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 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 94
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I very much doubt any doctor or any court will rule that a post-viability abortion is justified by the mother having a bad day or some kind of anxiety etc...
    Well for one, you tend to be a rational person. Two, no court needs to be involved in New York for late-term abortions and the new law clearly leaves the "reason" open-ended. Anxiety..... mental stress ...? That can certainly pass the cranioclast and mustard until they put more teeth into their law. Maybe they will play it by wait-and-see how many viable babies doctors and/or medical practitioners have to kill because the mother wants to abort due to mental or emotional stress.
    Last edited by eye4magic; March 18th, 2019 at 09:09 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Well for one, you tend to be a rational person.
    I try.

    Two, no court needs to be involved in New York for late-term abortions and the new law clearly leaves the "reason" open-ended.
    No court is involved in most illegal acts. They get involved when someone sees something they think is illegal after the fact. The reason is not open-ended, it is specified in the law and by the supreme court. It is for the health of the mother of the child and the health of the child.

    Anxiety..... mental stress ...? That can certainly pass the cranioclast and mustard until they put more teeth into their law. Maybe they will play it by wait-and-see how many viable babies doctors and/or medical practitioners have to kill because the mother wants to abort due to mental or emotional stress.
    And how many people will die because we want to get to work on time? Lots more I wager. But aside from that bit of rhetoric, in life, you have to make balanced decisions. And we trust doctors and individuals to make these decisions because they are closest to the reality of them. Such decisions are usually not clear cut, and almost never easy. You are proposing lawmakers make these decisions for people, I am proposing they make these decisions for themselves. If we find their decisions are wildly inappropriate then the law can step in and judge them.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Their moral opinion would not change my moral opinion.
    So murder is entirely subjective to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    What level of threat is sufficient to elicit the right to self-defense such that you kill someone else?
    Defense of one's own life or the lives of others. At least that is the common determination for a right to self defense with lethal force. Would you say otherwise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    All morality has a core of value that is essentially a feeling or motivation. Logic is then applied to an application.

    So why does the moral value of a fetus grow over time?
    1. It becomes more likely to survive the longer it develops. (AKA early fetuses can often end in miscarriage because it simply isn't a viable pregnancy so the odds you re changing its fate increase the older it gets.)
    2. Its ability to feel pain and discomfort increases as it develops.
    3. Its similarity to a person as we know and understand them grows as it develops so we have a higher empathic response to its existence.
    4. Its ability to survive outside of its special environment increases and thus we can more reasonably take responsibility for its life as a society.
    5. Its ability to participate as a meaningful member of society increases as it develops.
    6. As it develops it becomes more identifiable as an individual with distinguishable traits and features we recognize as human.
    All of which, I think, could be reversely applied to an adult human. Is that adult worth less if disfigured by an accident and doesn't look like you? Is an elderly woman sitting in her living room watching tv, on oxygen, unable to participage meaningfully (in your mind) in society, less valuable as a person?
    Last edited by evensaul; October 21st, 2019 at 03:10 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  4. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    So murder is entirely subjective to you?
    Killing is objective, murder is a subjective judgment.

    Defense of one's own life or the lives of others. At least that is the common determination for a right to self-defense with lethal force. Would you say otherwise?
    Me personally, yes that sounds about right. I think the devil is in the details but that is the general guideline I'd follow.

    All of which, I think, could be reversely applied to an adult human. Is that adult worth less if disfigured by an accident and doesn't look like you? Is an elderly woman sitting in her living room watching tv, on oxygen, unable to participage meaningfully (in your mind) in society, less valuable as a person?
    Sure, they can all apply.
    I can very easily recognize humans disfigured by an accident.
    The elderly woman is participating meaningfully in society in a number of different ways.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So why does the moral value of a fetus grow over time?
    1. It becomes more likely to survive the longer it develops.
    2. Its ability to feel pain and discomfort increases as it develops.
    3. Its similarity to a person as we know and understand them grows as it develops so we have a higher empathic response to its existence.
    4. Its ability to survive outside of its special environment increases and thus we can more reasonably take responsibility for its life as a society.
    5. Its ability to participate as a meaningful member of society increases as it develops.
    6. As it develops it becomes more identifiable as an individual with distinguishable traits and features we recognize as human.
    I submit that the moral value does not increase as the fetus develops. The only thing that increases is the moral atrocity of purposefully killing it at all as it grows over time.

    Hmmm...
    gee, those both sound like pretty subjective opinions. Majority opinions are what matters I guess, logic aside.....


    1a. "It" is the only way we can ever have a "person as we know". There is no other way to get an adult human...
    1b. Since very early in the pregnancy (like nearing conception, I sense you are saying) the "viable tissue mass/baby/fetus/whatever term you like" has no worth as a human, we could theoretically kill them all and no moral harm done. Of course humans then become extinct by their own actions, but so what? It was just a zygote/baby/fetus/whatever term you like anyway. Not like it was human or anything....
    2. Now this I find an interesting comment. You are submitting the fetus/whatever feeling pain at a certain level matters to whether you can kill "it"?
    3. How closely does a life need match "a person as we know" so it matters if they are killed?
    4a. How much ability to live outside the womb does "it" need, to count as a human life?
    4b. Why/how does "society take responsibility for" a given human life?
    5a. The absolute total subjectivity of this comment aside, you promoting life has more meaning if one is a "meaningful member of society". How does a fetus/zygote/ whatever/ do this "participation"
    5b. There is a large group of adult humans that don't meet this criteria (as well as some of your criteria)…
    6. Aesthetics is now part of the criteria to be considered a human life? Morbid obesity does not look like "features we recognize as human" to me!!
    (oh, there is that absolute subjectivity in the argumentation again...)
    Last edited by Belthazor; October 22nd, 2019 at 06:40 PM.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Killing is objective, murder is a subjective judgment.
    Agreed...

    ---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    And how many people will die because we want to get to work on time? Lots more I wager. But aside from that bit of rhetoric,...
    1. Your point is some one in too big a hurry, killing someone with their car = a mother paying someone to kill their unborn tissue mass/fetus/zygote/whatever?
    Really?
    2. How many people in too big a hurry kill someone on purpose? Vastly less I'd wager...

  7. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. Your point is some one in too big a hurry, killing someone with their car = a mother paying someone to kill their unborn tissue mass/fetus/zygote/whatever?
    Really?
    Yes. They are both examples of a preventable death caused by someone's trivial desires. (you were saying in your argument that the mother's motivations are trivial)

    2. How many people in too big a hurry kill someone on purpose? Vastly less I'd wager...
    Probably none. How many drunk drivers kill on purpose? Probably none. But they still kill lots of people with their decision making and for trivial reasons like: I like booze, or I don't want to be late to work.

    ---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I submit that the moral value does not increase as the fetus develops. The only thing that increases is the moral atrocity of purposefully killing it at all as it grows over time.
    That is a distinction without a difference.

    1a. "It" is the only way we can ever have a "person as we know". There is no other way to get an adult human...
    1b. Since very early in the pregnancy (like nearing conception, I sense you are saying) the "viable tissue mass/baby/fetus/whatever term you like" has no worth as a human, we could theoretically kill them all and no moral harm done. Of course humans then become extinct by their own actions, but so what? It was just a zygote/baby/fetus/whatever term you like anyway. Not like it was human or anything....
    1. There is no significant danger of humans being wiped out due to a lack of procreation. That is an argument from the absurd.

