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 4 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 268
  1. #61
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Here is the comment I'm responding to.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    1) When it comes to legality... it should be whatever the majority feel it should be.
    So do you actually mean whatever the majority thinks it should be, no matter how awful that something is, or not?

    If you need a real-world example, in some parts of the world some people think homosexuality should be punished by death. So if that's what 51% of a population thinks, should gays be killed?

  2. #62
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Here is the comment I'm responding to.



    So do you actually mean whatever the majority thinks it should be, no matter how awful that something is, or not?

    If you need a real-world example, in some parts of the world some people think homosexuality should be punished by death. So if that's what 51% of a population thinks, should gays be killed?
    Okay, clearly you are trying to go somewhere with this. Okay, let's say 51% in the US did think homosexuals should be put to death... which is clearly not even close to being the case. Would I think that should be law? Answer, no. The reason is because it would be a blatant violation of the Constitution and other separate local laws.

    Did I put my foot far enough into your hypothetical trap for you to finally spring it so we can continue the discussion? I'm sorry if I'm getting impatient here but we are wasting a lot of time with you trying to force a real life situation into a completely unrealistic one. Seriously, if the only way you can make a point is to incorporate completely unrealistic scenarios then maybe it's not a very good point.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Okay, clearly you are trying to go somewhere with this. Okay, let's say 51% in the US did think homosexuals should be put to death... which is clearly not even close to being the case. Would I think that should be law? Answer, no. The reason is because it would be a blatant violation of the Constitution and other separate local laws.
    So that means you put the constitution ahead of majority wants and therefore do not believe that the majority should set the rules.

    I'm just challenging your previous position that the laws should be what the majority desire. It appears you don't really abide by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Did I put my foot far enough into your hypothetical trap for you to finally spring it so we can continue the discussion? I'm sorry if I'm getting impatient here but we are wasting a lot of time with you trying to force a real life situation into a completely unrealistic one. Seriously, if the only way you can make a point is to incorporate completely unrealistic scenarios then maybe it's not a very good point.
    Since there are areas of the world where homosexuality is a capital offense I am in no way making an unrealistic point so you can stop your complaining about this.
    Last edited by mican333; March 20th, 2013 at 07:55 PM.

  4. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    1) When it comes to legality... it should be whatever the majority feel it should be. IMO this is especially true when you are talking about moral issues. To do anything else would be a dictatorship.
    This is a particularly dangerous position to hold. "whatever the majority thinks" ? You cant really believe this. Majority rules type of government is equivalent to 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what is for dinner...to quote Thomas Jefferson...or Ben Franklin...who ever the hell said it. The Constitution protects the minority from the majority and should be thoroughly appreciated for doing so.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  5. #65
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So that means you put the constitution ahead of majority wants and therefore do not believe that the majority should set the rules.

    I'm just challenging your previous position that the laws should be what the majority desire.
    Does the majority want to get rid of/alter the Constitution? No. So, I really don't see fault in my position.

    Seriously, when I made the comment I thought I was just pointing out the obvious. I was basically just saying we should make the decision the way we did... not try to circumvent the system or create a whole different one. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on it.

    And yes, technically in this scenario it would take more than JUST a majority to alter the Constitution... but it was you that incorporated the 51%, not me. I think it takes 2/3rds of the House, Congress and Senate... let me know if I got that wrong.

    However, it seems pretty unlikely that the Constitution would be amended in this day and age if the majority of the population wasn't in agreement with the decision. So I really didn't see a need to elaborate all the stipulations of what I was saying. Like I said, I thought I was just pointing out the obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since there are areas of the world where homosexuality is a capital offense I am in no way making an unrealistic point so you can stop your complaining about this.
    So, you think it is realistic to think that a majority of American's currently think we should kill gays? Or that a majority might think that at some point during our remaining lifetime? I find that highly unlikely.

    Btw, I've gotten the feel that you are trying to attack me in a slightly personal manner. Not claiming that is your intention. However, if it is then I'm guessing I might have said something that gave you the impression I was attacking you in the same way. If you got that feeling then I apologize... it wasn't my intent.

