North Dakota house gives fertilized eggs human status. [Archive] - Page 2

uruk

25th February 2009, 08:43 AM

~snip~Okay, so what's the big deal? You think this is the case, and most others disagree. I personally feel it should be up to the woman to make that decision - you obviously disagree. But your opinion is worth nothing, because when push comes to shove, no matter what any of us say, the person who's going to make the decision about what to do with the pregnancy is ultimately the pregnant woman, even if all abortion is illegal. 'Nuff said. True, That's why back when abortion was illegal women went to backalley abortionist or another country. People still do illicit recreational drugs dispite the law. Big woop. But I never advocated making abortion illegal. I am just saying that, under certain conditions, abortion is immoral. I am not an absolutist as some people seem to mistakenly think.

I am also saying that under those particular circumstances that there could be a justification for temporarily suspending the rights of an indiviudual for the benefit of society. There are many examples where individual rights are suspended (Sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently) for the benefit of society and humanity as a whole. Understand?

Most people hail the absolute supremecy of the holy, inalienable, untochable, unabrogatable individual rights without realizing that we all have to curtail some of those rights in order to exist in a society. And society is necessary for humanity to exist.

That is why we have alot of problems like crime, civil unrest, poverty, classisim, predjudice, cast systems, etc. Because most people have the crazy idea that thier rights are superior to others. We had to create laws to prevent one person from imposing thier rights over others. And we also had to create laws to curtail rights for the benefit of society so that it can exist. Living in families, communities, cities, states, countires, nations, is a constant balancing act of the rights of the individual to the needs of society.
Sucks for the individual but that is life.

You're right. No one in our society values sex or children. I suppose that's why we see so damn many kids being born all the time :rolleyes: Wrong. Those are some of the examples of why people do not value procreation. Overpopulation, unwanted pregnancies, unwanted children. If people respected procreation there would not be any of those problems. Get It?

I just say that it is more moral to prevent the unwanted pregnancy than it is to terminate it once it has started. Understand?

Oh, so we should value all potential children, except the retards. Otherwise, "for the good of society" all potentially Downs syndrome fetuses should be aborted :jaw-dropp Uh.. you do know that severly and catastrophicaly disabled foetuses are pretty much aborted by doctors when it is discover that they have these problems. It is pretty much well established. If you read the rest of the statement, I said that an argument could be made about the sev erity of the disability and the parents choice of keeping or ending the foetus. Disabilities fall under "medical reasons" for aborting a pregnancy. Under my line of reasoning, I do not see that as being immoral. If you disagree then by all means force the parents to keep the foetus.

That is a decision for the parents - not you, not me, not anyone except them. It certainly isn't a decision for "society" to make. I agree in that case.
The fact that you even give the impression of endorsing something like this is extremely disturbing. Wait, you are saying that it is extremely disturbing for me to say that it is not immoral for the parent of a severly disabled foetus to choose to abort it, but it is moral for the parent to abort a perfectly healthy and viable foetus?

Who isn't making sense here?

That's it. You just lost me completely. Have fun with your eugenics driven fantasy world, uruk... I sure will, and you have fun with your wonton disregard for humanity in the name of individual rights.

Piero

25th February 2009, 09:16 AM

The suggestion that the Moon really is made of mozzarella cheese, however, is only laughable. The suggestion that a woman would get an abortion at the ninth month, and for no other reason that that "she changed her mind" or "to confer more realism to her writing", however, reveals a quite remarkable degree of despisal of and contempt for women.
Thank you. I love you too.

Piero

25th February 2009, 09:23 AM

That is nowhere claimed and it is not smuggled in either. You are making stuff up

In those cases, I imagine the women aren't whimful, but desperate, and I'd like to think that either close friends or social services could help in her time of need (for instance - outlandish - but if she just found out that her boyfriend was really her brother).
...
Also, all of your scenarios involve women purposefully getting pregnant, while knowing at the outset that they plan to terminate late in the pregnancy. That's beyond irresponsible, and I don't know of anybody who does such a thing. That person would have to be exceedingly mentally ill, and in need of more help than just an abortion would offer.
....

uruk

25th February 2009, 09:40 AM

Lord Muck oGentry

25th February 2009, 09:48 AM

It is to say that abortion ought not to be permitted under certain circumstances. I do not think that all abortion is wrong or immoral.

Because humanity in the large picture is greater than the individual. We have to sacrifice some individual right inorder to exist as a society. And society is necessary for the continued existance of humanity. Further more, at times it is necessary to sacrifice further rights of the individual for the greater good of a society, such as in time of war or incarceration for crime. Two extremes I know.

In the case of abortion and the rights of the mother. I feel that the benefit of the continued existance of the foetus outwieghs the temporary loss of rights and soforth of the mother because the end result of the preganacy adds to humanity (that is if it survives gestation) I feel that this is justified in light of all the other sacrifices we make for the good of humanity.

Well, neither society nor humanity shows any sign of disappearing— and, if there were such signs, I doubt whether we could blame abortion.

As for your point that the end result of preganacy adds to humanity: certainly, it does. But does that make it a benefit? If it is, we already seem to enjoy it in abundance, and will continue to enjoy it even if every woman who wants an abortion gets one.

Cactus Wren

25th February 2009, 09:48 AM

Thank you. I love you too.

I paint what I see.

Fiona

25th February 2009, 09:58 AM

To Fiona:

I'd like to hear your views on this particular issue:

Please take a look at these links:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200612/ai_n16941387
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/35-female-foetuses-found-in-a-well/18160-3.html

If you do not wish to read them I'll summerize. In some countries (particularly India) women are aborting female foetuses in favor of male foetuses. Apparently by the thousands. And apparently by thier own choice.

Yes, I know. And in China. Probably other places too

1. Do you think that this practice is wrong and/or immoral?

I think it is immoral.

2. If you do, Do you think that anything should be done to correct this behaivior?

No. But I think there are things which can be done which would reduce this, and they are already doing some of the right sorts of things to some extent. Since I do not know much about India or China I cannot say if there are other things which would help, nor how practical they might be. In India abolishing the dowry looks superficially attractive but of course that is a cultural change which is never easy

3. If so what should be done?

See above. It would be nice to be sure that this is always the woman's free choice though: I suspect that in some cases someone else is imposing their own moral view over hers. I could be wrong of course

4. If you say that the solution is to prevent the woman form aborting the female foetus, do you see that as interfereing with the mother's right over the control of her body?

I was never likely to say that because it is entirely contrary to my position.

AWPrime

25th February 2009, 10:00 AM

And what rights does an infant have in refrence to it's duties. Does an infant have a duties? (It has doodie, but that's not the same thing.) The infant has a basic right to exist does it not? That does not have a social duty tied to it, does it?A baby has barely any rights. Any rights it does have are granted through his parents. That is one of the reasons why parents have so much to say about their children. They are nearly their defacto property. This is limited by society/government as it has an interest to insure that it doesn't to grow up to be a burden to it. This of course lessen as the the child becomes a person.

But gestation, in general, does produce babies. That is the foetuses that do survive gestation. I don't see the sporodic nature as being relevent, in general. Should it be relevent? Why?You have heard the numbers. A significant cut doesn't ever become a person.

Some process of creation, such as manufacturing process are protect by patents and copywrite law. Why is the process so protected and guarded? Because the end product of the manufacturing process has value to the company that owns them. Therefore the process has value.That is a value of exclusion. That might be a nice response if only some people were allowed to have children.

Shouldn't it be the same for something we hold so important as human life?Human cells are also human life, and quite often they are near worthless. It is persons that have value.

Not quite the same. The organ does not have the capability of ever becoming sentient under any circumstances that I know of. The clump of cells in a human zygote does have the capability of becoming sentient under the right circumstances.If, If, If.... That zygote is as capable of being sentient as a kidney. Only several months later when it isn't a zygote anymore does it gets the barest beginnings of being sentient.
What might be isn't anywhere near equal to what is. For example why should I give a brick as much value as a house?

But yet we do it all the time. We place our lives on it. I can't see how that it can't be used as an argument. Please explain further.Humans also do stupid things all the time. Heck, you can assume tomorrow that it will rain bunnies. Any argument is weakened by making assumptions. This makes having an assumption as core of an argument ridicules.

Piero

25th February 2009, 10:07 AM

Cactus Wren, your comment didn't really deserve a reply. However, just in case someone else reads it and thinks you have a case, I will point out that it is based on a gross logical fallacy, namely the ambiguity of "a":

The suggestion that a woman would get an abortion at the ninth month, and for no other reason that that "she changed her mind" or "to confer more realism to her writing", however, reveals a quite remarkable degree of despisal of and contempt for women.