    2. Now this I find an interesting comment. You are submitting the fetus/whatever feeling pain at a certain level matters to whether you can kill "it"?
    2. Sure, pain is a big part of human motivation and empathy.

    3. How closely does a life need match "a person as we know" so it matters if they are killed?
    3. Close enough that we decide that we want to protect it.

    4a. How much ability to live outside the womb does "it" need, to count as a human life?
    4. You either live or you don't. It needs enough to live.

    4b. Why/how does "society take responsibility for" a given human life?
    4b. Why: because that is what society does, it takes responsibility for its citizens in various ways. How: By providing the person with what they need to survive in society.

    5a. The absolute total subjectivity of this comment aside, you promoting life has more meaning if one is a "meaningful member of society". How does a fetus/zygote/ whatever/ do this "participation"
    5. No. But if we are talking about rules for society, which is what morality is, then its meaningfulness for society is important. For instance, we don't give SS payments to Germans because SS payments are part of American society and Germans are not. It is not because Germans are lesser human beings.

    5b. There is a large group of adult humans that don't meet this criteria (as well as some of your criteria)…
    That's true. And we put some of them to death from time to time because they represent an active danger to society. They have degraded so badly in moral value we decide to take away their life despite all the other positive criteria in this list. This list is a host of different values, it is not a "one fail and you are out" or a "one pass and you are in" kind of list. It is a list of measures we naturally use to assign moral value in society.

    6. Aesthetics is now part of the criteria to be considered a human life? Morbid obesity does not look like "features we recognize as human" to me!!
    (oh, there is that absolute subjectivity in the argumentation again...)
    All morality is intrinsically subjective, it is an opinion.
    If you think the morbidly obese are not human, then you will tend to treat them as lesser humans. That's how people tend to behave. Personally, I don't see anything about morbidly obese people that makes me think they are not human or have an especially impaired moral value to me.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. Likes mican333 liked this post
  9. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yes. They are both examples of a preventable death caused by someone's trivial desires.
    I'm not sure you could possibly be more incorrect here?

    in one example:
    a mother pays a doctor to kill her unborn child! She has to make an appointment to discuss the killing. She has to make an appointment for the killing to take place. The mother is an active, knowing participant in the killing.
    The Death of the child is the only objective!

    the other example:
    A person that is "in too big a hurry" accidentally kills some one with their car. There was never an intent to kill. No payment to have some one killed. No appointment made. No discussions of how it would take place nor who it would be. No premeditation whatsoever.

    Dude, one is purposefully, planning and killing your own child and one is an accident! Those do not equate in any way other than two people died that should not have!
    But what is considerably more important is, the driver of the car probably WENT TO JAIL if caught and it was an accident. With the mother it was certainly no accident.....


    I do like that in your analogy you are equating a fetus/unborn child/etc with a human whose life has you think has worth though!!
    I'd say that is progress, no?



    Out of time tonight, I will get to the rest of your post shortly, I appreciate your patience
    Last edited by Belthazor; October 25th, 2019 at 06:51 PM.

  10. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That is a distinction without a difference.
    It was the opposite of your claim and this does not rebut it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    1. There is no significant danger of humans being wiped out due to a lack of procreation. That is an argument from the absurd.
    The facetious part of my comment aside, my point was, no moral harm would be done since from conception the baby/fetus/tissue mass/whatever has no human worth. So slaughtering them all would not be a moral issue at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    2. Sure, pain is a big part of human motivation and empathy.
    3. Close enough that we decide that we want to protect it.
    This criteria is void of a real definition to be used in life or death situations.
    How much pain can we inflict and still be ok?
    Does it need appendages? Sex organs? What is the cut off?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    4. You either live or you don't. It needs enough to live.
    So do infants, injured and the elderly.
    The only difference is these examples and a fetus is they made thru the birth canal and somehow at that magical moment the fetus developed/acquired/was bestowed/whatever with worth as a human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    4b. Why: because that is what society does, it takes responsibility for its citizens in various ways. How: By providing the person with what they need to survive in society.
    I asked why/how for a given life?
    also
    I hear on the radio 20,000,000 million American kids go to bed hungry frequently.
    60,000,000 do not have clean drinking water
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ter/564278001/




    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    5. No. But if we are talking about rules for society, which is what morality is, then its meaningfulness for society is important. For instance, we don't give SS payments to Germans because SS payments are part of American society and Germans are not. It is not because Germans are lesser human beings.
    I don't see a connection with my comment and this response to it??
    You said "5. Its ability to participate as a meaningful member of society increases as it develops."

    I asked how a fetus, at any stage prior to birth can "participate as a meaningful member of society"?

    (and we aren't talking about eligibility for a Gov't payment here, we are discussing the right to life and compelling reasons to be able to kill that life)


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That's true. And we put some of them to death from time to time because they represent an active danger to society. They have degraded so badly in moral value we decide to take away their life despite all the other positive criteria in this list. This list is a host of different values, it is not a "one fail and you are out" or a "one pass and you are in" kind of list. It is a list of measures we naturally use to assign moral value in society.
    So you say there is a "list of measures".
    Hmm, like a check list then and you need to hit an overall score?
    I am just trying to figure out how society could apply your thoughts for the discussion of someone's right to life, because so far your criteria is quite vague.

    So the life of a convicted murderer that has been sentenced to death is = in moral value to a fetus/tissue mass/unborn child/whatever?
    Really??
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    All morality is intrinsically subjective, it is an opinion.
    Here in general we agree
    However, for a social, loving, inclusive society, the default position on life would generally lean toward:
    do not harm it unless there is a very compelling reason to kill it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If you think the morbidly obese are not human, then you will tend to treat them as lesser humans. That's how people tend to behave. Personally, I don't see anything about morbidly obese people that makes me think they are not human or have an especially impaired moral value to me.
    This is part of your criteria (#6) that human worth is partly based on aesthetics (certainly not mine!).

    Based on your criteria though, a person could consider obesity that way, because that is their subjective opinion, no?

    So, given that each of your points for a fetus to have worth as a human are:
    1. a fetus needs to be "likely to survive", but the level is undefined...
    2. we should not kill the fetus after it feels pain at a certain level, but the level is undefined...
    3. the fetus needs to be "similar to a person", but that is undefined
    4. same as #1
    5. the fetus needs to "participate meaningfully" but no example of "participation" is offered and seems unlikely is even possible
    6. aesthetics/human features are necessary but what/how many features are undefined

    Now, how would your six points be argued here or in a court of law for instance with virtually nothing defined and using absolute subjectivity (aesthetics) as criteria for determining the value of a given human life?
    Last edited by Belthazor; October 26th, 2019 at 05:53 PM.

  11. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yes. They are both examples of a preventable death caused by someone's trivial desires. (you were saying in your argument that the mother's motivations are trivial)...
    I believe you are confused here, I don't think I have made any such statement like "the mother's motivation is trivial" (for choosing to get an abortion).
    Actually I think it does matter, but since there is not any way to know what the mothers motivations actually are with any level of certainty it would generally be a moot point.

    ---------- Post added at 10:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    All morality is intrinsically subjective, it is an opinion.
    Indeed, but as you said "killing is objective" and immoral killing is murder is it not?
    It may be one thing for the Gov't to single out murderers as a group and kill them, but soon after that it starts getting pretty hard to justify the taking of innocent life and maintain a pleasant, loving, inclusive, understanding society.