    ---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    This is a particularly dangerous position to hold. "whatever the majority thinks" ? You cant really believe this. Majority rules type of government is equivalent to 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what is for dinner...to quote Thomas Jefferson...or Ben Franklin...who ever the hell said it. The Constitution protects the minority from the majority and should be thoroughly appreciated for doing so.
    Yeah, I think I'm starting to see that I should have provided every single stipulation to that comment. Apparently I should have even pointed out that we are talking about Earth and this reality... oh, and this country... and probably a dozen other things.

    Seriously, this first bullet wasn't even what I was focusing on when I wrote that post. Therefore I didn't go into great detail. I'm not saying it wasn't a mistake not to do so... just that I think I could have cleared this up like 2 pages ago had someone made a post like yours then instead of beating around the bush and sending me to alternate universes and stuff...lol. If you go back you will see I kept asking what point they were trying to get at.

  6. #66
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post

    Yeah, I think I'm starting to see that I should have provided every single stipulation to that comment. Apparently I should have even pointed out that we are talking about Earth and this reality... oh, and this country... and probably a dozen other things.

    Seriously, this first bullet wasn't even what I was focusing on when I wrote that post. Therefore I didn't go into great detail. I'm not saying it wasn't a mistake not to do so... just that I think I could have cleared this up like 2 pages ago had someone made a post like yours then instead of beating around the bush and sending me to alternate universes and stuff...lol. If you go back you will see I kept asking what point they were trying to get at.
    Eh, I don't really get where you are going with this reply, but it could be because it's super late here and my mind is mush. In short, I don't really have a strong political position on abortion. Personally, I think it is horrible and that no one should ever do it (except when it would be more merciful to do so than to allow them to live) However, politically, it's a much more difficult position to evaluate. I do not believe in imposing personal morality onto people by using the force of law.

    The point I wanted to make with respect to the quote of yours that I commented on was that the majority cannot be allowed to dictate policy without restraint. "Whatever the majority thinks" with respect to any issue is insufficient and ultimately threatens the minority's freedoms and rights. This is way a representative republic is superior to a democracy.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  7. #67
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Eh, I don't really get where you are going with this reply, but it could be because it's super late here and my mind is mush. In short, I don't really have a strong political position on abortion. Personally, I think it is horrible and that no one should ever do it (except when it would be more merciful to do so than to allow them to live) However, politically, it's a much more difficult position to evaluate. I do not believe in imposing personal morality onto people by using the force of law.

    The point I wanted to make with respect to the quote of yours that I commented on was that the majority cannot be allowed to dictate policy without restraint. "Whatever the majority thinks" with respect to any issue is insufficient and ultimately threatens the minority's freedoms and rights. This is way a representative republic is superior to a democracy.
    Yeah, I appreciate the comment also. I was so focused on all the hypotheticals being thrown at me that it never dawned on me why they were being thrown at me. Going back now I see Mican was even trying to tell me what you just did. However, the hypotheticals had me thinking he was trying to make a diff point. Anyway, I think it is clear now that I'm in agreement with both of you in this regard. Though, I think it could be argued whether James Madison's comment still holds true today. I'll try to create a separate thread for that debate... if I have permissions to do so.

  8. #68
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Does the majority want to get rid of/alter the Constitution? No. So, I really don't see fault in my position.
    But abortion is legal because the SCOTUS ruled that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. But if our laws are based on majority desire, then if the majority wanted abortion to be illegal, then abortion would be illegal regardless of what the constitution says.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Seriously, when I made the comment I thought I was just pointing out the obvious. I was basically just saying we should make the decision the way we did... not try to circumvent the system or create a whole different one. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on it.
    So just to be clear. You think that our laws should be based on the constitution? And if so, then what the majority wants is irrelevant when it opposes the constitution.