You are surely aware of the different meaning of the word "a" in these sentences:
"A dog loves a bone"
"A dog bit me"

My outlandish example was meant to show the inadequacy of Fiona's proposed moral system (if you could call it a system; it amounts to little more than "I do what I want, and you can get lost"), by showing that someone could use the moral leeway conceded by such a system to commit abhorrent acts. Unfortunately, since this thread is about matters that concern the female body, I had to put a woman in the scenario.

You can, of course, reach inappropriate and hasty conclusions about my moral nature and my attitude to women. We all make mistakes, so I will have no problem accepting your apologies.

JoeTheJuggler

25th February 2009, 10:11 AM

Back to North Dakota for a bit:

The bill's sponsor, Republican Dan Ruby, claims that it is compatible with Roe v. Wade --though it very obviously is not. He's obviously one of these religious right people who don't mind telling flagrant lies on behalf of their faith.

He's also attempted other abortion bans in the past. None of them have succeeded. I doubt this one will either. It only passed in the ND House and not its Senate.

However the ND Senate almost unanimously passed a bill requiring abortion clinics to say, "Notice: No one can force you to have an abortion. It is against the law for a spouse, a boyfriend, a parent, a friend, a medical care provider, or any other person to in any way force you to have an abortion."

Yup--that passed the Senate. . .split infinitive and all.

Lithrael

25th February 2009, 10:12 AM

Because most people have the crazy idea that thier rights are superior to others. We had to create laws to prevent one person from imposing thier rights over others. And we also had to create laws to curtail rights for the benefit of society so that it can exist. Living in families, communities, cities, states, countires, nations, is a constant balancing act of the rights of the individual to the needs of society.
Sucks for the individual but that is life.

To steal from Jefferson a bit, I'd like to know how the availability of abortion on demand breaks my leg or picks my pocket. If you want to make the argument that it's a right that must be given up or suspended for the good of society then what is the justification for your tradeoff? I don't see how it's meaningfully comparable to the idea of being allowed to kill born, viable babies.

Fiona

25th February 2009, 10:14 AM

]My outlandish example was meant to show the inadequacy of Fiona's proposed moral system (if you could call it a system; it amounts to little more than "I do what I want, and you can get lost")

In that case it was an epic fail since either you do not understand my position or else you choose to misrepresent it. Strawman much ?

uruk

25th February 2009, 10:42 AM

Yes, I know. And in China. Probably other places too
I think it is immoral.
No. But I think there are things which can be done which would reduce this, and they are already doing some of the right sorts of things to some extent. Since I do not know much about India or China I cannot say if there are other things which would help, nor how practical they might be. In India abolishing the dowry looks superficially attractive but of course that is a cultural change which is never easy
You do realize the danger that not addressing the situation could have on that society.
A severly lopsided gender distribution will cause many problems in that socity that can possibly destroy it. Not to mention cause great harm to individuals, particualrly women. There are already reports of women being kidnapped and forced into marriage with multiple husbands.

In India the government has made the gender test illegal. But even that takes away the control away from the mother.
If the mother has total control over her body then she has the right to know if she is carrying a foetus of a gender she does not want to have. Preventing her from knowing the gender of the foetus is taking away the right of control over her body. Does that sound like a reasonable assesment?

From that I can assume that anything that is imposed upon her to persuade or disuade her from making a choice is a violation of her right to make that choice. Do you agree?

Then even something like the abolition of the dowery is an act meant to prevent her from making the choice she wishes. Do you agree?

See above. It would be nice to be sure that this is always the woman's free choice though: I suspect that in some cases someone else is imposing their own moral view over hers. I could be wrong of course There is really only one reason why one gender would be prefered over another. The culture is either a matriarchal or a patriarchal society.
In this case her "free" choice is being subconciously colored by the conditions in society.
This is one example of how society curtails or limits our individual rights. Right or wrong. Moral or immoral.

I was never likely to say that because it is entirely contrary to my position.
But your position under those societal conditions would allow that society and all the people in that society to suffer greatly all to avoid the curtailing of some individual rights. Do you see where that can happen?

The answer to this problem is obviously to change the conditions of the society. You can do that by either letting it go on its merry way to destruction and reset. Along the way causing great suffering. Or you can impose restrictions on some individual rights that will guide the society into more favorable conditions. At which time the rights could be returned when there is no longer a need to impose those restrictions. Which way causes less suffering?

Fiona

25th February 2009, 10:58 AM

You do realize the danger that not addressing the situation could have on that society.
A severly lopsided gender distribution will cause many problems in that socity that can possibly destroy it. Not to mention cause great harm to individuals, particualrly women. There are already reports of women being kidnapped and forced into marriage with multiple husbands.

Yes of course I do. I believe I have posted about it elsewhere

In India the government has made the gender test illegal. But even that takes away the control away from the mother.

That makes no sense to me

If the mother has total control over her body then she has the right to know if she is carrying a foetus of a gender she does not want to have. Preventing her from knowing the gender of the foetus is taking away the right of control over her body. Does that sound like a reasonable assesment?

Not to me, no.

From that I can assume that anything that is imposed upon her to persuade or disuade her from making a choice is a violation of her right to make that choice. Do you agree?

Nope. Persuasion and coercion are not the same thing.

Then even something like the abolition of the dowery is an act meant to prevent her from making the choice she wishes. Do you agree?

Certainly not

There is really only one reason why one gender would be prefered over another. The culture is either a matriarchal or a patriarchal society.
In this case her "free" choice is being subconciously colored by the conditions in society.

If she has any choice: she might or she might not.
So long as she has the choice why does it matter?

This is one example of how society curtails or limits our individual rights. Right or wrong. Moral or immoral.

Did anyone say that our moral values are informed by our experience and our learning and a lot cultural transmission? Oh that is right: I did .....

But your position under those societal conditions would allow that society and all the people in that society to suffer greatly all to avoid the curtailing of some individual rights. Do you see where that can happen?

Nope not really. If the society is so organised that people make such choices then it is society which needs to change' or to live with the consequences. That is in keeping with your moral system is it not? We ought to be agreeing here

The answer to this problem is obviously to change the conditions of the society.

Absolutely

You can do that by either letting it go on its merry way to destruction and reset. Along the way causing great suffering.

Or to put it another way you can uphold democracy

Or you can impose restrictions on some individual rights that will guide the society into more favorable conditions.

Which we call dictatorship

At which time the rights could be returned when there is no longer a need to impose those restrictions. Which way causes less suffering?

Democracy, in my opinion. What do you think?

Third Eye Open

25th February 2009, 11:02 AM

Wow. That's pretty stone cold. I'd hate to be your child. Or rather, I hope you have a damn good job. Make sure you have a little tucked away just in case, 'cause an abortion ain't cheap either.

Let's say you already have a child and you can no longer afford to raise him. What then?

Hey son, I just lost my job and...uh.. see..uh...geez, this is awkward....well, I can't afford to raise you anymore see?. So... ah....well, it was fun while things lasted. Uh.. see ya. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Sorry third eye open, that was uncalled for. Your statement just took me aback.

There is alternative to aborting a pregnancy for the reason of financial loss. The government provides subsidies for economically disadvantaged expectant mothers.

If you have already had the child and you really don't think you can give it a good life, then you can give it up for adoption, i.e sell the house.

All I'm saying is, if you have mistakenly started building a house that you can't afford, there is no reason to finish building it when all it will do is cost you lots of time and money to make a house that you are going to 'sell at a loss' in the end (give away and be stuck with the hospital bills).

I'm trying to think of some way to show that finishing something for no other reason than that you started it is irresponsible.

uruk

25th February 2009, 11:51 AM

A baby has barely any rights. Any rights it does have are granted through his parents. That is one of the reasons why parents have so much to say about their children. They are nearly their defacto property. This is limited by society/government as it has an interest to insure that it doesn't to grow up to be a burden to it. This of course lessen as the the child becomes a person. I concurr.

Would you agree that in this case society, by the means of the parents bestowment of rights, gives the child the basic right to exist. And could you say that the parents chose to bestow that right of existance on the child because the child is of some worth or value to the parents? Be it emotional, spritual or otherwise? The reason is actually irrelevent.

And are there not laws which enforce a duty on the parent to care for and protect that child, even from the parents themselves under certain situations? So could you say that the child has some value or worth to the govnerment and by extention society because they have deemed it necessary to enact those laws?