    The criteria you have presented could easily apply to other groups as well as the unborn. I sense a moral slippery slope argument coming on...

  12. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I'm not sure you could possibly be more incorrect here?
    Are both deaths preventable? Yes, they are.
    Were both motivated (by your estimation) on trivial personal desires?: Yes

    Then this statement is accurate: "Yes. They are both examples of a preventable death caused by someone's trivial desires."

    You go on to tell me that one is an intentional death and the other is an accident. I never made any claim to the contrary. What you say is true. What I said is also true. Neither of us has contradicted the other in these claims. Can you see that?

    --------

    ---------- Post added at 04:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    It was the opposite of your claim and this does not rebut it.
    You are wrong.
    You say: "the moral atrocity of purposefully killing it at all as it grows over time" AKA the longer it develops the worse a moral act it becomes
    I say: "the moral value of the fetus grows over time" This means that the act of taking its life does greater moral harm the longer it develops.

    Unless I completely misunderstand your statement (in which case you may want to try rephrasing it), you said the exact same thing I did.

    The facetious part of my comment aside, my point was, no moral harm would be done since from conception the baby/fetus/tissue mass/whatever has no human worth. So slaughtering them all would not be a moral issue at all.
    That doesn't make much sense, I thought your argument was that a fetus does have moral value. I also think it has moral value. So if this is meant to be a criticism of my point, it also fails in understanding my arguments.

    This criteria is void of a real definition to be used in life or death situations.
    How much pain can we inflict and still be ok?
    Does it need appendages? Sex organs? What is the cut off?
    You will have to make that decision. The whole point of pro-choice is to let people make that moral decision because there is no agreed to consensus. Sometimes in life, you have to make value judgments for yourself and live with the consequences of them. Yet despite no clear bright line, we all manage to make such decisions.

    So do infants, injured and the elderly.
    Indeed, when they die, we can no longer care for them, or if they are too injured to save, again, we can no longer care for them. And of course, we sometimes decide its too expensive to care for them and we allow them to die from neglect.

    The only difference is these examples and a fetus is they made thru the birth canal and somehow at that magical moment the fetus developed/acquired/was bestowed/whatever with worth as a human being.
    No, that is not the accepted standard. Generally its the age of viability outside the womb that we invest the fetus with a fuller range of legal protections and moral identity as a person. Not yet a full person under the law, but in the law's view, that child has much greater moral value than one that is not yet able to survive without its mother's willingness to care for it.

    I asked why/how for a given life?
    also
    I hear on the radio 20,000,000 million American kids go to bed hungry frequently.
    60,000,000 do not have clean drinking water
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ter/564278001/
    How for what given life? Your question is very vague. As to the drinking water, yes, sometimes we short cut the care we provide people because we are cheap or petty. You asked me a question about the meaning of what I said. I explained it.

    I don't see a connection with my comment and this response to it??
    You said "5. Its ability to participate as a meaningful member of society increases as it develops."

    I asked how a fetus, at any stage prior to birth can "participate as a meaningful member of society"?
    You said I claimed life has no meaning if you are not a member of society. I was saying that was wrong. I do not make that claim. I then explained how the law differentiates between citizens and non-citizens with respect to rights and treatment even though we recognize the meaning of their lives is not different.

    A fetus does not participate in society but its ability to do so does increase as it grows closer to birth. Its mind develops its body develops and so on. These are useful for participating in society.

    So you say there is a "list of measures".
    Hmm, like a checklist then and you need to hit an overall score?
    I am just trying to figure out how society could apply your thoughts for the discussion of someone's right to life because so far your criteria is quite vague.
    No, it's not a checklist, it is just a list. I'm observing how people think and act and listing what I see as criteria they often use for moral judgment.
    And again, we all make our own judgment on these matters. That is fundamentally why I am pro-choice. Not because I want to see an abortion but because I don't think I can make as clear a moral judgment as the person facing it. I've never impregnated anyone so I've not had to face the choice. I think if I did, I'd choose to keep the child unless the mother adamantly refused, then I would urge an abortion as soon as possible to minimize the harm. But ultimately, it wouldn't be my decision to make, it would be the pregnant woman's decision and I would not be willing to enforce my moral view upon her.

    So the life of a convicted murderer that has been sentenced to death is = in moral value to a fetus/tissue mass/unborn child/whatever?
    No. It serves as an example that the moral value of life is not always paramount to human society. We weigh it against what we perceive as the moral value of the person we are considering killing and the situation we find ourselves in. If I wanted to say they were equal, I'd have said it. I'm pretty direct in my arguments.

    However, for a social, loving, inclusive society, the default position on life would generally lean toward:
    do not harm it unless there is a very compelling reason to kill it.
    I think you should try to frame this more strictly. Say: "Individual human life."

    Anyhow, sure, I agree. But I'm not willing to effectively force a woman in my society to give birth because I'm worried about the rights of a tiny developing fetus. I'm more worried about the woman's life.

    This is part of your criteria (#6) that human worth is partly based on aesthetics (certainly not mine!).
    And the example you gave me isn't one that has much bearing on my own viewpoint. Nor is there much public controversy over whether fat people are deserving of life. That is not true when it comes to a fetus.

    Based on your criteria though, a person could consider obesity that way, because that is their subjective opinion, no?
    Yes, but largely they don't, and I'd probably disagree strongly enough I'd act on protecting said fat person against their aggression.

    So, given that each of your points for a fetus to have worth as a human are:
    1. a fetus needs to be "likely to survive", but the level is undefined...
    Close enough.

    2. we should not kill the fetus after it feels pain at a certain level, but the level is undefined...
    OK, close enough.

    3. the fetus needs to be "similar to a person", but that is undefined
    Yup

    4. same as #1
    Mostly, though this is about our ability to protect it rather than our desire to.

    5. the fetus needs to "participate meaningfully" but no example of "participation" is offered and seems unlikely is even possible
    Not quite. It's the ability to for a fetus, not its actual participation.

    6. aesthetics/human features are necessary but what/how many features are undefined
    You use necessary but that's not really the right word here, this is not a "fail one test and you die" kind of list, its just criteria that people use to determine kinship and assign moral value.

    Now, how would your six points be argued here or in a court of law for instance with virtually nothing defined and using absolute subjectivity (aesthetics) as criteria for determining the value of a given human life?
    Not at all. I never proposed it should be a legal standard.

    ---------- Post added at 04:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I believe you are confused here, I don't think I have made any such statement like "the mother's motivation is trivial" (for choosing to get an abortion).
    Actually I think it does matter, but since there is not any way to know what the mothers motivations actually are with any level of certainty it would generally be a moot point.
    If the mothers' motivations are not trivial, then there is real consideration that abortion could be fully justified. The examples you gave which I responded too certainly seemed to argue the motivation was trivial.

    You said "justified by the mother having a bad day or some kind of anxiety etc..." Sounds pretty trivial to me and that is what I was responding to.

    Indeed, but as you said "killing is objective" and immoral killing is murder is it not?
    Correct.

    It may be one thing for the Gov't to single out murderers as a group and kill them, but soon after that it starts getting pretty hard to justify the taking of innocent life and maintain a pleasant, loving, inclusive, understanding society.
    Not as hard as you might imagine, it's been done throughout human history and is ongoing to this day in many places.