    Again, I'm just challenging your statement that we should do what the majority wants when it comes to abortion. We should not. We should do what the constitution says we should do, not what the majority desires.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    So, you think it is realistic to think that a majority of American's currently think we should kill gays? Or that a majority might think that at some point during our remaining lifetime? I find that highly unlikely.
    It doesn't matter. A hypothetical does not have to be particularly realistic for it to be used and refusing to address a hypothetical on that basis is not a valid rebuttal.

    In other words, going back to the even more unrealistic scenario, if one says that the majority should always decide the laws no matter what, then that means that the majority should decide whether we kill toddlers regardless of which way the would decide the issue. And if one does not think that the fate of toddlers should be left to the majority in every possible circumstance, then one cannot say the laws should always be based on majority wants. The odds of such a thing actually happening is entirely irrelevant to the point of a hypothetical.


    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Btw, I've gotten the feel that you are trying to attack me in a slightly personal manner. Not claiming that is your intention. However, if it is then I'm guessing I might have said something that gave you the impression I was attacking you in the same way. If you got that feeling then I apologize... it wasn't my intent.
    You can apologize for saying that you think I'm personally attacking you. I am not and I see nothing in my arguments that indicate otherwise.

  9. #69
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's a complicated question and there's likely a variety of answers. But in short, it is the burden of the government to show that it has a legitimate interest in preventing an activity before it can infringe on one's privacy.
    And we agree that murder is one of those things, so the burden of proof goes back to those advocating that this is not murder because of a specific exemption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And it's the same with premature newborns. They don't all survive.
    The same is true for 4 year olds, shouldn't then we have the same rule for all those groups?

    And there is an ethical difference here. A newborn that doesn't survive, dies in spite of care to the contrary. An aborted baby dies because of that care.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The right to life. Certainly in the past when technology did not allow a newborn with severe medical problems to survive it would be allowed to die without anyone receiving legal punishment for neglect like they might today if they could save it but just decided not to.
    Then why is right to life different from all other rights which are not reliant upon our ability or will to provide them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Again, what if we can't find an incubator that is needed to save a premature born baby?
    That is as distinct a moral question from the one I proposed as the difference between someone who dies of a heart attack and someone whose throat is intentionally cut. Confusing the two would be like saying "well it wasn't really murder when you stabbed a knife into that mans throat because we could have taken him to the hospital."

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Correct.
    Ok, then under your moral system rule here, it is perfectly permissible to stop feeding a three year old?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Again, I am offering no specifics on what a viable baby is specifically entitled to other than whatever else those who have a right to life are entitled to. So if society has a rule that doctors have no obligation to give newborns (vaginal or otherwise) a certain level of treatment to save its life, then both fetuses and newborns do not have a right to such things. And if the rules are the doctors must do everything possible to save them, then the doctors must do their best to save them.
    And if the society has the rule that you are not allowed to place a child into a dangerous situation needlessly?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    But if the opinion of the medical establishment was that an 8 month old is viable (it can be removed from the womb and expected to survive) then it has a right to life.
    That doesn't answer the question, "If we were to punch a hole in the brain cavity of an 8month old fetus then there is no medical equipment capable of making it survive and therefore it is not viable and there was no ethical problem. Now you might object to that act and say that we are making the baby not viable, but the same is true of your argument. If you induce the removal of the fetus you are making what was viable to be no longer viable."


    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    The point is that if a majority of people felt that it was okay to kill toddlers then that would mean we find that action morally acceptable overall.
    So yes then. So it is ok, in your moral world view for a group of people to then enslave others? Is gang rape morally permissible (Afterall more approve of the situation than don't in that scenario)?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    All of that said, trying to get me to say I would be okay with it now at a time when clearly no one would find it okay is a poor attempt imo to cloud, if not improperly discredit, my perfectly valid point.
    I'm doing no such thing, I'm simply applying the methodology you are using to other cases to expose the error in the reasoning. It is called the reductio ad absurdum technique.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    Well, I will agree that denying abortion is a slippery slope.
    Then you should recognize the rationale you use to support it is therefore fallacious.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    I believe you might want to rethink your company example though... it actually supports the idea of legalized rape. If you know you could save millions of people by taking action (like starting up that company) but decide to let them die by not doing it then I think it is clear that is a million times more immoral than starting that company, saving those millions of people, but denying just one of them.
    Except that isn't my example and it doesn't support legalized rape.

