound (because a sound argument requires it to be both valid and true).
    Well said! Perhaps there ought to be a 'quiz' that one takes as part of opening an ODN account that would require them to know the difference between a sound, true and valid argument? Otherwise you've got an infinitely long fence to mend, I'm afraid.

    A sound argument is something we ought to strive to present to others because it is without error. It is the most compelling, it contains truth, and it is valid reasoning. You should never want to provide a bad argument for your position. All the opponent has to do is point out where the argument went wrong and voila! Position is defeated. And that is what happened here with that particular argument. Here is the original argument that was used that I objected to...

    ...but also let's say if a girl got pregnant and her health is poor, should she risk her life and have the baby anyway?

    This is a similar to the argument I often see from pro-choicers saying that "BECAUSE some women in poor health need an emergency abortion, ALL woman should be able to freely abort as a form of birth control even when there is no emergency health concern."

    You can still object to that argument, while maintaining the conclusion "All women ought to be able to freely abort." That is your position, you accept this proposition, that is fine. What is NOT fine, is the reasoning behind it in this particular case. The REASON does not support the CONCLUSION.
    I agree!

    On the other hand if we were to reword the argument to:

    The law supports the women's right to choose, THEREFORE (a conclusion identifier) all women ought to be able to freely abort." You can come up with numerous reasons for it that are applicable and true. But you cannot come up with an unlimited number of reasons that are. Most sentences that we can formulate will not support the conclusion. And the sentence or proposition "A few women need an emergency abortion" happens to be one of them. it results in improper form that renders the argument invalid. There are a few ways to analyze and restate this argument, all of which are bad. Here is just one example so we don't beat a dead horse too much longer here:

    P1. Elective abortion is a freely chosen form of birth control that is legal in the US.
    P2. Very few women need emergency abortions.
    P3. Therefore, all women ought to be able to have an elective abortion as a means of birth control.

    There is a big problem with this argument as it is stated. P1 and P2 are true, but the middle-term is not distributed and it results in an invalid conclusion. The middle-term is to be introduced in P2 and is what shows the commonality between our other terms. It is what holds the argument together. That doesn't even exist here. It just makes a jump from one proposition to another.
    What's the technical term for that? I think of it as 'non-sequitur', but that may be incorrect. A small point, here, is that that we will be hard pressed to find sound conclusions that incorporate an 'all or none' statement because propositions that include an 'all' statement are rarely true. I know that's not your purpose, here, just thought I'd throw it out as a point of interest. For example, I can think of many reasons why a physician might refuse to provide an abortion that would be logically sound.

    Now, jumping from one prop. to another is fine if it is done properly. It's called a polysyllogism. It looks like this...

    It is raining.
    If we go out while it is raining we will get wet.
    If we get wet, we will get cold.
    Therefore, if we go out we will get cold.

    Breaking it down because we (or I) am anal like that:

    It is raining.
    If we go out while it is raining we will get wet.
    Therefore, if we go out we will get wet.

    If we go out we will get wet.
    If we get wet, we will get cold.
    Therefore, if we go out we will get cold.

    So let's see how the abortion argument given to us above plays out as a polysyllogism...

    1. A few women who are pregnant are in extremely poor health.
    2. Being in extremely poor health causes the woman to risk her life.
    3. Sacrificing one's life to give birth to a baby ought not be mandated.
    4. Therefore, all women should be able to have non-emergency abortions.
    There's no connection between 2-3, 3-4.
    My understanding is that this is again non-sequitur, if I'm using that term correctly. You mentioned 'red herring', as well. I'm vaguely interested in the difference, but I'm not sure I need to know specific examples of non-sequitur in order to have the general picture. Let me know if that's incorrect.

    There is just no way around this argument as it was stated...it is simply a bad argument and I'm confident that if you were to take that very argument to any prof of philosophy, logic, or crit thinking, they'd say the same.

    The challenge you are having I believe, is the separation of being able to properly reason the particular argument (the reason I entered this discussion) with the idea a socio-moral issue having a particular value (the reason you entered the discussion).
    Exactly. I am made quite uncomfortable with argumentation that might lead a woman to believe that she would lose the support of her community or country, were she to have an abortion. An error I was making was to conclude, from your sound argumentation, that you would personally make an error in your thinking or reinforce illogical thinking in others.

    For Example:

    P1: justifying abortion in emergency cases does not justify abortion in elective cases
    P2: unjustified elective medical procedures are dangerous and ought to be outlawed
    Conclusion: Elective Abortion should be outlawed

    I'm sure you do not follow this line of reasoning, but I would not be surprised if many people do.