    The criteria you have presented could easily apply to other groups as well as the unborn. I sense a moral slippery slope argument coming on...
    It could. You misunderstand my whole intent. I am not offering up a list that we should all use to determine who lives and who dies and advocating that you use it.

    I am explaining the common criteria by which human beings make moral decisions of life and death.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. #52
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That doesn't make much sense, I thought your argument was that a fetus does have moral value. I also think it has moral value. So if this is meant to be a criticism of my point, it also fails in understanding my arguments.
    Perhaps I do misunderstand you which is why I ask questions of your position, cause I see a human or not a human regarding law. You see "not a human, kinda human, close enough to human, human".
    IOW, you are promoting the value of a life changes/grows during the pregnancy till at some point it enjoys the legal status of "human".

    The issue though is your criteria is completely arbitrary and, as you admit, totally undefined. While that makes for a curious discussion, abortion is a legal matter as a human life is at stake so what is the relevance?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You will have to make that decision. The whole point of pro-choice is to let people make that moral decision because there is no agreed to consensus. Sometimes in life, you have to make value judgments for yourself and live with the consequences of them. Yet despite no clear bright line, we all manage to make such decisions.
    To let "people" decide? You said the father should have no say in the abortion decision (why is that again??).

    Also, what if the father did chose to say, give the mother the morning after pill? What crime, if any, did he commit?
    If your example of "a driver in too big of a hurry killed" a pregnant woman, what crime was committed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Indeed, when they die, we can no longer care for them, or …
    Point was, those groups meet your same criteria


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, that is not the accepted standard. Generally its the age of viability outside the womb that we invest the fetus with a fuller range of legal protections and moral identity as a person. Not yet a full person under the law, but in the law's view, that child has much greater moral value than one that is not yet able to survive without its mother's willingness to care for it.
    1. Perhaps times are a changing to a less emotional/ideological stance to more a logical one....
    2. There are waiting lists of qualified people waiting to adopt. The mothers willingness to "care for" should not be a basis for a legal definition of a human life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, it's not a checklist, it is just a list. I'm observing how people think and act and listing what I see as criteria they often use for moral judgment.
    Arbitrary...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No. It serves as an example that the moral value of life is not always paramount to human society. We weigh it against what we perceive as the moral value of the person we are considering killing and the situation we find ourselves in. If I wanted to say they were equal, I'd have said it. I'm pretty direct in my arguments.
    It serves as an example of an extremely violent person vs a completely innocent one as having the same moral value as a human.
    and
    Ya, you are direct in your arguments generally, but my pointing out the logical conclusion of your arguments is nothing to get your boxers in a bunch about...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think you should try to frame this more strictly. Say: "Individual human life."
    No.
    I said it the way I meant it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Anyhow, sure, I agree.
    See, we can agree at least now and then on some points, and I bet you didn't even get a cramp

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But I'm not willing to effectively force a woman in my society to give birth
    Interesting!
    How are you "forcing" this woman's "giving birth (assuming the mother was a legal adult and had consensual sex)!?

    Sometimes, people have to accept the consequences of their actions or is that just for fathers?......

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    because I'm worried about the rights of a tiny developing fetus. I'm more worried about the woman's life.
    Why? You said the fetus has value.
    How come the mother wanting to kill it trumps all other thoughts/comments/rights?
    How come the father has no rights as a parent, but all the responsibilities of a parent?

    Just because she carries it for 9 mo's? The father "carries it" for ostensibly 18-25 yrs or even more...….

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    And the example you gave me isn't one that has much bearing on my own viewpoint. Nor is there much public controversy over whether fat people are deserving of life. That is not true when it comes to a fetus.
    True but for completely arbitrary reasons.

    I can't remember whether it was Cowboy or Futurboy that was discussing this with me a while back. His claim was something like:
    "the fetus is a human. the mother is carrying it and has sole authority whether it should live or die. He then stated this was basically an "evil position" but felt it was the lessor of two evils" (the mother carrying the baby for nine months being the other "evil").
    How do you feel about this thought?

    What do you think about abortion being used as primary birth control?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It could. You misunderstand my whole intent. I am not offering up a list that we should all use to determine who lives and who dies and advocating that you use it.
    You are, in fact doing just that, only you have tried to limit your argument to just the earlier stages of the unborn. You have given nothing as to why your argument/criteria applies to that group and no other, except that you like/want it that way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I am explaining the common criteria by which human beings make moral decisions of life and death.

    "Common" does not necessarily mean desirable nor ought to.
    The decision to kill a baby/human life/zygote/fetus/whatever should be taken quite seriously and have a sound basis.

    ---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If the mothers' motivations are not trivial, then there is real consideration that abortion could be fully justified. The examples you gave which I responded too certainly seemed to argue the motivation was trivial.

    You said "justified by the mother having a bad day or some kind of anxiety etc..." Sounds pretty trivial to me and that is what I was responding to.
    1.I said they were not trivial, but since they are unknowable, the point is moot...
    2. WTH??? Where did I say anything like "justified by the mother having a bad day or some kind of anxiety etc..." ??

  14. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Perhaps I do misunderstand you which is why I ask questions of your position, cause I see a human or not a human regarding law. You see "not a human, kinda human, close enough to human, human".
    IOW, you are promoting the value of a life changes/grows during the pregnancy till at some point it enjoys the legal status of "human".

    The issue though is your criteria is completely arbitrary and, as you admit, totally undefined. While that makes for a curious discussion, abortion is a legal matter as a human life is at stake so what is the relevance?
    The relevance is that the solution should fit the situation. And we have that to some degree.

    1. There is a wide difference in moral opinion, and so we largely allow individuals to make these moral choices instead of making a collective one. (aka we allow choice, not a blanket restriction)

    2. The moral value of the fetus changes over time, so our laws reflect this and the longer it has developed the more protection it is afforded in the law. (I presume you are familiar with the various supreme court cases involved and their rulings, if not you should read up on them.)

    To let "people" decide? You said the father should have no say in the abortion decision (why is that again??).
    I didn't say that. I said I would not force my view on my partner. The reason is that the woman has the baby in her body and I don't want to take control of her body or her life. I would have a say of course, but not in the sense that I make the final determination, I only influence it with my opinion.

    Also, what if the father did chose to say, give the mother the morning after pill? What crime, if any, did he commit?

    If your example of "a driver in too big of a hurry killed" a pregnant woman, what crime was committed?
    By force? It would be some kind of assault most likely.

    Point was, those groups meet your same criteria
    They don't. They can be evaluated under these criteria, but that doesn't mean they fall to the same judgment. We evaluate all boxers by the same criteria but some win and some don't. Do you understand the distinction between criteria and judgment?

    1. Perhaps times are a changing to a less emotional/ideological stance to more a logical one....
    Perhaps the people making the change are doing so based on an irrational belief in imaginary magical beings and not the reality we live in. That's how I tend to see it.

    2. There are waiting lists of qualified people waiting to adopt. The mothers willingness to "care for" should not be a basis for a legal definition of a human life.
    That is not the basis, it is the ability to care for it. If I hand you a 5-week fetus you will not be able to keep it alive much less bring it to maturity. Without the mother, it's dead. You cannot care for it without her concent and participation.

    Arbitrary...
    Not arbitrary, subjective. They are different things. Love is not arbitrary, but it is subjective. The same goes for beauty. The same goes for moral judgment.