    I did not argue that we have moral obligations to non-existent entities. In order for my analogy to support legalized rape you would need to support that we have such obligations.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    In the case of abortion the fetus just has potential to become a newborn.
    Just as the newborn has the potential of becoming an adult, what is your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    Yes, if left unhindered the fetus will probably become a newborn... however, the EXACT same thing can be said about the conception.
    Not at all, the egg, without intervention will leave the body unfertilized. No decisions need to be made for a fetus to become an infant. The fetus naturally develops into the new born. The same can not be said of a separated sperm cell and a separated egg. Left alone they will not develop into a fetus. The two are not morally equivalent categories by any stretch of the imagination. Just as there is a difference between firing an existing employee and not hiring an applicant. There are differing moral obligations between your relationship with an actualized position (employee) and a non-actualized position (applicant) just as there is between an actualized fetus a non actualized unfertilized egg.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    So, why can't you agree to forced conception? IMO the only real reason is because you probably find legalized rape way too objectionable.
    There are only two parties in a rape, the rapist and the woman. The rapist has no claim on the woman and therefore no moral claim to the action. There is no third party during this act.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #70
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And we agree that murder is one of those things, so the burden of proof goes back to those advocating that this is not murder because of a specific exemption.
    The default for any activity is that it's not murder (Do I need to prove that deer hunting is not murder before I can avoid murder charges for shooting a deer? Of course not.) so the burden is the person who claims that an act is murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The same is true for 4 year olds, shouldn't then we have the same rule for all those groups?
    And there is an ethical difference here. A newborn that doesn't survive, dies in spite of care to the contrary. An aborted baby dies because of that care.[/QUOTE]

    If there is not adequate care to save a newborn or a fetus once it is removed from the womb, it will die.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Then why is right to life different from all other rights which are not reliant upon our ability or will to provide them?
    They are all tied to the same thing - when a life is recognized as having those legal rights. All rights kick in at once and the question is when do they kick in.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is as distinct a moral question from the one I proposed as the difference between someone who dies of a heart attack and someone whose throat is intentionally cut. Confusing the two would be like saying "well it wasn't really murder when you stabbed a knife into that mans throat because we could have taken him to the hospital."
    But cutting a throat is only a moral issue if the life in question had the right to life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, then under your moral system rule here, it is perfectly permissible to stop feeding a three year old?
    No. A three year old is clearly viable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And if the society has the rule that you are not allowed to place a child into a dangerous situation needlessly?
    I don't see the point of that question so I can't generate a relevant response to the debate at hand.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That doesn't answer the question, "If we were to punch a hole in the brain cavity of an 8month old fetus then there is no medical equipment capable of making it survive and therefore it is not viable and there was no ethical problem. Now you might object to that act and say that we are making the baby not viable, but the same is true of your argument. If you induce the removal of the fetus you are making what was viable to be no longer viable."
    But what I mean by viability is "can survive outside of the womb". If the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb then it's not viable. If you injure a fetus that can survive outside of the womb if it weren't injured then you effectively killed a viable fetus and therefore violated its right to life, just like if you stabbed a newborn baby.