    As I keep saying...if you want to discuss the moral nature of abortion, you need to find another participant. It's not a topic that interests me at this time, and certainly not an issue I was focusing on in this thread.
    I might throw out a thread on a related subject, see below.

    ...ok...well...this is a prime example of why people ought to read posts in their entirety before beginning to respond. Could have saved me a lot of time by not having to create the above explanations about proper reasoning.
    Well, I admire you for putting in the time on this subject, it's an important (vital) one.

    However, I'm sure that someone may find it useful so I'll leave it there.
    I suspect there won't be too many people who stumble across this post. However, a 'quiz' that would be required for individuals who are entering ODN or frequently violating the rules of argumentation, might be useful.

    It would seem then, on this particular issue, the issue I was focusing on, that we both agree.
    yup

    Can you clarify? Is the girl asking for a "medical procedure" that is an abortion or just an elective, more "casual" (weird using that word as an adjective on this issue) abortion? Either way, it may not matter much I suppose and I would agree it should be up to the doctor to provide it.
    I'm not sure how we're differentiating between these, so I don't know how to answer. Perhaps you're asking, 'is she wanting an abortion only to eliminate the need to go through pregnancy and figure out what to do with a child' (one way of defining, 'casual abortion')? If that's your definition, then I consider it the physician's right to refuse to offer the procedure (physicians have a right to refuse any procedure for any reason) or they would have to present the patient with the pertinent information on the risks of abortion, the alternatives to abortion and the risk of pregnancy. If the patient is able to make an 'informed decision', (express a clear and consistent preference, based on sound reasoning) then the physician would be justified in performing the procedure.

    Curious...do doctors have to specialize in the procedure of abortions in order to give them? If so, then would a family doctor or even a gyno have to refer the patient to another doctor/facility? If so, then it doesn't seem that the doctor who would be performing the procedure really has much of a decision do they? After all, that is what they do if they are the only ones who do it and that is all they do. But I'm ignorant on how this works so I am probably missing something here. I just found the idea curious that a "doctor would decide to provide it" or not.
    The answer is, 'it depends'. Family practitioners come in all shapes and sizes. I suspect that many would be proficient at providing medication that would cause the fetus to be aborted. Perhaps a few would offer surgical abortion, but it would be pretty rare. Most clinicians who offer abortion are also offering screening and prevention of STD's, providing education on safe sex, providing contraception, doing fetal ultrasounds, screening for and treating complications during pregnancy, educating women on how to have a healthy pregnancy, helping deliver babies, etc.

    Yes, but not to the issues of "Should abortions remain to be legal?" or "Are abortions moral?" I think the reasons you offered are relevant to those issues. But I do see it irrelevant to the issue I've been explaining I'm focused on above.
    agreed

    I've never been a part of any church project that involved birth control, period. Admittedly, I'm not involved in every project and I'm not involved a lot with the high school group yet (since my kids are younger). I expect however, that any church that I've attended, if they do have any type of position on birth control, it would be about abstinence. I can't say for sure though as it isn't the focus of the groups and activities I've participated in. There very well may be some projects that they've participated in that are focused or related to birth control.
    This might be worthy of a debate. I admire the Christian dedication to charity and service. I'm proud to know you for many reasons, but knowing you spend some of your free time helping people who are in need makes me even more proud.

    That said, I am troubled by something, here. It's a delicate subject for a number of reasons and I'm likely to sound like a jerk, but here goes:

    If it is true, that:

    1. Overpopulation is a significant threat to the existence of our species
    2. Effective Family Planning greatly improves the quantity and quality of life while reducing population
    3. There is no evidence for Abstinence as a means to reduce population
    4. A sustained civilization is much more likely to result in more human beings

    Then, in effect, is it not true that:

    Abortion Saves Lives?

    and furthermore,

    1. NOT saving lives is equivalent to killing
    2. It is immoral to kill


    Then,

    It is immoral NOT to promote Family Planning, including abortion.



    My daughter is just now starting to enter that age where it is an issue to be addressed.
    That's pretty scary, man.