    It serves as an example of an extremely violent person vs a completely innocent one as having the same moral value as a human.
    They don't have the same moral value in my opinion. Nor does a 1-week Fetus and a 1-year-old baby.

    Interesting!
    How are you "forcing" this woman's "giving birth (assuming the mother was a legal adult and had consensual sex)!?
    I am not, but by punishing her if she gets an abortion or denying her access to the medical services necessary for one I would be using force to try and ensure that outcome.

    Sometimes, people have to accept the consequences of their actions or is that just for fathers?......
    So if you make a spelling mistake should you not correct it? Having an abortion could well be the consequence of getting pregnant.

    Why? You said the fetus has value.
    How come the mother wanting to kill it trumps all other thoughts/comments/rights?
    How come the father has no rights as a parent, but all the responsibilities of a parent?
    The fetus does have value.
    The mother has more value.
    He has rights, but he has weaker rights than the mother. This is because the father does not carry the fetus in his body and is not really needed for its biological survival after conception.

    True but for completely arbitrary reasons.
    They are not arbitrary, they are subjective. And unless you want to argue that a fat person doesn't deserve to live, it's immaterial.

    I can't remember whether it was Cowboy or Futurboy that was discussing this with me a while back. His claim was something like:
    "the fetus is a human. the mother is carrying it and has sole authority whether it should live or die. He then stated this was basically an "evil position" but felt it was the lessor of two evils" (the mother carrying the baby for nine months being the other "evil").
    How do you feel about this thought?
    That does not match my view especially well.

    What do you think about abortion being used as primary birth control?
    I think it would be unwise and irresponsible.

    You are, in fact doing just that, only you have tried to limit your argument to just the earlier stages of the unborn. You have given nothing as to why your argument/criteria applies to that group and no other, except that you like/want it that way?
    Again, you totally misunderstand me. It's very hard to make you understand.

    I am not telling you what to do. I am not proposing a law. I am not arguing what you should think. I am not saying what is objectively right or wrong.

    I am describing to you the thinking of people who don't agree with your assessment of the morality of abortion. I am explaining to you the general nature of that rational. Sometimes, I'm also telling you my personal view because you ask me direct questions about it. But the criteria is not my checklist for life or death, it's just a list of the moral motivations people often have when evaluating who lives and who dies.

    I have my own moral judgments about abortion. I've not had to make any such decision personally in my life. I'm careful about who I have sex with. Because I've argued the topic, I have challenged myself to come up with some answers about how I feel with regards to the moral value of a fetus and the moral value of the mother, and what I'm willing or not willing to do to impose my moral view on others. Here is mine....

    When the fetus is very early and is largely undeveloped I have almost nor moral feelings for it. You could slaughter them by the billions and I would not care.

    When the fetus has taken on a distinctly human form, has a brain, heart, and autonomous movement, I'm much more morally concerned about its life and feel that it is best to allow it to develop. I think some level of restrictions are appropriate to discourage the choice for abortion, but I'm not willing to absolutely prohibit it.

    As the fetus moves to the age of viability I am much more likely to use force to impose my moral view that it is a member of society enshrined with rights and protections of the law. I think a ban on such abortions but for the significant danger to the woman's life is appropriate.

    This view is largely based on my instinct for human empathy. By looking long and hard at developing fetuses, reading stories about people who have had abortions, and considering all the arguments and my emotional reactions to them. None of that is arbitrary, but it is subjective, based on my heartfelt reaction to a great deal of information. In analyzing these feelings and those of others, I can articulate the list we were discussing as the turning points on which people's empathy lies.

    But this is my view, not yours, and I don't mean to force it upon you or argue that you must feel the way I do.

    "Common" does not necessarily mean desirable nor ought to.
    The decision to kill a baby/human life/zygote/fetus/whatever should be taken quite seriously and have a sound basis.
    There is no objective basis possible. People make moral decisions based on their feelings, experience, and circumstances. You can try to persuade people, but you cannot objectively say what is morally true or false.

    You have no choice but to speak to people's sympathy if you want to persuade them of a moral cause.

    2. WTH??? Where did I say anything like "justified by the mother having a bad day or some kind of anxiety etc..." ??
    I'm sorry. I was originally responding to Eye4Magic, and you responded to my response to her, and that let me to attribute the original statement to you. You in fact did not say this.

    (Its the one thing that drives me a bit crazy with multi-person debate threads. When the streams cross, things get confusing.)
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The relevance is that the solution should fit the situation. And we have that to some degree.
    The "situation" is:
    A mother wants to hire someone to kill her unborn child. A child you say has at least some value as a human.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I didn't say that. I said I would not force my view on my partner. The reason is that the woman has the baby in her body and I don't want to take control of her body or her life. I would have a say of course, but not in the sense that I make the final determination, I only influence it with my opinion.
    The only "view" I can see is whether the unborn is a human life or not. If it is, there are laws to protect it. If it's not, who cares?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    By force? It would be some kind of assault most likely.
    I asked two questions:
    What crime has been committed of the father gives the mother the "morning after pill"?
    What crime has been committed by the driver of a car who killed a pregnant woman because the were in a hurry?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Perhaps the people making the change are doing so based on an irrational belief in imaginary magical beings and not the reality we live in. That's how I tend to see it.
    a. Twer I were a theist, I would take exception to this obvious ad hom….
    b. as I am not a theist, I still take exception to this obvious ad hom!
    c. You need only look here:
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...ally-justified
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...does-not-exist
    to see my skepticism of general religious belief.

    It is a naïve and scary mindset indeed to promote that:
    "God exists as the only/largest reason to prefer people not kill innocent people!!"

    It's actually a quality of a growing, noble, empathetic, caring society.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That is not the basis, it is the ability to care for it. If I hand you a 5-week fetus you will not be able to keep it alive much less bring it to maturity. Without the mother, it's dead. You cannot care for it without her concent and participation.
    Besides the fact that one day science most likely be able to care for a 5 week old fetus without the mother, so what?
    I don't see how that makes it less of a life or human?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Not arbitrary, subjective. They are different things. Love is not arbitrary, but it is subjective. The same goes for beauty. The same goes for moral judgment.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness
    "Arbitrariness is the quality of being "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"."

    Your criteria is not based on anything objective and basically allows for the unborn to be killed for any the mother so chooses.
    "You" can call it "subjective" but that changes nothing.....

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    They don't have the same moral value in my opinion. Nor does a 1-week Fetus and a 1-year-old baby.
    True, I misspoke. Sorry for the confusion...
    Per you the moral value of each:
    convicted killer - can not be killed except under the most stringent of legal standards
    1 yr old baby - can not be killed legally for any reason
    unborn human - can be killed by the mother for any reason

    So even the convicted killer is afforded more worth than the innocent unborn.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I am not, but by punishing her if she gets an abortion or denying her access to the medical services necessary for one I would be using force to try and ensure that outcome.
    So you think that a woman that has consensual sex and gets pregnant is being "forced" to give birth if abortion/killing the unborn was not legal? A twisted logic to me??
    Prior to abortions even being available was this still the case?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So if you make a spelling mistake should you not correct it?
    CERTAINLY NOT if it costs a human life!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The fetus does have value.
    The mother has more value.
    You keep saying this but it's all arbitrary and subjective. If majority opinion should swing toward "abortion = murder" your argument holds the same weight!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    He has rights, but he has weaker rights than the mother. This is because the father does not carry the fetus in his body and is not really needed for its biological survival after conception.
    1. How does carrying the child for some months entitle the mother the "right" to kill it?
    2. Some one is needed for "biological survival" long after birth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That does not match my view especially well.
    Except for your acknowledgement of it, I'm missing the distinct difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think it would be unwise and irresponsible.
    I am happy to hear you say this.
    Are you aware it is quite common?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Again, you totally misunderstand me. It's very hard to make you understand.
    Indeed, that works both ways, but I think we are making some progress, yes?