  11. #71
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The default for any activity is that it's not murder (Do I need to prove that deer hunting is not murder before I can avoid murder charges for shooting a deer? Of course not.) so the burden is the person who claims that an act is murder.
    That is only if you can show that it is different than something already acknowledged as illegal. There has yet to be a fundamental definition of why a fetus is not a human being in a way that makes killing it fundamentally different than killing an adult.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If there is not adequate care to save a newborn or a fetus once it is removed from the womb, it will die.
    Right, but its death is because it is removed from the womb. It dies because of our action, not in spite of our actions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But cutting a throat is only a moral issue if the life in question had the right to life.
    It would have been viable absent your interference, just as a fetus is viable if we don't perform an action that kills it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No. A three year old is clearly viable.
    Not if we don't feed him. What is the difference between a baby just born that is not fed and a three year old that is not fed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But what I mean by viability is "can survive outside of the womb". If the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb then it's not viable. If you injure a fetus that can survive outside of the womb if it weren't injured then you effectively killed a viable fetus and therefore violated its right to life, just like if you stabbed a newborn baby.
    But that exception is an arbitrary one, it is already viable by a strict definition of the term. What moral reasoning is there to define that viability must be outside a "womb?" Is it because the woman has a right to her womb? If so, I have a right to the money necessary to feed orphans, clearly we recognize that that isn't a good enough reason to kill them. What is the fundamental reason that removes a womb from part of the available medical technology?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #72
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is only if you can show that it is different than something already acknowledged as illegal. There has yet to be a fundamental definition of why a fetus is not a human being in a way that makes killing it fundamentally different than killing an adult.
    So I have to show how killing a deer is different from killing a human before I can legally hunt? Or do we assume that hunting deer is legal until someone presents an argument about killing a deer should be outlawed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Right, but its death is because it is removed from the womb. It dies because of our action, not in spite of our actions.
    Removal from the womb is not an inherently deadly action if the life is viable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It would have been viable absent your interference, just as a fetus is viable if we don't perform an action that kills it.
    If it cannot survive outside of the womb, it is not viable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not if we don't feed him. What is the difference between a baby just born that is not fed and a three year old that is not fed?
    A three year old can survive outside of the womb so it is viable. Being viable does not mean that one cannot be killed.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that exception is an arbitrary one, it is already viable by a strict definition of the term. What moral reasoning is there to define that viability must be outside a "womb?" Is it because the woman has a right to her womb? If so, I have a right to the money necessary to feed orphans, clearly we recognize that that isn't a good enough reason to kill them. What is the fundamental reason that removes a womb from part of the available medical technology?
    Can you re-state that argument more succinctly?

  13. #73
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But abortion is legal because the SCOTUS ruled that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. But if our laws are based on majority desire, then if the majority wanted abortion to be illegal, then abortion would be illegal regardless of what the constitution says.

    So just to be clear. You think that our laws should be based on the constitution? And if so, then what the majority wants is irrelevant when it opposes the constitution.

    Again, I'm just challenging your statement that we should do what the majority wants when it comes to abortion. We should not. We should do what the constitution says we should do, not what the majority desires.

    It doesn't matter. A hypothetical does not have to be particularly realistic for it to be used and refusing to address a hypothetical on that basis is not a valid rebuttal.

    In other words, going back to the even more unrealistic scenario, if one says that the majority should always decide the laws no matter what, then that means that the majority should decide whether we kill toddlers regardless of which way the would decide the issue. And if one does not think that the fate of toddlers should be left to the majority in every possible circumstance, then one cannot say the laws should always be based on majority wants. The odds of such a thing actually happening is entirely irrelevant to the point of a hypothetical.

    You can apologize for saying that you think I'm personally attacking you. I am not and I see nothing in my arguments that indicate otherwise.
    What you are forgetting, however, is that the Constitution can be amended. And those amendments can override prior parts.
    And those changes include a voting process. The public might not be making those votes directly, however, they elected the people that would be voting.

    Anyway, I think we are deep into semantics here. I'm just pointing out that technically the statement is still correct. However, as I already pointed out, we seem to be in agreement. I just didn't properly clarify what I was trying to say in my original comment. I now see why you took objection to the comment... DESPITE all the crazy hypotheticals...lol.

    As for those hypotheticals... it DOES matter sometimes. In this case it did because you were asking me to answer how I PERSONALLY respond to something that would never happen. For me to provide an answer to that kind of question I would have to put myself in a world where that could happen. But then any answer I give would not be representative of what I would do here... since I would not be the same person. That's basically like asking, "Do you still beat your wife?"... and then demanding a yes or no answer. If you never beat your wife then you just can't answer it that simply. And in the case of your examples I would have had to give like a 10 page answer to make it clear answers I would be giving wouldn't be the same as the ones I would give in this reality. It would have completely clouded the topic.