You have heard the numbers. A significant cut doesn't ever become a person. I don't see how the numbers affects the importance of the procreation process in general. Can you explain further?

In the CPU manufacturing process only a small percentage of the CPUs created on the silicon wafer are functional. Only a small percentage makes it to your laptop or desk top computer. Yet the manufacturing process is still patented, copywritten, protected, and valued by the manufacturer. I do not see how all those nonfunctioning CPUs lessen the value of the functioning CPUs or the process. If it does,please explain further.

That is a value of exclusion. That might be a nice response if only some people were allowed to have children. See above.

Human cells are also human life, and quite often they are near worthless. It is persons that have value. But it is the process of procreation that creates that person with value. Without the process there is no person. And if you allow that process to be subverted or abused you lessen the value of the person. Isn't over population a problem pluageing society? And doesn't abortion without any restriction subvert or abuse the procreation process? Like aborting female foetus in preference to male foetus?

If, If, If.... That zygote is as capable of being sentient as a kidney. Only several months later when it isn't a zygote anymore does it gets the barest beginnings of being sentient. But a kidney is never capable of being sentient. Not even in several months. Never in fact. Do you see the difference?

What might be isn't anywhere near equal to what is. For example why should I give a brick as much value as a house? The brick in relation to the house is not the same as the zygote in relation to the person, but I'll use your analogy anyway.

I didn't say to give the brick the same value as the house. Just give the brick it's importance in the process of building the house. Because without the brick you can't build the house. Give the brick at least the right to exist because if the brick is not allowed to exist the house cannot be built. Do you understand?

Humans also do stupid things all the time. Heck, you can assume tomorrow that it will rain bunnies. Any argument is weakened by making assumptions. This makes having an assumption as core of an argument ridicules. I know an assumptions weaken an argument, but the stronger the conditions are that support the assumption, the stronger the argument based on the assumption is.

It is an assumption that a particular zygote will become a human being. What is not an assumption is that the procreation process produces people.

The numbers may show that a significant percentage of pregnacies end it failures, But you forget the numbers of people living to day show that a significant percentage make it also.

And since the end result of the procreation process is a living human being I choose to err on the side of the zygote will survive rather than not. I say that the zygote should at least be given the oppourtunity and that oppourtunity should have some dgree of protection given that the conditions are favorable.

Intel knows that many of the CPUs in the maufacturing process will not be functional, but the process does produce enough functional CPUs to make a profit.

It does not abandon the process just because there are a large percentage of failed CPUs

JoeTheJuggler

25th February 2009, 12:28 PM

This bears repeating:

Persuasion and coercion are not the same thing.

Because it's a point lost on many (perhaps even "most" or "all") pro-lifers.

Ivor the Engineer

25th February 2009, 01:23 PM

I do not accept that moral judgement is a group activity, so there we will just have to differ. For me it is independent of social rules and norms, and I think this is amply demonstrated by the fact that we can admire a moral man while we execute him for breaking societal rules. As I have already stated, a moral judgement can, in my opinion, only be made by an individual human being with an ability to choose and a capacity for action. There are other things such a laws an social contracts etc: but they are not in themselves a code of morality, though they may be informed by moral judgements.

The morality of a particular individual's choice is determined by those who suffer and those who benefit from the resulting behaviour. If nobody can be or is affected by an individual's behaviour then his or her behaviour is not subject to moral reasoning. E.g., it makes no sense to define unexpressed thought as being moral or immoral.

We learn many of our moral principles either from the rewards and punishments we receive directly for our behaviour, or by observing the rewards and punishments others receive for theirs. When faced with a novel moral dilemma we have a number of strategies available, but probably the most common technique is to assume the the preferences of individuals who will be affected are similar to either those our mental models of them have or our own. How valid this approach is depends a large part on our estimation of the effects of the behaviour and how common certain preferences are.

In the case of behaviour which results in the inflicting pain and death or permanent disability on another individual, I'm fairly confident that only a tiny minority of individuals would not have an aversion to another person behaving in a way which resulted in it occurring to them. I have gained this level of confidence from both observing the reactions of individuals to behaviour which caused them pain and death or permanent disability, and my own preferences.

Perhaps. I do not think this is demonstrable as fact. It is quite a stretch to define homeostasis as a "preference": funny use of language, IMO. But even if you are correct (and I am interested in how you arrive at this conclusion btw) I do not think you can argue that in making a moral judgement one must take account of every preference of every living entity: nor even of every human entity, however you choose to define that. That is almost the antithesis of a moral code of behaviour if what you mean is that the other's preference must always determine my action. That is called people pleasing and it is not widely admired

<snip>

I arrive at the conclusion that homeostasis indicates a preference for survival because it invokes behaviour at various levels of scale and consciousness which is performed to optimise survival.

I don't think perfect moral reasoning is possible because of the problems you describe above; taking into account the preferences of every living thing which may be affected by one's actions is clearly not possible. As with all things in life behaving in a moral way is a compromise between thinking and acting.

In the case of aborting a 25+ week-old foetus I would suggest a good compromise would be to consider the (possibly inferred) preferences of the pregnant woman, the foetus, the father and close relatives of the foetus and the people being asked to perform the abortion.

AWPrime

25th February 2009, 01:47 PM

Would you agree that in this case society, by the means of the parents bestowment of rights, gives the child the basic right to exist. And could you say that the parents chose to bestow that right of existance on the child because the child is of some worth or value to the parents? Be it emotional, spritual or otherwise? The reason is actually irrelevent.So you finally agree that the parents decide?

And are there not laws which enforce a duty on the parent to care for and protect that child, even from the parents themselves under certain situations? So could you say that the child has some value or worth to the govnerment and by extention society because they have deemed it necessary to enact those laws?You might want to reread my earlier post. The reason why society invests is because if they aren't raised right then they will likely become harmful to it.

I don't see how the numbers affects the importance of the procreation process in general. Can you explain further?It simply makes it so that you can't assume.

And if you allow that process to be subverted or abused you lessen the value of the person. You might what to give this some actual basis.

Like aborting female foetus in preference to male foetus?Do you think the foetus would mind?

But it is the process of procreation that creates that person with value. Without the process there is no person.
[snip]
I know an assumptions weaken an argument, but the stronger the conditions are that support the assumption, the stronger the argument based on the assumption is.
It is an assumption that a particular zygote will become a human being. What is not an assumption is that the procreation process produces people.Actually it is, procreation creates babies, that is it. The combined efforts of the parents, society and the babies, create people.

But a kidney is never capable of being sentient. Not even in several months. Never in fact. Do you see the difference?That doesn't actually matter, their both not sentient.

I didn't say to give the brick the same value as the house. Just give the brick it's importance in the process of building the house. Because without the brick you can't build the house. Give the brick at least the right to exist because if the brick is not allowed to exist the house cannot be built. Do you understand?This is your position: You somehow got a brick, now you must build a house. Do you see the absurdity of your position?

Fiona

25th February 2009, 02:02 PM

The morality of a particular individual's choice is determined by those who suffer and those who benefit from the resulting behaviour. If nobody can be or is affected by an individual's behaviour then his or her behaviour is not subject to moral reasoning. E.g., it makes no sense to define unexpressed thought as being moral or immoral.

Not sure what you mean. If you mean that no moral question arises if there are no possible consequences then I agree. As I said a moral choice has to entail action so this is inherent in my position, because action leads to consequences

If you are saying that moral questions arise when there are different and incompatible interest at stake, then I also agree.

If you are saying that the morality of a choice is determined by those who suffer and those who benefit, I don't have any objection.

We learn many of our moral principles either from the rewards and punishments we receive directly for our behaviour, or by observing the rewards and punishments others receive for theirs.

I do not confine education and learning to that which is imbibed through reward and punishment. In fact I think you are likely to learn very immoral principle through this system - like might is right, for example: or that any action which leads to a personal benefit is automatically moral. I think that a moral decision is demonstrated as a a moral decision when it is made even when the outcome is detrimental to the person making it and they know that in advance. That is the point of the moral person who stands on his principle at the cost of his or her life.

When faced with a novel moral dilemma we have a number of strategies available, but probably the most common technique is to assume the the preferences of individuals who will be affected are similar to either those our mental models of them have or our own. How valid this approach is depends a large part on our estimation of the effects of the behaviour and how common certain preferences are.