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I am not telling you what to do. I am not proposing a law. I am not arguing what you should think. I am not saying what is objectively right or wrong.
    AHH! I have been misunderstanding. All you are doing is trying to describe the sorry situation we currently found ourselves in. Your commentary is not to justify nor show the logic of current law, you are just explaining the mind set that got us here?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    When the fetus is very early and is largely undeveloped I have almost nor moral feelings for it. You could slaughter them by the billions and I would not care.
    Sad, misguided, and so far indefensible, but ok for the sake of conversation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    When the fetus has taken on a distinctly human form, has a brain, heart, and autonomous movement, I'm much more morally concerned about its life and feel that it is best to allow it to develop. I think some level of restrictions are appropriate to discourage the choice for abortion, but I'm not willing to absolutely prohibit it.
    Again, "how" human it looks (aesthetics) as a criteria for human worth is intellectually indefensible it seems to me?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    As the fetus moves to the age of viability I am much more likely to use force to impose my moral view that it is a member of society enshrined with rights and protections of the law. I think a ban on such abortions but for the significant danger to the woman's life is appropriate.
    Not long ago a premature birth meant death most likely. How old "viable" is gets shorter all the time. I don't see how this affects the mothers nor the child's life/right to life in an appreciable manner?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    This view is largely based on my instinct for human empathy.
    This, I find a very....um....odd/curious/incredibly hard to defend except emotionally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    By looking long and hard at developing fetuses, reading stories about people who have had abortions, and considering all the arguments and my emotional reactions to them.
    I have been and argued pro-choice my entire adult life (save for a few ODN threads). I personally know women who have done it. Some just try to forget and move on. Some have been affected deeply by it, having come to the undeniable conclusion that they had their own child killed, on purpose, and paid some one to do it. Some never had children after the abortion and profoundly regret not being a parent.
    There are no "winners" involved with an abortion. It is a tragedy of a human life proportions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But this is my view, not yours, and I don't mean to force it upon you or argue that you must feel the way I do.
    It is an emotional, difficult topic worthy of discussion, especially to see that your "view" makes sense and is caring and logical...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    There is no objective basis possible. People make moral decisions based on their feelings, experience, and circumstances. You can try to persuade people, but you cannot objectively say what is morally true or false.
    "It" is a human life or "it" is not objectively.
    "It" doesn't become human at some point. It is a human life or it is not. There are not varying degrees of humanity.
    Can one say that the killing of ones own child is not objectively wrong? I suppose, but the support leaves one wanting...



    I told you that I was, most of my, life pro-choice. That changed when one day when I read an abortion thread on ODN and it caught my attention for some reason. On a whim I decided since no on else was taking the pro-life side, I would take the pro-life position.

    Try arguing for that which you do not currently believe once in a while, it may change your life
    Last edited by Belthazor; November 5th, 2019 at 06:17 PM.

  16. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  17. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,700
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A mother wants to hire someone to kill her unborn child. A child you say has at least some value as a human.
    That's not particularly accurate. The goal of the abortion is not to kill the child. It's to end the pregnancy. Of course in ending the pregnancy, the fetus dies, but that is a side-effect of abortion, not the purpose of abortion nor what the mother is typically seeking.

    Saying the killing the fetus is the purpose of abortion is like saying that breaking eggs is the purpose of making an omelet.

    And if in the future, a technology is developed that would remove the fetus and keep it alive (like in an artificial womb), it would still be technically an abortion to end the pregnancy that way. So killing the fetus is not a necessary component of an abortion since theoretically (but not currently in actuality) an abortion does not require the death of the fetus.

    This isn't necessarily relevant to your overall argument but to be clear, killing the fetus is not what the mother is paying the doctor to do nor the goal of abortion.

  18. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's not particularly accurate. The goal of the abortion is not to kill the child. It's to end the pregnancy.
    One of the more bizarre comments you have made to me

    What is the meaningful difference between (in the case of abortion):

    "ending a pregnancy"
    and
    killing the unborn child
    ????

    The mother is CERTAINLY seeking the death of the fetus/unborn/etc that is (currently) what an abortion is! That is the ONLY outcome (currently) of "ending the pregnancy".




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if in the future, a technology is developed that would remove the fetus and keep it alive (like in an artificial womb), it would still be technically an abortion to end the pregnancy that way. So killing the fetus is not a necessary component of an abortion since theoretically (but not currently in actuality) an abortion does not require the death of the fetus.

    That scenario would "end the pregnancy", but would not be an abortion, but would be an enviable situation.

  19. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,700
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    One of the more bizarre comments you have made to me

    What is the meaningful difference between (in the case of abortion):

    "ending a pregnancy"
    and
    killing the unborn child
    ????
    Ending the pregnancy does not require the death of the fetus. Obviously giving birth qualifies as "ending a pregnancy" and the child does not die in that instance. And likewise if there was a technology that removes a fetus but keeps it alive, doing that would also "ending a pregnancy" but not involve the death of the fetus.


    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    The mother is CERTAINLY seeking the death of the fetus/unborn/etc that is (currently) what an abortion is! That is the ONLY outcome (currently) of "ending the pregnancy".
    If by SEEKING you mean it's what the woman primarily wants, you are incorrect. Some women who have abortions don't want to kill the fetus but find it an unfortunate necessity to get what they ARE SEEKING - an end to the pregnancy.

    If the death of the fetus was the primary purpose of an abortion, then killing the fetus in the womb and leaving it there (in other words, not removing it after killing it) would give the woman "what she is seeking". But of course that's not what she is seeking. She is seeking to have it removed from her body and I think it's safe to say that if technology existed to keep it alive, many women would opt to keep the fetus alive that which shows that they are not seeking to kill the fetus (generally speaking - there may be some who actually do want it to die).

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    That scenario would "end the pregnancy", but would not be an abortion, but would be an enviable situation.
    The relevant definition of abortion is:

    "induced expulsion of a human fetus"

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion

    There is no mention of the fetus dying in that definition. So if a fetus was expelled but the fetus was able to survive, it would still technically be an abortion.

    In short, the death of the fetus is an unfortunate by-product of abortion, not the purpose of abortion.
    Last edited by mican333; November 5th, 2019 at 09:13 PM.

  20. #58
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    The "situation" is:
    A mother wants to hire someone to kill her unborn child. A child you say has at least some value as a human.
    Yes. And we weigh that moral value against the mother's right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.

    The only "view" I can see is whether the unborn is a human life or not. If it is, there are laws to protect it. If it's not, who cares?
    You could say the sun is only up or not. But in truth, it is more complicated than that. The sun can be at many different positions in the sky and it changes depending on where you are on earth.

    Yes, a fetus is a human life, but it is different in many respects from a grown adult. My blood is human life too, but it's very different than me as a person.