    I told her that if she even holds hands with a boy, her hair will fall out; and that if she kisses a boy or drinks from the same cup as a boy, she will get pregnant. Is that wrong?
    The latter is just true, so far as I know. I mean, she can't get pregnant from sharing a glass, of course. People get pregnant when they drink alcohol. But she could get Hepatitis from sharing a glass and that's no fun. Also, if that boy she's holding hands with has ringworm, then yes, her hair could fall out. So there will be none of that. I'm starting to understand the 2nd Amendment in a whole new light, now . . .
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  18. #58
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Since we have really focused and narrowed down the issues and have come to agreement on many points, I'm only going to address that seems to be requiring a response for the sake of brevity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zorak View Post
    My understanding is that this is again non-sequitur, if I'm using that term correctly. You mentioned 'red herring', as well. I'm vaguely interested in the difference, but I'm not sure I need to know specific examples of non-sequitur in order to have the general picture. Let me know if that's incorrect.
    I think there are at least 3 concepts to identify and be aware of here (although it could be argued that a few more rules of the cat. syllogism would apply - such as the "illicit process"):


    1. non sequitur fallacy
    2. red herring fallacy
    3. undistributed middle-term fallacy


    non sequitur - Latin for "it does not follow"

    What is being said that does not follow, is the conclusion from the premises. It is a fallacy, from the Latin fallacia which means "trick." So a logical fallacy is a kind of "trick", a dodgy way to get around proper reasoning. Another term for trick is sophism, which is a reference to the ancient Greek sophists who were known for their dishonest, argumentative trickery and what Socrates and Plato constantly and adamantly spoke out against.

    A non sequitur is a rather broad fallacy, there are a number of ways that an argument may result in a non sequitur. The reason why this is bad reasoning (or "trick" or fallacious) is because the conclusion may be true or false, but there is a disconnect between the conclusion and premises that are said to support it. All formal fallacies are a form of non sequitur. So it includes ANY argument where we have a conclusion that is disconnected from a premise that is said to support that conclusion.

    red herring fallacy - diverting the issue

    A red herring fallacy occurs when an irrelevant topic is presented to (or does) divert attention from the original issue (intentionally or unintentionally) issue and help to "win" an argument by shifting attention away from teh argument and to another issue. The fallacy sequence in this instance is as follows: (a) Topic A is being discussed; (b) Topic B is introduced as thought it is relevant to topic A, but it is not and (c) Topic A is abandoned.

    It is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion isn't an argument against the claim.

    eg. I don't understand why everyone is so upset about drug companies distorting research data in order to make their pain-killer drugs seem to be less dangerous to people's health than they actually are. Taking those drugs can't be that bad. After all, there re still thousands of people using these drugs and getting pain relief from them.

    What is the real issue here? Is it the public being misled about the safety of painkiller drugs? Absolutely. But if we aren't careful, our attention will be diverted to the issue of whether the public wants to use these drugs.When a writer/speaker shifts our attention from the issue, we can say that they have drawn a red herring across the trail of the original issue.

    Essentially, it is saying "Accept this because this other subject is interesting (funny, witty, compelling, etc...). Rather than proving the point, this fallacy simply evades the question by changing the subject, then proceeding as if the point had been made. Often the other topic bears a superficial resemblance to the one being discussed. We should not be fooled by this! If no proof is given, there is no reason to accept the argument.


    undistributed middle-term fallacy - a particular non sequitur in which the middle-term of the categorical syllogism is not distributed properly in both premises; it is a violation of one of the 7 rules of the categorical syllogism

    The conclusion tells us how the 2 premises relate to one another with respect to the middle term. If it doesn't refer to all of its category at least once, there might not be any relation at all betwen the two premises. For example:

    eg.
    P1. All BaptistsD are baptizedU.
    P2. All PresbyteriansD are baptizedU.
    P3. Therefore, all PresbyteriansD are BaptistsU.

    Doesn't seem right does it? The middle term in (baptized) needs to refer to the whole of some group before we can conclude that the sub-groups are included. Consider this venn diagram...

    Name:  undistributed1.png
Views: 81
Size:  54.1 KB


    Sources:
    Come Let Us Reason, Geisler & Brooks, pp 38-42
    Asking the Right Questions, A Guide to Critical Thinking, 9th ed, Browne & Keeley, p81, 83
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illicitp.html
    http://thenonsequitur.com/?page_id=167

    . A small point, here, is that that we will be hard pressed to find sound conclusions that incorporate an 'all or none' statement because propositions that include an 'all' statement are rarely true. I know that's not your purpose, here, just thought I'd throw it out as a point of interest. For example, I can think of many reasons why a physician might refuse to provide an abortion that would be logically sound.

    This is not true. The type of proposition you are referring to is a universal affirmative (type A) proposition (as opposed to a particular affirmative (type I) proposition.