To some extent:but see above

In the case of behaviour which results in the inflicting pain and death or permanent disability on another individual, I'm fairly confident that only a tiny minority of individuals would not have an aversion to another person behaving in a way which resulted in it occurring to them. I have gained this level of confidence from both observing the reactions of individuals to behaviour which caused them pain and death or permanent disability, and my own preferences.

Sure

I arrive at the conclusion that homeostasis indicates a preference for survival because it invokes behaviour at various levels of scale and consciousness which is performed to optimise survival.

That is your privilege. It is still a funny use of language, but you are of course entitled to your opinion

I don't think perfect moral reasoning is possible because of the problems you describe above; taking into account the preferences of every living thing which may be affected by one's actions is clearly not possible. As with all things in life behaving in a moral way is a compromise between thinking and acting.

Don't understand the bolded bit

In the case of aborting a 25+ week-old foetus I would suggest a good compromise would be to consider the (possibly inferred) preferences of the pregnant woman, the foetus, the father and close relatives of the foetus and the people being asked to perform the abortion.

Well this is a little difficult because you do not state explicitly what you mean and that has bedevilled this whole conversation. You see I wholeheartedly agree that those things will in fact inform the moral choice that is ultimately made: and probably a lot of other things will be included in forming that judgement too. That is what moral agents do, after all. So can I conclude that you now agree we should let the woman get on with it? if not, why not?

uruk

25th February 2009, 02:18 PM

Yes of course I do. I believe I have posted about it elsewhereSo you believe that it is ok for poeple to suffer just as along the individual right is not infringed?

That makes no sense to me
Not to me, no. The mother does not want to give consent to a female foetus to parasitize her body. The only way to know the gender of the foetus (other than to let it come to term) is to have a gender test. Preventing her from taking the gender test prevents her from knowing the gender of the foetus. Not knowing the gender of the foetus prevents her from exercising her right to deny consent to the female foetus since the foetus may be male to which she wants to give consent.
Does that make sense now?

Nope. Persuasion and coercion are not the same thing. You are right. But persuasion and coersion have the same end result. One is just more appealing than the other.

Certainly not You are right. Abolition of the dowery is a good choice for changing the conditions of society. It's just one step. But then the Groom's family looses the dowery. Well somebody's got to take one for the betterment of society.

If she has any choice: she might or she might not.
So long as she has the choice why does it matter? Her "free" choice is detrimental to the functioning of society. It will lead to suffering and possibly the break down of that society.

Did anyone say that our moral values are informed by our experience and our learning and a lot cultural transmission? Oh that is right: I did ..... Then do you see the need to restrict some rights for a functioning society to exist?

Nope not really. If the society is so organised that people make such choices then it is society which needs to change' or to live with the consequences. That is in keeping with your moral system is it not? We ought to be agreeing here And what if changing socity for the better requires the infringment of some individual rights?

Or to put it another way you can uphold democracy Was it Benjamin Franklin who said that "democracy is three wolves and one lamb deciding what to have for dinner"? In a pure democracy the rights of the minority will be infringed by the will of the Majority. Seems like you can't get away from the infringment. The will of the majority is imposed on the minority.

Which we call dictatorship Why is it that automatically dictatorship? What if those restrictions are imposed by democratic mandate?

Democracy, in my opinion. What do you think? I don't think it is that simple or as black and white. Dictatorship isn't the only system that imposes will.

Absolutisim is impractical.

uruk

25th February 2009, 02:24 PM

If you have already had the child and you really don't think you can give it a good life, then you can give it up for adoption, i.e sell the house. There are other options that adoption in this case. Welfare.

All I'm saying is, if you have mistakenly started building a house that you can't afford, there is no reason to finish building it when all it will do is cost you lots of time and money to make a house that you are going to 'sell at a loss' in the end (give away and be stuck with the hospital bills). Building a house is not the same moraly as building a human.

I'm trying to think of some way to show that finishing something for no other reason than that you started it is irresponsible.Building a house is not the same moraly as building a human.

The government sees that that's why the subsidize expectant mothers and the unemployed.

Well they subsidize housing for that matter, But I hope you get my point.

Third Eye Open

25th February 2009, 02:38 PM

There are other options that adoption in this case. Welfare.

Building a house is not the same moraly as building a human.

Building a house is not the same moraly as building a human.

The government sees that that's why the subsidize expectant mothers and the unemployed.

Well they subsidize housing for that matter, But I hope you get my point.

I don't see anything morally wrong with stopping building a human. The only problem is deciding when it has become human. That point is not the instant you start building it.

Ivor the Engineer

25th February 2009, 02:53 PM

<snip>

I do not confine education and learning to that which is imbibed through reward and punishment. In fact I think you are likely to learn very immoral principle through this system - like might is right, for example: or that any action which leads to a personal benefit is automatically moral. I think that a moral decision is demonstrated as a a moral decision when it is made even when the outcome is detrimental to the person making it and they know that in advance. That is the point of the moral person who stands on his principle at the cost of his or her life.

When faced with a novel moral dilemma we have a number of strategies available, but probably the most common technique is to assume the the preferences of individuals who will be affected are similar to either those our mental models of them have or our own. How valid this approach is depends a large part on our estimation of the effects of the behaviour and how common certain preferences are.

To some extent:but see above

<snip>

Isn't a person who makes a moral decision to behave in a way which is to his or her detriment but to the advantage of others likely to be using the strategy I described?

As with all things in life behaving in a moral way is a compromise between thinking and acting.Don't understand the bolded bit

To consider the preferences of everybody who is affected by a potential act would require more time and knowledge than any individual has available, so our moral reasoning is imperfect because we cannot consider all the possible effects of all the possible courses of action.

Well this is a little difficult because you do not state explicitly what you mean and that has bedevilled this whole conversation. You see I wholeheartedly agree that those things will in fact inform the moral choice that is ultimately made: and probably a lot of other things will be included in forming that judgement too. That is what moral agents do, after all. So can I conclude that you now agree we should let the woman get on with it?

The woman can express the result of her moral reasoning, but the validity of it is decided by the moral values of the group she belongs to.

if not, why not?

In general, aborting a foetus at 25+ weeks has net negative utility. I.e.,

Temporary discomfort and dissatisfaction to woman < Risk of death or permanent disability to foetus.

Though there might be a window after 24 weeks but before 36 weeks in the pregnancy when this is not the case and the woman's marginal discomfort and dissatisfaction outweigh the foetus's marginal risk of death or permanent disability.

Fiona

25th February 2009, 03:00 PM

So you believe that it is ok for poeple to suffer just as along the individual right is not infringed?

I do not believe in dictatorship, that is correct

The mother does not want to give consent to a female foetus to parasitize her body. The only way to know the gender of the foetus (other than to let it come to term) is to have a gender test. Preventing her from taking the gender test prevents her from knowing the gender of the foetus. Not knowing the gender of the foetus prevents her from exercising her right to deny consent to the female foetus since the foetus may be male to which she wants to give consent.
Does that make sense now?

No. For the avoidance of doubt, I understood the argument the first time. I disagree with it.

You are right. But persuasion and coersion have the same end result. One is just more appealing than the other.

No: they don't.

You are right. Abolition of the dowery is a good choice for changing the conditions of society. It's just one step. But then the Groom's family looses the dowery. Well somebody's got to take one for the betterment of society.

And that sentence is relevant, how?

Her "free" choice is detrimental to the functioning of society. It will lead to suffering and possibly the break down of that society.

Perhaps it will. But since society makes the conditions under which she makes that choice (if she has a choice) it is perfectly at liberty to change them. In fact I would recommend it.

Then do you see the need to restrict some rights for a functioning society to exist?

Education is not a restriction of rights, in my vocabulary. YMMV

And what if changing socity for the better requires the infringment of some individual rights?

Can you tell me who is going to make that decision? How they are going to enforce it. Who they are gong to turn into second class citizens and why that group rather than another? It seems to me that you are sticking very carefully to a reification of "society", and this masks what you are actually proposing. For myself I am not much in favour of dictatorship or oligarchy. I may have mentioned this

Was it Benjamin Franklin who said that "democracy is three wolves and one lamb deciding what to have for dinner"? In a pure democracy the rights of the minority will be infringed by the will of the Majority. Seems like you can't get away from the infringment. The will of the majority is imposed on the minority.

I am not familiar with the quote, but of course democracy was not always considered to be a good idea and there are many, many people from his period who opposed it for just such reasons as this. Most of us do not find their argument persuasive now, but clearly you do. As with morality, there is no definitely right answer in politics either. You are entitled to your opinion, as always

Why is it that automatically dictatorship? What if those restrictions are imposed by democratic mandate?