    What crime has been committed of the father gives the mother the "morning after pill"?
    None at all.

    What crime has been committed by the driver of a car who killed a pregnant woman because the were in a hurry?
    Manslaughter generally. Sometimes third-degree murder.

    Besides the fact that one day science most likely be able to care for a 5 week old fetus without the mother, so what?
    I don't see how that makes it less of a life or human?
    Two situations.
    1. You see a man on the street bleeding to death just a couple of feet away. You do nothing to help him.
    2. You see someone on a video bleeding to death in a country very far from you, let's say on video. You do nothing to help him.

    Is one of these actions more immoral than the other?
    Yes. I think the first is more immoral. In the second situation, it is very unlikely you could do anything helpful in time to save the man. Your action won't have any impact on his life even if you wanted to help. In the first, you could very well save his life by calling for help. Your action has a real consequence on his life.

    With an unborn child, even if you wanted to save them unless you are willing to take away rights from his mother, you can't. You can not help it except to use force to make the mother bare the child or punish her should she disobey your orders. With abusive parents, we can simply take the child and care for it. With an unborn fetus, you can't do that, it will just die without its mother. You cannot take personal responsibility for its life, only its mother can do that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness
    "Arbitrariness is the quality of being "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"."
    There are principles, reasons, and necessities. But they are not objective ones.

    Taste in film is subjective, but a film critic is not arbitrary. They cite why they like or dislike something. They can talk about the qualities that make a film good or bad. But they can't draw an objective line that anyone can use to measure the quality of a film the exact same way. Yet we all can understand the reasons and principles used.

    Per you the moral value of each:
    convicted killer - can not be killed except under the most stringent of legal standards
    1 yr old baby - can not be killed legally for any reason
    unborn human - can be killed by the mother for any reason
    False, false, and false.
    (as to the law)
    Convicted killers can be killed if the law allows it.
    1 year old babies can be killed legally in war and often are, though not intentionally.
    There are legal restrictions on when and why you can kill an unborn human.

    (As for me)
    I have no problem killing killers or would-be killers. I do have concerns about the power of the state to kill people and the reliability of our justice system, but they are not moral concerns. If the moment you attempted to kill someone you were instantly vaporized, I'd say that would be very moral.

    1-year old baby: I can think of moral situations where you let them die, but none where you are actively killing them.

    Unborn fetus: It depends a lot on how developed it is for me.

    So even the convicted killer is afforded more worth than the innocent unborn.
    Not for me personally, now. As to the law of the US, yes.

    So you think that a woman that has consensual sex and gets pregnant is being "forced" to give birth if abortion/killing the unborn was not legal? A twisted logic to me??
    Yes. I don't care if you find it twisted unless you can explain to me why. Having sex is not a tacit acceptance of giving birth. That vast majority of sexual encounters in this universe do not result in bearing offspring. Nearly all offspring are the result of having sex, but the reverse is not true.

    Prior to abortions even being available was this still the case?
    Abortions have always been available. They had abortions in ancient Egypt. Pretty much all of recorded history so far as we know.

    1. How does carrying the child for some months entitle the mother the "right" to kill it?
    It doesn't.

    2. Some one is needed for "biological survival" long after birth.
    Indeed but that someone can be nearly anyone at that point. Prior to that, only the mother can, no one else.

    I am happy to hear you say this.
    Are you aware it is quite common?
    Yes. Many things I think are unwise and irresponsible are quite common. Getting drunk is a good example. Voting for Trump is another good one.

    AHH! I have been a misunderstanding. All you are doing is trying to describe the sorry situation we currently found ourselves in. Your commentary is not to justify nor show the logic of current law, you are just explaining the mindset that got us here?
    Correct. Sometimes I also give you my views because that is what you are asking me for. But, largely I am arguing about how people do moral calculations. Views on abortion are quite widespread. The argument that: It has human DNA, therefore, its equal to us, is not one that works for a great many people's moral viewpoint. Humans do not traditionally make moral decisions by consulting a DNA test.

    Sad, misguided, and so far indefensible, but ok for the sake of conversation.
    It's very defensible. An early-stage fetus is little more than a blob of cells. It has no name, no identity, no personality, no feelings, no thoughts, no autonomy, it does nothing to help anyone, it does not have any ability to do anything for anyone. It can't survive on its own. It is 100% dependent on its mother. It has only a modest chance of survival. Its death could allow another to live in its place. Other than biochemistry it bears no resemblance to anyone or anything else in my society.

    Again, "how" human it looks (aesthetics) as a criteria for human worth is intellectually indefensible it seems to me?
    So it seems to you, but I'll bet that if I measured your emotional reaction to killing a "human" that looked like a watermelon vs say a 9-year-old girl with pigtails, I bet you would react a lot more strongly to the little girl than the Mellon-person. You say you wouldn't react to aesthetics but I would happily bet you are wrong.

    Not long ago a premature birth meant death most likely. How old "viable" is gets shorter all the time. I don't see how this affects the mothers nor the child's life/right to life in an appreciable manner?
    I explained it earlier. Viability means there is a practical means to take the mother out of the equation and take full responsibility for the child.

    This, I find a very....um....odd/curious/incredibly hard to defend except emotionally.
    But it is all emotion for the most part. Your feelings, that is what drives morality, that and the need to live together with other people. Emotion gives us goals and desires. Logic shapes that into behavior that is mutually beneficial. But at its heart, its about emotion. It always has been. It always will be.

    You want to protect life because you feel compelled to do it. When you don't feel compelled, then you don't.

    I doubt that is convincing to you. But, I'll start a thread for you and show you why it's true. Please look for it.

    I told you that I was, most of my, life pro-choice. That changed when one day when I read an abortion thread on ODN and it caught my attention for some reason. On a whim I decided since no on else was taking the pro-life side, I would take the pro-life position.

    Try arguing for that which you do not currently believe once in a while, it may change your life
    I've done it many times. I was a competitive debater for about 4 years, you have to argue both sides of the topics to compete. I also play devil's advocate when people ask me to. It hasn't changed my life as of yet. Nor would it change my life, I had a Vasectomy when I got married because my wife didn't want to have any children.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  21. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yes. And we weigh that moral value against the mother's right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.
    1. As long as this "bodily autonomy and self-determination" doesn't involve the needless killing of a human I'm good with it.
    2. The bodily autonomy that matters is the right to life for that life which the mother willingly created (with the help of the father).

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yes, a fetus is a human life, but it is different in many respects from a grown adult. My blood is human life too, but it's very different than me as a person.
    Progress me thinks

    Your blood can not ever be a human life of it's own. It helps keep you alive, nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    None at all.
    Well then let me enlighten you:

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...icle-1.1593401
    "Florida man who tricked girlfriend into taking abortion pill sentenced to nearly 14 years in prison"

    You don't have to search very hard to find multiple cases.
    Of course the mother could have taken it, killed the baby, and no harm done at all.../why is that again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Manslaughter generally. Sometimes third-degree murder.
    We need some more light here as well I see:

    https://www.newsweek.com/why-are-fet...h-tolls-705928
    "when a gunman entered a Texas church and methodically shot everyone he saw, he killed 25 people, including an eight-month pregnant woman named Crystal Holcombe. But by Texas law, the final death count was 26 to account for Holcombe's unborn child.