    Anyway, we are on the same page now.

  14. #74
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    What you are forgetting, however, is that the Constitution can be amended. And those amendments can override prior parts.
    Can I reup my question here?

    If the mere act of majority opinion makes something moral, then was the holocaust moral? Slavery? If not, why not?

    ---------- Post added at 06:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I have to show how killing a deer is different from killing a human before I can legally hunt? Or do we assume that hunting deer is legal until someone presents an argument about killing a deer should be outlawed?
    No, but to make the analogy a bit more accurate, if hunting deer were outlawed, would we need a separate law outlawing the hunting of does? Of antlerless deer? Of Bucks? Or does the category cover all deer until shown otherwise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Removal from the womb is not an inherently deadly action if the life is viable.
    Stabbing someone in the throat is not an inherently deadly action if the person survives. But if they do die, you are responsible for taking them from a situation where they were surviving to a situation where they did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If it cannot survive outside of the womb, it is not viable.
    If I hold a child under the water for 5 minutes it isn't viable either. Both involve willful acts that lead the chance from alive to not alive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Can you re-state that argument more succinctly?
    Since viable means simply that it would survive given favorable circumstances I would like to know under what moral reasoning you make the additional condition necessary that it be outside the womb? IE why do we say that as opposed to "independent of other humans" or simply "viable?"
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #75
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, but to make the analogy a bit more accurate, if hunting deer were outlawed, would we need a separate law outlawing the hunting of does? Of antlerless deer? Of Bucks? Or does the category cover all deer until shown otherwise?
    It depends on what the government can show a legitimate interest in preventing. If the government can show a legitimate interest in preventing ALL deer from being killed, then the law should cover all deer. If the government can show a legitimate interest in protecting does but not bucks, then the law should be limited to protecting does.

    And when it comes to people, I believe that there is a legitimate government interest in protecting born humans but I have yet to hear an argument for the legitimate government interest in protection unborn humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Stabbing someone in the throat is not an inherently deadly action if the person survives. But if they do die, you are responsible for taking them from a situation where they were surviving to a situation where they did not.
    If they die, you killed someone who had the right to life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    If I hold a child under the water for 5 minutes it isn't viable either. Both involve willful acts that lead the chance from alive to not alive.
    A "Viable" being is one who can live outside of the womb. A child of five can live outside of the womb so if you put it somewhere where it cannot survive, you are killing a viable human.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Since viable means simply that it would survive given favorable circumstances I would like to know under what moral reasoning you make the additional condition necessary that it be outside the womb? IE why do we say that as opposed to "independent of other humans" or simply "viable?"
    I still don't understand. But it sounds like you are asking me a question about my moral reasoning.

    I would say that it's your burden to show a flaw in my reasoning so I choose not to grant a request to explain things but if you can point out a flaw in what you believe is my perspective, I will have to defend it.
    Last edited by mican333; March 22nd, 2013 at 07:16 AM.

  16. #76
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It depends on what the government can show a legitimate interest in preventing.
    If the current law states: "It is iillegal to kill a deer." Then then that law covers all versions of that species. Likewise, murder is defined as the killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Humans are defined as "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens."
    It would seem that you are maintaining that while this fetus has all the genetic material and is a member of our species it is not a "human being."


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If they die, you killed someone who had the right to life.
    Then the same could be said of a fetus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I still don't understand. But it sounds like you are asking me a question about my moral reasoning.

    I would say that it's your burden to show a flaw in my reasoning so I choose not to grant a request to explain things but if you can point out a flaw in what you believe is my perspective, I will have to defend it.
    Viable simply means the ability to live under favorable conditions. You have added the qualifier of "outside the womb." That might be relevant or it might not, its up to you to show that it is. IE why is the womb the important qualifier rather than any other arbitrary qualifier we could add? It is your argument that the fetus is not a human being that should be protected by law and morality and it is incumbent on you to show how viability outside of the womb affects that definition.