Because the rights of the majority are constrained so that the minority is protected. That is why we have a concept of human rights: it stops us killing everybody with red hair: or enslaving all the black people.

I don't think it is that simple or as black and white. Dictatorship isn't the only system that imposes will.

Absolutisim is impractical.

I agree

uruk

25th February 2009, 03:11 PM

So you finally agree that the parents decide? Just using your line of reasoning. Does it matter if it is the parents or the society that gives the infant the right to exist? If the parent try to take that right of existance away from the infant (i.e. killing) the society punishes the parents. Severly.
Some people are even being severly punished by society for even taking the right of existance (killing) away from the foetus. I have a post in this thread where I linked to articles of those instances.

You might want to reread my earlier post. The reason why society invests is because if they aren't raised right then they will likely become harmful to it. Some of those laws require that the parents keep the baby alive and unharmed. That is more than just "raised right" or worry about "harm to society". Even though society value the infant less than than the adult, an adult can have a considerable amount of his individual freedoms taken away for harming that infant. The circumstances dictate when the value of one life is forfiet for the loss of another. Even if the value of the life lost is deemed less that the other.

And I see that you are using an assumption in your argument. "Likely to become harmful to it". Welcome to weakend argument land.

It simply makes it so that you can't assume. Can't assume what? That the process Itself is important? How so? A definition of procreation is the creation of human beings. Creating human beings is important to human beings. Otherwise no more human beings. How is that subject to assumption?

I just showed you how a process is deemed important and of value dispite the sporodic nature of the system. Are you saying that the CPU manufacturing process is not important to Intel?

You might what to give this some actual basis. Preferring male fetuses to female fetuses indicates that females are less valuable than males in that society. Subverting the procreation process by selecting out females creates a drastic difference in the male to female ratio in the society. This causes the females in that society to become a commodity rather than a human being. The value of the female in that society lowers in reference to males. Human lives become devalued.

Do you think the foetus would mind? That is irrelevent in this case. Society suffers because of the abuse of the process.

Actually it is, procreation creates babies, that is it. The combined efforts of the parents, society and the babies, create people. Semantics. No babies. No people. If you do not protect the babies. No babies become people.

That doesn't actually matter, their both not sentient. Yes it does. At no pint in time will the kidney ever become sentient. That creates a differnce between a kidney and a zygote.

Zygotes in zoos and the cattle industry are cared for and protected and are important to those organizations because of what they can potentialy become. That potential has a value to them.

Are human zygotes worth more than those zygotes?

This is your position: You somehow got a brick, now you must build a house. Do you see the absurdity of your position? No, that is not my position. My position is that brick has value in reference to the house. You would not want to waste a brick for no good reason. Then don't make the brick in the first place if you don't intend to make the house.

Why would you waste a zygote for no good reason?

Fiona

25th February 2009, 03:16 PM

Isn't a person who makes a moral decision to behave in a way which is to his or her detriment but to the advantage of others likely to be using the strategy I described?

No idea

To consider the preferences of everybody who is affected by a potential act would require more time and knowledge than any individual has available, so our moral reasoning is imperfect because we cannot consider all the possible effects of all the possible courses of action.

Indeed. That is one reason why morality is not like science and why we cannot come to a definitive answer.

The woman can express the result of her moral reasoning, but the validity of it is decided by the moral values of the group she belongs to.

No I do not think it is. 50,000 flies are not necessarily right.

In general, aborting a foetus at 25+ weeks has net negative utility. I.e.,

Temporary discomfort and dissatisfaction to woman < Risk of death or permanent disability to foetus.

Though there might be a window after 24 weeks but before 36 weeks in the pregnancy when this is not the case and the woman's marginal discomfort and dissatisfaction outweigh the foetus's marginal risk of death or permanent disability.

Well I am not a utilitarian and that is in part because such calculations are not actually possible. You have already conceded that we cannot in fact reach a perfect decision about what is right and wrong which will apply in every case. Since your morality is as flawed as hers you have no justification for substituting your own whatever you might think about the "marginal nature of discomfort and dissatisfaction" (which are hardly the most usual reasons for abortion, I might add: your focus on them amply demonstrates your unfitness to make this moral decision, since you have not even shown you factor in the real considerations which are normally in play for late abortion)

You still have not provided any justification for taking control of someone else's body (which is not trivial: it is in fact abhorrent) because their moral judgement may differ from yours.

uruk

25th February 2009, 03:21 PM

I don't see anything morally wrong with stopping building a human. The only problem is deciding when it has become human. That point is not the instant you start building it. I tend to dissagree. To me it really doesn't matter at what point the cells become human. The act of abortion prevents that human from ever being created. Or at least the opportunity.

From a moral stand point there are justifiable abortions and abortions that are not. It depends on the conditions. And just because I say that some are justifiable and some are not does not mean that I think that any abortion should be illegal. Just that there are implications and consequences to society as a whole.

AWPrime

25th February 2009, 03:39 PM

So you finally agree that the parents decide?Just using your line of reasoning. Does it matter if it is the parents or the society that gives the infant the right to exist? If the parent try to take that right of existance away from the infant (i.e. killing) the society punishes the parents. Severly.
Some people are even being severly punished by society for even taking the right of existance (killing) away from the foetus. I have a post in this thread where I linked to articles of those instances.

Some of those laws require that the parents keep the baby alive and unharmed. There are two things at work here. A handicapped child is a burden to society (thus the need for 'unharmed') and the the time to take existence away has past, as the first signs of personhood have appeared. However in some situations the needs of society might exceed that of the infant.

Can't assume what?That a fertilized cell will become a person.

A definition of procreation is the creation of human beings. Creating human beings is important to human beings. Otherwise no more human beings. How is that subject to assumption?First of all your definition is lousy, you implanted your assumption in it by defining persons as human beings and procreation as the sole process needed to create them, a good example of circular reasoning.
Also the risk of total stop of new babies is none existent.

Preferring male fetuses to female fetuses indicates that females are less valuable than males in that society. Subverting the procreation process by selecting out females creates a drastic difference in the male to female ratio in the society. This causes the females in that society to become a commodity rather than a human being. The value of the female in that society lowers in reference to males. Human lives become devalued.

That is irrelevent in this case. Society suffers because of the abuse of the process.It would be self correcting.

Semantics. No babies. No people. If you do not protect the babies. No babies become people.No its a fact. A baby needs help to become a person, it doesn't do this by itself or we could place a baby in a device that takes care of the most basic needs (food water hygiene) and we would have a developed person in ~18 years.

Zygotes in zoos and the cattle industry are cared for and protected and are important to those organizations because of what they can potentialy become. That potential has a value to them.
Are human zygotes worth more than those zygotes?Do you pay to eat human meat?

No, that is not my position. My position is that brick has value in reference to the house. You would not want to waste a brick for no good reason. Then don't make the brick in the first place if you don't intend to make the house.But the brick as no extra value, it is just a brick. Not very rare and it doesn't take planning to get a brick.

AWPrime

25th February 2009, 03:45 PM

I tend to dissagree. To me it really doesn't matter at what point the cells become human.That sounds like not caring about the important human qualities at all, as it doesn't make any difference anyway.

I see this often with Pro-lifers, the birth is more important than the rest of the life. Many would be happy if women would be forced to be baby factories and the (male) children would grow up to become cannon fodder.

Silly Green Monkey

25th February 2009, 03:55 PM

I
In general, aborting a foetus at 25+ weeks has net negative utility. I.e.,

Temporary discomfort and dissatisfaction to woman < Risk of death or permanent disability to foetus.

Though there might be a window after 24 weeks but before 36 weeks in the pregnancy when this is not the case and the woman's marginal discomfort and dissatisfaction outweigh the foetus's marginal risk of death or permanent disability.

You keep harping on this. Does it not occur to you that late-term abortions are not commonly done except when the mother is endangered? "Marginal discomfort and dissatisfaction"? Women DIE in childbirth!

Third Eye Open

25th February 2009, 03:57 PM

I tend to dissagree. To me it really doesn't matter at what point the cells become human. The act of abortion prevents that human from ever being created. Or at least the opportunity.

From a moral stand point there are justifiable abortions and abortions that are not. It depends on the conditions. And just because I say that some are justifiable and some are not does not mean that I think that any abortion should be illegal. Just that there are implications and consequences to society as a whole.

Exactly. It prevents a human from ever being. It does not end the existence of an existing human. I see nothing morally wrong with this. An infinite amount of humans are stopped from ever existing every day, with every breath.

uruk

25th February 2009, 04:37 PM

I do not believe in dictatorship, that is correct And why do you believe that it is ok for society as a whole to suffer so that the individual rights can remain uninfringend?

No. For the avoidance of doubt, I understood the argument the first time. I disagree with it. I'm sorry what exactly about the statement do you dissagree with?

No: they don't. Coersion would take the choice away from you and force you to some end. Persuasion would not take the choice away from you but would still try to influence you into choosing that end. If the persusion was successful you chose the desired end. In Both ways they got you to the end they desired. Although you are right in that persuasion would leave your rights intact.

And that sentence is relevant, how? No action is without it's reaction. The dowery once had a practical purpose.

Perhaps it will. But since society makes the conditions under which she makes that choice (if she has a choice) it is perfectly at liberty to change them. In fact I would recommend it. In this case so would I. Culture is a crazy thing though. This could also be an example of how our "free choices" arent really free.

Education is not a restriction of rights, in my vocabulary. YMMV Depends what is is being taught and what is expected from the individual after the education.

Can you tell me who is going to make that decision? How they are going to enforce it. Who they are gong to turn into second class citizens and why that group rather than another? It seems to me that you are sticking very carefully to a reification of "society", and this masks what you are actually proposing. For myself I am not much in favour of dictatorship or oligarchy. I may have mentioned this How does infringing certain rights automaticaly create second class citizens? Are soldiers who have temporarily given up some of thier individual right second class citizens? Sometimes society respects and honors those who have made the sacrifce of rights.

In a democratic society the people make the decision. They decide wether the infringment is warranted and they decide what rights are infrigned, when they are infringed and who gets them infringed.

When someone committs a crime, thier individual rights are grossly infringed for the benefit of society. It was the people who decided for what reasons and by how much the rights are infringed.

Or do you think the criminal's rights should never be infringenged. If not then people suffer. Oh! You said that it is ok for the people to suffer so that individual rights can remain uninfringed.

Do you see why it is necessary to infringe individual rights for the benefit of society now?

I am not familiar with the quote, but of course democracy was not always considered to be a good idea and there are many, many people from his period who opposed it for just such reasons as this. Most of us do not find their argument persuasive now, but clearly you do. As with morality, there is no definitely right answer in politics either. You are entitled to your opinion, as always Agreed. That is why the U.S. is a republic rather than a democracy because they realized the rights of the minority need to have some protection or compensation from the majority. they also realized that some rights have to be infringed. I believe the supreme court keeps an eye on this. Correct me if I am wrong.

Because the rights of the majority are constrained so that the minority is protected. That is why we have a concept of human rights: it stops us killing everybody with red hair: or enslaving all the black people. That still does mean that all individual rights will not have to be infringed. Sometimes it is necessary. And it is not taken lightly when it has to be done.

Off topic. In our venerable republic, I feel that homosexuals are having thier rights grossly infringed by not allowing them legal union. I don't see any ligitamate reason for denying them this.
The "definition of marriage" argument is very weak.

Lord Muck oGentry

25th February 2009, 05:09 PM

I tend to dissagree. To me it really doesn't matter at what point the cells become human. The act of abortion prevents that human from ever being created. Or at least the opportunity.

Uruk, I congratulated you upthread when you explicitly abandoned a bad argument of this sort. Don't make me regret that, please.

If a bundle of cells is aborted before it can become a human, there is no human there to whom your phrase " that human" can refer.

You are going through the motions of referring to someone. But might-have-been humans can no more be referred to by using words such as that than by pointing your finger at them.

uruk

25th February 2009, 05:29 PM

There are two things at work here. A handicapped child is a burden to society (thus the need for 'unharmed') and the the time to take existence away has past, as the first signs of personhood have appeared. However in some situations the needs of society might exceed that of the infant. If you mean that a severly disabled foetus be aborted for the benefit of society. Then I agree. It is already being done in this society. Although I think they use a different line of thinking. I do not see a moral dilemma there.

But society protects the healthy baby.

That a fertilized cell will become a person. I know many things may happen along the path to personhood. But this is irrelevent to processe as a whole.

First of all your definition is lousy, you implanted your assumption in it by defining persons as human beings and procreation as the sole process needed to create them, a good example of circular reasoning.
Also the risk of total stop of new babies is none existent. What is the differnce between a person and a human being? What would be your definition of procreation.
From dictionary.com:
procreate
1. to beget or generate (offspring).
2. to produce; bring into being.
3. to beget offspring.
4. to produce; bring into being.

person
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

human being
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

I think I see why you may think that my definition may be circular. It would seem that there is some circularity in the definitions of person and human being. According to dictionary.com person = human being. Do you disagree?

Is there another way other than fertilized egg - zygote - foetus - baby that people or human beings are created?

It would be self correcting. Wether it is self correcting is irrelevent. The Abuse is there.

No its a fact. A baby needs help to become a person, it doesn't do this by itself or we could place a baby in a device that takes care of the most basic needs (food water hygiene) and we would have a developed person in ~18 years. I don't think this is relevent to the fact that babies do become people in the general sense. All things being equal a baby becomes a person/human being.

Do you pay to eat human meat? Sorry. What does that have to do with those organizations valuing zygotes? Do you mean that in order for me to value a zygote I have to be able to eat it? Is that that the only thing that gives value to something? That we can make some tangible or practical use of it? Do we only value a human life because we get some practical or tangible benefit out of it? What about emotional value? Are tangible things the only things that are important to you?

But the brick as no extra value, it is just a brick. Not very rare and it doesn't take planning to get a brick. The bricks value is in it relation to the house. It does not need any extra value to justify it's relation to the house.

It just a brick but you need it build the house.

It's not very rare but you still need the brick to make the house.

If you do not have that brick you cannot build the house.

Third Eye Open

25th February 2009, 05:33 PM

/snip

The bricks value is in it relation to the house. It does not need any extra value to justify it's relation to the house.

It just a brick but you need it build the house.

It's not very rare but you still need the brick to make the house.

If you do not have that brick you cannot build the house.

This still doesn't answer the question you were asked earlier, to paraphrase:

If you stumbled upon a brick in the street, would you feel obliged to build a house with it? Or would you toss it in the trash?

ETA: Also, If you do not have that brick you cannot build the house bollocks. You can always get another brick later if you want to build a house.

uruk

25th February 2009, 06:04 PM

Uruk, I congratulated you upthread when you explicitly abandoned a bad argument of this sort. Don't make me regret that, please.

If a bundle of cells is aborted before it can become a human, there is no human there to whom your phrase " that human" can refer.

You are going through the motions of referring to someone. But might-have-been humans can no more be referred to by using words such as that than by pointing your finger at them.
I am not equating a bundle of cells with a human being. In the general sense, the fact remains that an abortion stops the process by which human beings (not a specific person but a human being in general)is create. This has nothing to do with might-have been-humans.

It's a fact that when you stop something from doing whatever it was doing whatever that thing was doing does not get done. Do you see what I am saying?

I started to build a boat so there is a thing there that is the begining of a boat. It is not a boat in and of itself. It is the begining of a boat. Then I stop making the boat. No boat. the processe of building the boat has stopped. What is the result of stopping that process? No boat. I started but then I stopped.
You can argue that nothing was lost except the time and effort I put into building it.

In the financial world I also lost the money I could have made if I had finished the boat and sold it. There is a word for that but I just can't remember what it is. It's been a long time since I took economics. The financial world recognises that loss. Something recognize the value of something that had the potential to exist but didn't. You don't have to appply that in the case of abortion, but just know that there is something that recognises the value of a potential thing.

Do you understand what I am saying here.

I can rephrase it as "abortion does not kill a human being but abortion stops the process in which human beings are made".
Does that make sense.

Jonnyclueless

25th February 2009, 06:18 PM

Condoms stop the process as well

Lithrael

25th February 2009, 06:22 PM

In the financial world I also lost the money I could have made if I had finished the boat and sold it. There is a word for that but I just can't remember what it is. It's been a long time since I took economics. The financial world recognises that loss. Something recognize the value of something that had the potential to exist but didn't.

In the financial world, the whole reason that it's recognized is because of the time, effort and resources expended on that uncompleted effort, which could have been used elsewhere, but are now wasted because they were committed to a scrapped project. I don't see how those ideas particularly apply to giving up on a zygote.

ETA: as I understand it that sort of value would be applied to say a cultivated orchard being abandoned and its fruit never being harvested, but it would not even vaguely apply to an untended orchard never being harvested. It is applied in regards to expended resources and where those resources would have led, not simply to where a thing would have led without anyone's intervention.

porch

25th February 2009, 06:25 PM

I haven't read the whole thread, or even most of it, but from what I've scanned it's lively, entertaining and engaging. Hard to find in an abortion thread these days (except for the 'lively' part). I'll just plow in with the view from my flat overlooking Relativism Blvd.

I tend to think of personhood as beginning at socialization. There are circumstances in which I would find immediate infanticide an acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Under primitive conditions where abortion methods are extremely dangerous for the mother, it has a tried and tested history.

I would find it a distasteful task, certainly. Mind you, these would be societies where to eat meat, someone in your immediate clan would have to kill an animal. Your old relatives would die at home and infant mortality rates would be very high. Very few relish these conditions. In my time and place I couldn't fathom why someone would choose such a method. I guess I would find it pretty perverse if someone knew they were pregnant and delayed getting a clinical abortion, where it was freely available, till the third trimester for frivolous reasons, like they had to prepare for the upcoming dog show or something. I just don't see that happening too often. I think granting the woman the right to murder, or whatever the bloody hell you want to call it, is simple and, for the most part, self-regulating. To my satisfaction.

uruk

25th February 2009, 07:04 PM

Exactly. It prevents a human from ever being. It does not end the existence of an existing human. I see nothing morally wrong with this. An infinite amount of humans are stopped from ever existing every day, with every breath. Great for you. They end sometimes naturally sometimes not. I am not concerned about the ones that stopped naturally or the ones that were stopped for ligitamate reasons. It the ones that were stopped for no good reason that I have an issue with.

uruk

25th February 2009, 07:16 PM

This still doesn't answer the question you were asked earlier, to paraphrase:

If you stumbled upon a brick in the street, would you feel obliged to build a house with it? Or would you toss it in the trash? Odd question. I think you may have gotten lodt in your analogy. Let's bring it back to what we were talking about. First, How do I stumble upon a zygote?

If the zygote was well on it's way in development in a womb I would give it the chance. If it was a fertilized egg in a freezer. It's going nowhere in the freezer. Do I have a reason to stop the zygote or throw out the egg? If not, then leave them where they are.

ETA: Also, bollocks. You can always get another brick later if you want to build a house. A differnt brick will build a different house.

Remember I am going along with this analogy even though " a brick is to a house" is not the same as "a zygote is to a human being". Try not to get lost in your own analogy.

And has anybody body here ever heard of refering to something in the abstract? or hypothetically?

Lithrael

25th February 2009, 07:19 PM

They end sometimes naturally sometimes not. I am not concerned about the ones that stopped naturally or the ones that were stopped for ligitamate reasons. It the ones that were stopped for no good reason that I have an issue with.

Then like Fiona I must ask why you think it's a good idea to place the evaluation of what is or is not a 'good reason' anywhere other than in each individual woman.

We don't outlaw any type of guns to stop insane people using them (we outlaw them for other reasons ie general safety) and I don't see how it follows that we should outlaw any type of abortion to stop insane people using them, like Piero seems to be worrying about (I can see outlawing them for other reasons ie general safety).

uruk

25th February 2009, 07:40 PM

To everybody who are getting on my case about reffering to a potential person that could have been the product of an aborted pregnancy. Have you guys ever heard of refering to something in the abstract? Or hypotheticals?

We talk about Mickey Mouse, captain kirk, invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, yet they do not exist. They are an abstract concept.

The person I am refering to that could have been the product of an aborted pregnancy is a hypothetical person. An abstract person. I can still talk about or refer to this hypothetical person. I can talk about what this hypothetial person could have hypothetically done if this hypothetical person had hypothetically existed.

If the pregnacy had been allowed to continue, hypothetically, a person would have been produced. Is that acceptable?

If not, please explain why.
If it is, please get off my back about that.

uruk

25th February 2009, 07:47 PM

Condoms stop the process as well

More accurately, condoms prevent the process. A much better proposition than stopping the process once it has started.

Sun Countess

25th February 2009, 07:51 PM

And why do you believe that it is ok for society as a whole to suffer so that the individual rights can remain uninfringend?
I guess I don't see how this relates to abortion. How does society suffer if an individual woman decides to have an abortion, for whatever reason? The vast majority of those very women will go on to procreate, and other women (and men) are procreating at a steady clip.

There's no loss to society if woman #2135 decides that she doesn't want to bring zygote #67836 to term, anymore than it loses out because zygote #67836 spontaneously miscarries, or if woman #2135 decides to remain celibate her entire life.

The vast majority of abortions are performed on younger women/teenage girls and women over 40. I would never deny a young woman her right to make her own decisions regarding her reproduction, but I will say that IMO, society is probably better off with fewer uneducated teenage parents raising children.

MattusMaximus

25th February 2009, 07:55 PM

MattusMaximus

25th February 2009, 08:00 PM

I tend to dissagree. To me it really doesn't matter at what point the cells become human.

:confused: Then why the hell are you harping on the whole "zygote = human" thing?

(And, yes, you are still harping on it)

The act of abortion prevents that human from ever being created. Or at least the opportunity.

As someone else has already stated, condoms also do this because they prevent fertilization, and hence the creation of a potential human, from ever occurring.

But I don't know why I'm pointing this out to you - I've given up attempting to make any sense of your arguments.

uruk

25th February 2009, 08:49 PM

In the financial world, the whole reason that it's recognized is because of the time, effort and resources expended on that uncompleted effort, which could have been used elsewhere, but are now wasted because they were committed to a scrapped project. I don't see how those ideas particularly apply to giving up on a zygote. I believe you are refering to something similar to opportunity cost. It is not quiteswhat you are refering to here but it applies to my argument.

opportunity cost states that when you do something you lose out on whatever else you could have done if you had not done whatever it was you were doing. In other words If I spend three hours studying for a test I lose out on what I could have earned by working for three hours. I gain the benefit of having a better chance of passing a test at the cost of $25.00 that I could have made by working. (If I was working for minimum wadge.)

Sure the $25.00 do not actually exist but that potential $25.00 can influence my decision wether to study or go to work depending on what I find to be more important. That's how a potential can have a real effect or a value. Understand? If not, look up opportunity cost in a book, dictionary, or the great wide google.

If you guys who don't like to talk about potentials or think they are meaningless you are free to debate that with an economics professor or economist. As far as I'm concered I feel justified in talking about potentials. Don't like it? Tough. You are the ones in denial of facts.

I could apply that concept to abortion by saying by aborting the pregnancy I lose out on whatever there was to gain if the pregnancy had been allowed to continue. That is to say a baby. Or Hypothetical baby for you sticklers.

Whatever I gained by aborting the pregnancy is at the cost of what I could have gained by letting the pregnancy to continue. Understand?

uruk

25th February 2009, 08:56 PM

Oh and more bad news for you who say that potentials have no value or are meaningless. Specificaly loss of potential earnings. Please read:

http://www.wilsonelser.com/files/repository/MedMal_NY_future_earnings_eNewsOct2006.pdf

It is a paper describing how to calculate the loss of potential earnings that would have been earned by a infant injured by malpractice. It is talking about the value of something that does not exist.

Brendy

25th February 2009, 08:58 PM

quixotecoyote

25th February 2009, 09:09 PM

Before I die, I expect the technology to exist to clone a human from any cell, somatic or gamete, which will make the fingernail clipping argument much more interesting.

uruk

25th February 2009, 09:16 PM

Then like Fiona I must ask why you think it's a good idea to place the evaluation of what is or is not a 'good reason' anywhere other than in each individual woman.
People can justify many an action, sometimes bad actions by judging that they had a "good reason" to do so. Do you think it is a good idea to leave it soley with the individual to judge what is a "good reason"? Example: Some on might judge that they have a "good reason" to rape or kill some one. Aren't you going to want to know what that reason is? Maybe have something to say about thier "good reason"?

We don't outlaw any type of guns to stop insane people using them (we outlaw them for other reasons ie general safety) and I don't see how it follows that we should outlaw any type of abortion to stop insane people using them, like Piero seems to be worrying about (I can see outlawing them for other reasons ie general safety).

Because I think that it devalues the procreation process and, by extention, human life.

Aborting female foetuses in favor of male foetuses is one example. If it not so easy to do the abortion for a reason such as this then you can't argue that women do not have same value than men because we just toss them off.