    I don't see a distinction for how far along the pregnancy was in this case (BTW, it's pretty easy to search pregnancy counting as a human as far as murder goes). So here your whole idea of a fetus gaining rights as it progresses kinda goes out the window....
    Oh, unless it is the MOTHER that wants to kill it, then we are all good.
    Why is it that it's a life worthy of all legal status of an adult, unless it is the mother that wants to kill it again???


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Is one of these actions more immoral than the other?
    Yes. I think the first is more immoral. In the second situation, it is very unlikely you could do anything helpful in time to save the man.....
    Yes, I think it is in the best interest of humanity to try to help innocent people in general.
    Not helping a bleeding man isn't a moral positive, yet not a legal issue...

    Allowing legally, an innocent unborn human to be killed by their mother for any reason at all, is not a moral positive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    There are principles, reasons, and necessities. But they are not objective ones.
    K, still waitin to hear um??
    Though I agree they won't be objective!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    False, false, and false.
    (as to the law)
    Oh please!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Convicted killers can be killed if the law allows it.
    As I said, but the laws regarding it are very, incredibly, stringent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    1 year old babies can be killed legally in war and often are, though not intentionally.
    Get a grip.
    Holy Hesus Christ!!
    War? Really? If this was the best you can "do" for babies why even bother having written it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    There are legal restrictions on when and why you can kill an unborn human.
    Well, due tell, what are the "whys' that restrict abortion?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yes. I don't care if you find it twisted unless you can explain to me why. Having sex is not a tacit acceptance of giving birth. That vast majority of sexual encounters in this universe do not result in bearing offspring. Nearly all offspring are the result of having sex, but the reverse is not true.
    Unless a person is totally ignorant of how pregnancy occurs and what it entails, they do indeed give tacit acceptance!!!
    IOW, if you know it's a possible outcome, you have DEFINATELY agreed to that outcome explicitly!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Indeed but that someone can be nearly anyone at that point. Prior to that, only the mother can, no one else.
    Why do you think this matters sooooo much that it is ok to kill it???

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yes. Many things I think are unwise and irresponsible are quite common. Getting drunk is a good example. Voting for Trump is another good one.
    Then you would support more restrictions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Correct. Sometimes I also give you my views because that is what you are asking me for. But, largely I am arguing about how people do moral calculations.
    Definitely a disconnect then between our positions as I am forwarding what ought to be based on the definition of human life, not what has been in the past or why it was done. Many things done in the past should be discarded ya know??

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It's very defensible.
    Ok, I'm listening

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I explained it earlier. Viability means there is a practical means to take the mother out of the equation and take full responsibility for the child.
    Why should this be necessary/desirable to not kill the baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You want to protect life because you feel compelled to do it. When you don't feel compelled, then you don't.
    Hmmm, kinda leaving some pretty important things out of your thought here but ok.
    Let's explore this then. Tell me when I am not compelled to "protect life".

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I doubt that is convincing to you. But, I'll start a thread for you and show you why it's true. Please look for it.
    Ok.

    ---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It doesn't.
    This makes no sense to me at ALL???
    Now, per you, the mother carrying the child does AND does not give her the right to kill it???

    Please explain??
    Last edited by Belthazor; November 6th, 2019 at 05:46 PM.

  22. #60
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Infanticide and Late Term Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    1. As long as this "bodily autonomy and self-determination" doesn't involve the needless killing of a human I'm good with it.
    Who said it was needless? People always have needs.

    2. The bodily autonomy that matters is the right to life for that life which the mother willingly created (with the help of the father).
    Body autonomy is the right to choose what to do with your body. The right to life is not the same thing.

    Your blood can not ever be a human life of it's own. It helps keep you alive, nothing more.
    No, it contains my DNA, it can live outside my body, it can live inside someone else's body. It's made of the same kinds of materials I am. It's human, its life, but it's not a person.

    Well then let me enlighten you:
    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...icle-1.1593401
    "Florida man who tricked girlfriend into taking abortion pill sentenced to nearly 14 years in prison"
    You said if he gave it to her, not if he tricked her into taking it.

    https://www.newsweek.com/why-are-fet...h-tolls-705928
    "when a gunman entered a Texas church and methodically shot everyone he saw, he killed 25 people, including an eight-month pregnant woman named Crystal Holcombe. But by Texas law, the final death count was 26 to account for Holcombe's unborn child.
    It only applies to intentional harm, your situation was a car accident. It's manslaughter.

    I don't see a distinction for how far along the pregnancy was in this case (BTW, it's pretty easy to search pregnancy counting as a human as far as murder goes). So here your whole idea of a fetus gaining rights as it progresses kinda goes out the window....
    There are many crimes that don't involve anyone's rights. It's a crime to j-walk, no rights are really being violated there. Murder is not based on the right to life, it's based on something the law says is illegal, killing people without a legal warrant or just cause.

    Why is it that it's a life worthy of all legal status of an adult, unless it is the mother that wants to kill it again???
    It's not, you need to do more study of what the law is.

    Yes, I think it is in the best interest of humanity to try to help innocent people in general.
    Not helping a bleeding man isn't a moral positive, yet not a legal issue...
    It can be a legal issue sometimes actually, though generally not. But regardless I was discussing morality, not law in that example.

    Get a grip.
    Holy Hesus Christ!!
    War? Really? If this was the best you can "do" for babies why even bother having written it?
    Because it is part of the reality of our existence. Lots of innocent people die "legally" in war and it's often claimed to be morally justified as well. I was discussing what is legal, and killing babies in war is indeed legal so long as it is an accident or acceptable collateral damage to a primary military target. How many innocents did we incinerate with the atomic bombs in Japan? Lots. So I think it's pretty relevant.

    Well, due tell, what are the "whys' that restrict abortion?
    The legal why for restricting abortion is the state's interest in protecting the life of the fetus. The limiting why's are the civil rights of the mother of the unborn child.

    Unless a person is totally ignorant of how pregnancy occurs and what it entails, they do indeed give tacit acceptance!!!
    IOW, if you know it's a possible outcome, you have DEFINATELY agreed to that outcome explicitly!
    Apparently you haven't had much sex in your life, that or you have an awful lot of children.

    Why do you think this matters sooooo much that it is ok to kill it???
    Because it is better than the alternative.

    Then you would support more restrictions?
    Generally, no I wouldn't.

    Why should this be necessary/desirable to not kill the baby?
    Because unless you want to enslave the mother you can't effectively protect the baby.

    Let's explore this then. Tell me when I am not compelled to "protect life".
    I don't think I can tell you what does or doesn't compel you, you would be the one to tell me.

    This makes no sense to me at ALL???
    Now, per you, the mother carrying the child does AND does not give her the right to kill it???
    I didn't say that. I said that the reason she has this right is NOT due to getting pregnant and carrying the child for X amount of time as you suggested.



    PS: I think we are kind of devolving to just responding to eachothers responses and not really going anywhere.
    Last edited by Sigfried; November 7th, 2019 at 08:11 AM.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is infanticide just a very late term abortion?
    By theophilus in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 26th, 2011, 01:04 AM
  2. infanticide and morality
    By tARoPINOS in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 10th, 2007, 11:27 AM
  3. Too Little, Too Late
    By manise in forum Politics
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2006, 01:02 PM
  4. Infanticide
    By AntiMaterialist in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 19th, 2005, 03:46 PM

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
  •