    Univ. Affirm: "All S is P" ; "S is P."
    Part. Affrim: "Some S is P"

    Also, there is the univ. negative ("No S is P" and "S is not P" - type E) and the part. negative ("Some S is not P" - type O).

    We cannot determine the truth of one proposition (univ affirm #1) by evaluating a completely different proposition (univ affirm #2). They are evaluated on their own merits. Consider

    All cats are mammals.
    All horses are 4-legged animals

    Each of these propositions are true, both are universal affirmatives. We do not use one to determine the truth value of the other. Nor do we use a false proposition (such as "All cats are dogs" or "All humans are male") to determine the truth values of those propositions. Each proposition is weighed on its own, independent of other propositions.

    It may be false that the propositions "In all cases, there is never a need for an abortion" or "All women who have abortions do so for emergency reasons", but all we can say here is that these specific universal affirmative propositions are false. We cannot derive from the fact that some propositions are false that most others are as well.

    btw, your own statement is a univ affirmative. "All propositions that include the 'all' quantifier are rarely true."

    Exactly. I am made quite uncomfortable with argumentation that might lead a woman to believe that she would lose the support of her community or country, were she to have an abortion. An error I was making was to conclude, from your sound argumentation, that you would personally make an error in your thinking or reinforce illogical thinking in others.

    For Example:

    P1: justifying abortion in emergency cases does not justify abortion in elective cases
    P2: unjustified elective medical procedures are dangerous and ought to be outlawed
    Conclusion: Elective Abortion should be outlawed

    I'm sure you do not follow this line of reasoning, but I would not be surprised if many people do.
    Right this is bad reasoning. I do not follow this line of reasoning. I may support the conclusion, but I cannot do so on the merits of this particular argument for if I did, I would not be reasoning properly to reach that conclusion. There needs to be another line of reasoning that I need to use to come to that conclusion (which of course, is an a separate issue).

    If it is true, that:

    1. Overpopulation is a significant threat to the existence of our species
    2. Effective Family Planning greatly improves the quantity and quality of life while reducing population
    3. There is no evidence for Abstinence as a means to reduce population
    4. A sustained civilization is much more likely to result in more human beings

    Then, in effect, is it not true that:

    Abortion Saves Lives?

    and furthermore,

    1. NOT saving lives is equivalent to killing
    2. It is immoral to kill

    Then,

    It is immoral NOT to promote Family Planning, including abortion.
    Pretty interesting argument. And I'm not going to argue against its issue, but I will point out a couple things...

    1) One could attack this from an anti-utilitarian approach (since that is what you are asserting here)
    2) You have several descriptive and value assumptions that would be attacked:

    a) that Effective Fam. Planning has no negative consequences that may compete with the good it does
    b) that EFP involves only moral solutions
    c) that not saving lives is the same as killing (both morally and practically)
    d) that it is indeed, immoral to kill


    3) I would imagine that abstinence not being a means to reduce population would be contested (merely because what has been tried doesn't mean that what could be tried wouldn't work)
    4) the issue at first was that overpopulation was a problem, but in #4 in the first argument, you argue that it is a good thing to have more human beings
    5) "sustained civilization" is not defined and this potentially, contains additional assumptions (descriptive or value)

    I'm sure I could pick a few more challenges from it if I spent more time on it. But I think you get the picture. I see where you are going with it and it may be a good topic for discussion. But I'd flesh it out a bit more before posting it as you will be sure to face some of the challenges I summarized above.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  19. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Wow, great post!

    I will move this to a different thread. Do you think there's more to discuss on this thread?
    It is less important what you believe, than why you believe it.

  20. #60
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Can Abortion be Justified by Circumstance?

    Not unless you have anything further to add. I'd refine your latter argument though. I enjoy those types of arguments as they force readers into accepting the conclusion if its propositions are true. But you'd need to either be prepared for the challenges I mention, or reword the argument (or even add a little to it) so that it is stronger, thus avoiding the challenges or making sure it isn't as challenged as it is when someone objects to it.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Abortion CANNOT be morally justified.
    By PumpedUpKicks in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: March 24th, 2012, 09:33 AM
  2. Isreal attacking Iran would be justified
    By WhoamI in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 28th, 2010, 09:10 AM
  3. Crusades justified?
    By chadn737 in forum History
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: July 17th, 2009, 08:11 AM
  4. 1v1 Abortion, I am anti-abortion
    By Twitchard in forum General Debate
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: July 14th, 2008, 06:22 PM
  5. Morality Cannot be Justified
    By Castle in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: December 21st, 2006, 01:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •