Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Powder Miner]

Pre-life arguments would be what, saying that abortion is actually going back in time and ex-ter-min-at-ing the mother? Because I don't get it.

[Glowcat]

Pre-life arguments would be what, saying that abortion is actually going back in time and ex-ter-min-at-ing the mother? Because I don't get it.

Pre-life as in declaring the fetus to be a person before it could rationally be considered such. I feel it's more descriptive of the issue than "Pro-life" when those supporters likewise eagerly support the death penalty. If one wishes to speak of the sanctity of life, one cannot make exceptions for those who "deserve it".

[SalmonGod]

So... social ability is your measure of personhood?  That has implications beyond the abortion debate.

[Glowcat]

So... social ability is your measure of personhood?  That has implications beyond the abortion debate.

As in being able to understand the basics of it, yes. As far as I'm aware only those who are seriously mentally unwell (i.e. what could be called insanity) do not qualify but as they've once been a part of society, and the hope of curing that state would be expected from each other, we can agree that it's not in our best interest to kill people who are suffering from mental illness at the same time that we recognize their inability to make rational decisions (handing those over to a guardian).

[Heron TSG]

I decided on a whim to look up the definitions of manslaughter and murder today, and found something rather odd about California. Wikipedia sums it fairly well.

California's murder statute, Penal Code Section 187, was interpreted by the Supreme Court of California in 1994 as not requiring any proof of the viability of the fetus as a prerequisite to a murder conviction. This holding has two implications. The first is a defendant in California can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus which the mother herself could have terminated without committing a crime. The second, as stated by Justice Stanley Mosk in his dissent, because women carrying nonviable fetuses may not be visibly pregnant, it may be possible for a defendant to be convicted of intentionally murdering a person he did not know existed.

Any Californians about that can relate the implications to abortions? It reads like abortion is legally murder in California to my eyes, but that doesn't seem quite right for such a liberal state.

[kaijyuu]

My definition of sapience is the ability for the mind to understand basic social concepts such as reciprocity and have at least a bit of personal responsibility when it comes to breaking that contract (whether the punishment is imposed by society at large or parents). Without that basic ability to operate within society it is impossible to call anything a person, considering that all rights and privileges surrounding that term depend on working within a social framework. Throwing rights at organisms who've never been a part of a society and cannot appreciate them is foolish. Giving those rights at the expense of those who can understand them is abominable.

Okie dokie, we can start from this premise.


At what point does a child (e: or fetus, or whatever) gain these traits, in your opinion?

I know that non-committal stances are popular because they reduce conflict, but ending those arguments requires a "right" answer. Certainly it's possible for somebody to value their own emotions over rational consideration of the issue but any actual debate requires respect for the latter. I am of the opinion that all rational consideration points towards pre-life arguments being empty of merit, thus we're in a period where getting that information across is more essential than leaving the question open.

Again you're claiming your position is the only rational one. I don't hold a non-committal stance for convenience; I get a lot of shit about it, actually. I hold a non-committal stance because I've yet to actually hear a convincing argument about defining personhood from any side, and so far haven't come up with a satisfactory version of my own. Furthermore, I don't like making guesses when it comes to people's lives.

[Frumple]

Again you're claiming your position is the only rational one.

Ngnh, actually, the precise wording was a little more careful than that, though possibly not intentionally. He's not actually claiming that his position is the only rational one, only that pre-life (which I like, and believe I'll abscond with) arguments are devoid of merit when considered rationally. As you point out, kaijyuu, it's entirely likely that both sides are lacking of that sort of merit, and some other heuristic than rationality (I wince, so hard, but it does happen in certain cases, especially if you're aiming to keep things to harder logic) is going to be needed.

From that position, it's probably fair to say educating people as to the rest of the things surrounding the issue would be of considerable greater net benefit than pandering to a (presumably) irrational argument and letting that argument bog down more beneficial time expenditures.

[kaijyuu]

Truth be told, I WOULD love to educate people that the debate isn't about souls or religion or any of the other irrelevant crap people bring up. Pretty much no one advocates protecting non-existing people (well except the wackos against birth control), yet it constantly devolves into that. In reality, it's all about where to draw the line between person and non-person; claiming otherwise is plain avoiding the real issue. But of course people love their circular arguments; rather than debate where to draw the line, pro-lifers use arguments against murder (under their assumption it's already human) while pro-choicers use arguments against protecting non-existing individuals (under the assumption that is it not human), completely talking past each other.

Thankfully one argument I used to hear has faded into oblivion as far as I can tell: I used to hear people saying that the fetus WAS human, but the mother has the right to kick it out. Which is obviously ridiculous because if we accept it to be human, we also accept the mother to be the parent, and thus having the responsibility to keep it alive (within reason) same as if it were born.


EDIT: I'm using the words "personhood" "human" and "sapience" interchangeably here, though I know some like to draw distinctions. Apologies if any confusion arises from that.

[G-Flex]

Pretty much no one advocates protecting non-existing people (well except the wackos against birth control)

Actually, I've heard plenty of pro-lifers speak out against the destruction of "potential life". Sometimes it's hard to explain to them why that doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Glowcat]

Any value in my own position is because I find other positions to be untenable. This includes the non-committal stance you believe you are taking, without realizing that it is in itself a stance on the issue of personhood. Being a person or non-person extends beyond the single issue of abortion. Whenever you eat another non-human animal, or allow another non-human animal to be killed, you're making that decision with a particular understanding of what is a person. Even the usage of plants or non-living objects include an assumption of personhood that most people gloss over entirely because intelligent rocks are something that on its face seems absurd, yet we're still applying an unconscious understanding of person vs. nonperson in our interactions.

If you don't like making guesses when it comes to peoples' lives, then how do you justify or ignore so much else that happens in human society? Apologies if I'm making an untrue assumption as to your reaction to the treatment of non-human animals.

At what point does a child (e: or fetus, or whatever) gain these traits, in your opinion?

I cannot speak with certainty here, it is true, but given that observed hints of emerging social capacity start to appear only after the infancy period, I'm very confident that if they do appear during the pre-birthing period it is only at the very end. The blurred line is well outside of the region where most of the abortion dispute takes place, opening only a sliver for partial birth abortion discussion. When considering where that line is exactly we must honestly reflect on why we exclude other animals who might possess similar intellectual ability from personhood while accepting even less capable human fetuses. Certainly many feel that speciesism is acceptable, looking at the issue as a simplified in-group vs. out-group distinction, but I prefer an answer which cuts to the heart of what society and its people are. Much better to have a more encompassing answer if spacefaring extraterrestrials, new terrestrial intelligence, or true AI, arrive some day and then if needed refine the idea from a somewhat workable platform. That way we can avoid another debacle involving "races without souls."

Without evidence to back the intelligence of a fetus and given a considerably low probability when it comes to meeting the requirements we use to exclude non-humans from person status, I give full support behind the right for a woman to abort said fetus, especially when its existence is harmful to her own personal or financial well-being.

[kaijyuu]

Actually, I've heard plenty of pro-lifers speak out against the destruction of "potential life". Sometimes it's hard to explain to them why that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Well I haven't met any (again besides the aforementioned anti-birth control people), but I can't say I'd be very surprised that such people exist. If they're fine with birth control but anti-abortion of potential people there's definitely a non-sequitur in there somewhere. I won't even really go into the logical conclusion of protecting potential people (IE boning as much as possible for maximum baby potential, like some sort of twisted dwarf fortress player).

Any value in my own position is because I find other positions to be untenable. This includes the non-committal stance you believe you are taking, without realizing that it is in itself a stance on the issue of personhood. Being a person or non-person extends beyond the single issue of abortion. Whenever you eat another non-human animal, or allow another non-human animal to be killed, you're making that decision with a particular understanding of what is a person. Even the usage of plants or non-living objects include an assumption of personhood that most people gloss over entirely because intelligent rocks are something that on its face seems absurd, yet we're still applying an unconscious understanding of person vs. nonperson in our interactions.

I'm non-committal specifically on abortion. I'm committal on animals and plants (I'm a vegetarian for moral reasons).

It's true I have several opinions on what does and does not define personhood, but I've got far from a complete set. So if you don't want me to use "non-committal" to describe it, how about just plain "uncertain"?

If you don't like making guesses when it comes to peoples' lives, then how do you justify or ignore so much else that happens in human society?

Two things.

1) Do PETA's methods work? Sometimes you gotta realize shouting as loud as possible and claiming other people are horrible and repugnant doesn't work to further your goal. There's one justification for "ignoring" things.
2) I perhaps do less than I can to fight against nasty stuff in human society, but it's not nothing. Besides, how much is enough? If I want to stop or mitigate homelessness, that doesn't mean I have to volunteer at a shelter for hours every day to satisfy a moral obligation.


Also, my "not liking making guesses" is again, specifically for abortion. It's hard to think up an analogy... so I won't. To me it's shades of uncertainty; I'm pretty sure the child is human prior to the umbilical cord being cut. I'm pretty sure it's not human at the point of the sperm hits the egg. Where in-between it becomes human, I dunno, and am unwilling to make a commitment. Risking the wrong choice is not blood I want on my hands. That's the basis of my neutrality, pretty much.

I cannot speak with certainty here, it is true, but given that observed hints of emerging social capacity start to appear only after the infancy period, I'm very confident that if they do appear during the pre-birthing period it is only at the very end. The blurred line is well outside of the region where most of the abortion dispute takes place, opening only a sliver for partial birth abortion discussion. When considering where that line is exactly we must honestly reflect on why we exclude other animals who might possess similar intellectual ability from personhood while accepting even less capable human fetuses. Certainly many feel that speciesism is acceptable, looking at the issue as a simplified in-group vs. out-group distinction, but I prefer an answer which cuts to the heart of what society and its people are. Much better to have a more encompassing answer if spacefaring extraterrestrials, new terrestrial intelligence, or true AI, arrive some day and then if needed refine the idea from a somewhat workable platform. That way we can avoid another debacle involving "races without souls."

Without evidence to back the intelligence of a fetus and given a considerably low probability when it comes to meeting the requirements we use to exclude non-humans from person status, I give full support behind the right for a woman to abort said fetus, especially when its existence is harmful to her own personal or financial well-being.

Righto. I don't necessarily agree but I'll admit you've got solid logic from the stated premises.


To me, intelligence doesn't quite suit my view of "personhood." More (or maybe less?) to it than that. Life, to me, is all about experiencing the world around you, and as such it extends (far) beyond social things. Perhaps simple consciousness satisfies my view, perhaps not. Not decided yet.

[SalmonGod]

It's one of many possible definitions of personhood based on a criteria that is selected according to entirely subjective values.

For me, personhood has nothing to do with it.  I simply recognize that suffering is bad.  If any creature, human or not, is capable of experiencing suffering, we should take as many steps as we're able to minimize that suffering.  Sometimes that means getting an abortion, even if the aborted child experiences some suffering as a result.  It may save greater amounts of suffering in the long run, even for the aborted child.  Some people will make this judgment call carelessly.  Some will refuse when it's what they really should have done.  It's not anyone else's place to make that judgment for them.  People can be irresponsible with any freedom.  That's no reason they shouldn't have it.  All this stuff about definitions of personhood or acceptable circumstances or whatever else are irrelevant, in my opinion.  They do nothing but obscure and polarize the issue. 

I just want to see people be honest about the fact that it's not an issue with a clear universal right or wrong answer.  Tons of grey.  Few people seem to be willing to accept this, though, and it bugs me.

[JoshuaFH]

Reason why would be this isn't shouldn't be a choice if you can't care for the child. just wondering why nobody would consider having abortions for worst-case scenarios.

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

I'm not sure if it would be in bad taste to sig this or not.

[Pnx]

Reason why would be this isn't shouldn't be a choice if you can't care for the child. just wondering why nobody would consider having abortions for worst-case scenarios.

You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.

I'm not sure if it would be in bad taste to sig this or not.

Do not the. I the whole quote.

[alway]

http://thedailywh.at/2012/01/04/what-the-hell-of-the-day/
14 year old American deported to Columbia.