    Why does its ability to survive outside the womb (in theory) mean that it is now defined as a human being when before it was not? What is the reasoning for that definition? How does that reasoning necessarily imply a change of rights status in the individual?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #77
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It would seem that you are maintaining that while this fetus has all the genetic material and is a member of our species it is not a "human being."
    Correct. I hold that a fetus must be viable before it can be considered a human being.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Then the same could be said of a fetus.
    One can certainly say it. I just don't agree.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Viable simply means the ability to live under favorable conditions. You have added the qualifier of "outside the womb."
    No. I have defined viability as "able to survive outside of the womb".

    And I don't want to get into a semantic argument over this. I have chosen one word to relay a concept that uses many words. If it's necessary for me to say "able to survive outside of the womb" every single time I have to relay that concept, then I will. Or we can just accept one word, like "viability", to save time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is your argument that the fetus is not a human being that should be protected by law and morality and it is incumbent on you to show how viability outside of the womb affects that definition.
    It is your argument that my position is flawed. That means it is your burden to show that my position is flawed. So if my position is flawed for failing to recognize that a pre-viable fetus has a right to life, then a pre-viable fetus must have a right to life. So until it is shown that a pre-viable fetus has a right to life my argument cannot be flawed for denying this.

    So I have no burden to defend my position against being flawed until it is shown that my position is flawed.

  18. #78
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Correct. I hold that a fetus must be viable before it can be considered a human being.
    Based upon what evidence? Based upon what reasoning?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    It is your argument that my position is flawed. That means it is your burden to show that my position is flawed.
    You haven't made a position yet, you've simply made a claim (babies that cannot survive outside the womb are not human beings). No moral or definitional support of that claim has been offered.

    On the other hand I offered the definition of a human and a fetus clearly fits within that definition.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  19. #79
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You haven't made a position yet, you've simply made a claim (babies that cannot survive outside the womb are not human beings). No moral or definitional support of that claim has been offered. On the other hand I offered the definition of a human and a fetus clearly fits within that definition.
    But the issue is "human beings", not "humans".

    "human being
    n
    a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child"


    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human+being

    Now does "child" necessarily include fetus? Nope.

    child (chld)
    a. A person between birth and puberty.


    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/child

    Now, I don't consider this definitive proof that fetuses cannot be considered human beings as dictionary definitions are based on human usage of words so a definition is never really set in stone. But regardless, I have shown that my definition is based on correct usage of these words.

    And "birth" is another significant drawing line for pro-choicers so the position "Human beings are entitled to the right to life" and "the unborn are not entitled to the right to life" are not inherently contradictory.
    Last edited by mican333; March 22nd, 2013 at 08:45 AM.

  20. #80
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abortion - How to Solve the Controversy?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But the issue is "human beings", not "humans".

    "human being
    n
    a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child"


    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/human+being
    Merriam Websters provides a link to "human" for its definition meaning that it sees no difference between the two definitions:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human+being

    As does American Heritage Dictionary

    Dictionary.com, citing Random House says: "any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. " http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human+being

    It cites your definition with the Collins Dictionary. However, if we follow the Collins dictionary we find that the third definition for child is: "an unborn baby" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...kiePolicy=true
    So even if we use the Collins English Dictionary unborn babies are still human beings.

    Nothing in the Encyclopedia Britannica agrees that it a fetus changes species when born. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...76/human-being


    So we still arrive at the same conclusion. No definition of human being precludes an unborn child explicitly and most include it explicitly since the unborn baby is still a homosapien.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: May 13th, 2009, 05:11 AM
  2. Righteous Controversy
    By minorwork in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 19th, 2008, 10:55 AM
  3. Please solve this mystery
    By Snoop in forum Community Advice Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 15th, 2007, 06:35 AM
  4. Solve this mystery
    By Snoop in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 19th, 2006, 09:20 AM
  5. Which Branch Should Step In And Solve This Problem?
    By ophelia in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: April 8th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Members who have read this thread in the last 45 days : 1

You do not have permission to view the list of names.

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
  •