Also, If it is easy to toss off the hypothetical life for any reason early in it's hypothetical development there is the possibility of edging that line up futher and further. Especially since it has been argued that infants and children have less social value then adults.

uruk

25th February 2009, 09:18 PM

Save your breath, LMoG. It seems that uruk made that statement solely as a stalling tactic. Uruk seems to be back to his/her old rhetorical tricks, because reading through the last page or so of posts I notice that, in uruk's posts, the phrases "zygote", "baby", "infant", "child", "human", "fetus", and so on are all being used in the same context. He/she is implicitly stating that they are all equivalent, rather than stating it explicitly.
I don't see how I am doing that. Can you give examples of where I have done that?

uruk

25th February 2009, 09:31 PM

:confused: Then why the hell are you harping on the whole "zygote = human" thing?

(And, yes, you are still harping on it) Geez. Did you read to the end of the sentance? I said that because I was looking at the procreation process as a whole. Not just the individual stages.

As someone else has already stated, condoms also do this because they prevent fertilization, and hence the creation of a potential human, from ever occurring.[quote]
Condoms prevent the process from starting. Abortion stops the process once it is started. If you can't see the difference than please put me on ignore.

[quote]But I don't know why I'm pointing this out to you - I've given up attempting to make any sense of your arguments. It seems to me that the difficulty is on your end not mine. Other people seem to understand my arguments. They don't agree with them or think they may be falacious but that's ok. It is a big world, room enough for every opinion. And I want to see if my arguments are fallacious.
Is that so wrong?

If you don't agree with me than just say so. if you don't understand my arguments than ask me for clarification. If do not want to do either than just save yourself some frustration and put me on ignore.

I want you to be happy but not at the expense of giving up my convictions.

uruk

25th February 2009, 09:32 PM

Don't all our cells have all the genetic information of a human, just some genes are inactive?

So every time I scratch an itch and remove a few skin cells, I'm a murderer?

If i choose to take chemo to kill cancer cells, I'm a murderer?

The differnetiated cells of an adult are not the same as the cells of a zygote. They are called stem cells

Third Eye Open

25th February 2009, 10:57 PM

Great for you. They end sometimes naturally sometimes not. I am not concerned about the ones that stopped naturally or the ones that were stopped for ligitamate reasons. It the ones that were stopped for no good reason that I have an issue with.

This all started out with the story about North Dakota saying that a fertilized egg was equal to a human. I and others said that was ridiculous. You seemed to disagree. Have you changed your mind, or are you now saying that there is some legitimate reasons to commit murder (of a zygote)?

It is my opinion that at that stage (bundle of cells) any reason is a legitimate reason to abort, for the same reason that any reason you feel like for stopping building a house will work.

Odd question. I think you may have gotten lodt in your analogy. Let's bring it back to what we were talking about. First, How do I stumble upon a zygote?

If the zygote was well on it's way in development in a womb I would give it the chance. If it was a fertilized egg in a freezer. It's going nowhere in the freezer. Do I have a reason to stop the zygote or throw out the egg? If not, then leave them where they are.

Yes, I may have gotten a bit confused in my own analogy there. What I meant by stumbling upon a brick in the road was an accidental pregnancy, as in:
"Oh, what's this here? I'm not planning on building a human! Better hit the cancel button."

Your original position seemed to be that a zygote was equal to a human, from what I understand you have come to another conclusion: that the zygote is less than human, but more than a bundle of cells, and that abortions should be avoided whenever possible.

I say that a zygote is nothing more or less than a bundle of cells and that abortions should be advised unless you are absolutely confidant in your ability to raise, and give a good life to another human.
Too many people take this responsibility too lightly IMO, people seem to have a, "Woops! I'm pregnant! Guess I'm having a baby! Never mind that I already have three, make 15k a year, and live in a trailer park!" kind of attitude.

Fiona

26th February 2009, 12:08 AM

I started to build a boat so there is a thing there that is the begining of a boat. It is not a boat in and of itself. It is the begining of a boat. Then I stop making the boat. No boat. the processe of building the boat has stopped. What is the result of stopping that process? No boat. I started but then I stopped.
You can argue that nothing was lost except the time and effort I put into building it.

In the financial world I also lost the money I could have made if I had finished the boat and sold it. There is a word for that but I just can't remember what it is. It's been a long time since I took economics. The financial world recognises that loss. Something recognize the value of something that had the potential to exist but didn't. You don't have to appply that in the case of abortion, but just know that there is something that recognises the value of a potential thing.

Never mind, Uruk, there need not be any loss: you can sell the boat that isn't there and recoup the money you didn't lose :)

Ivor the Engineer

26th February 2009, 04:57 AM

<snip>

Well I am not a utilitarian

Really? Not even a little bit? I agree that pure utilitarianism can result in what most people consider rather unpalatable courses of action, but I think most people start out their reasoning using utility and incorporate more intangible factors to reach a final decision.

and that is in part because such calculations are not actually possible.

Not in all cases and generally not with the numerical precision with which we can make other decisions, but it is certainly possible to make utility calculations based on estimated or assigned costs and benefits.

You have already conceded that we cannot in fact reach a perfect decision about what is right and wrong which will apply in every case. Since your morality is as flawed as hers you have no justification for substituting your own whatever you might think about the "marginal nature of discomfort and dissatisfaction" (which are hardly the most usual reasons for abortion, I might add: your focus on them amply demonstrates your unfitness to make this moral decision, since you have not even shown you factor in the real considerations which are normally in play for late abortion)

Please enlighten me as to what the reasons are for the late (i.e. 25+ weeks) abortion and I will perform the moral calculations again.

You still have not provided any justification for taking control of someone else's body (which is not trivial: it is in fact abhorrent) because their moral judgement may differ from yours.

Yes I have. The justification for taking control of someone else's body is when it is determined he or she is using reasoning which is significantly different from that considered acceptable by the majority of others in the group the individual belongs to.

uruk

26th February 2009, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by uruk"
I tend to dissagree. To me it really doesn't matter at what point the cells become human.
~snip~
Quote:
The act of abortion prevents that human from ever being created. Or at least the opportunity.

To clarify my statement here I'll do a bit more explaining.

my statement was to show that an abortion stops the process by a human being is made.
I was looking at the process as a whole and not the individual stages in embryonic development. This does not mean that I am equating a zygote or any other satge of the embryonic developement with a human being. if you look up the definition of human procreation or human reproduction. It says the same thing I've telling you. If you need a refresher here is a site describing the human reprodictive process. http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/2k4ch39repronotes.html
If you notice the whole thing ends with a baby.

If you don't want to read it I will summerize. You put a sperm in an egg. shake and bake for nine months in a womb and a baby pops out. Understand? Simple.

If you go to this site you will see the embryonic stages from fertilized egg to baby. Watch carefully as at no time am I saying that at any of those early stages in the womb that a human being exists.

Now. Here are the stages laid out simplisticly.

1. a sperm meets an ovum. This fertilizes the ovum and gets the whole thing started.
2. the fertilized egg starts to divide
3.an embryo is formed from the fertilized egg
4.a foetus is fromed from the embryo.
5. a baby is formed from the embryo
6. the baby makes it appeance into the world.
7. the baby is raised and gains exerpiance thought and becomes a person.

*for you sticklers the "baby" and "person" I am refering to is a hypothetical baby and person. An abstract baby and person. I can only hope that you guys will at least allow that
hypotheticaly a baby is a human being. I mean it is legal to abort at any time in the womb, but so far the law says that you can't kill a baby once it is outside the womb.

Is that a fair description of the process? you can verify by refering to the site linked

Now If a use a condom stage 1 is prevented. The sperm never reaches the egg and stage 3 to 7 never happens. the embryonic stages never get started. Agreed?

But that is not an abortion. And abortion is when you stop the embryonic development from stage 2 to stage 5. If you stop the development after stage 5 by killing the baby, it is called murder. Agreed? If not look up "killing a baby" and tell me what you find. here is a start:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7902527.stm
Read the article and give me your views.

If I stop the embryonic process at stage 2, 3, 4, 5, which takes place in the womb
Stage 6 and 7 never happen. Stoping the embryonic stage is called abortion. Agreed? If not look up the definition of abortion and tell me what you find. Here is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

That is what I mean when I say that an abortion stops the process by which a human being is made.

Is this clearer? Do you understand now.

And from that you can infer that an abortion prevents a person , A hypothetical person, from being born. Is this unreasonable? If so, why?

If you disagree with this argument, please explain why.

uruk

26th February 2009, 06:59 AM

Never mind, Uruk, there need not be any loss: you can sell the boat that isn't there and recoup the money you didn't lose :) The concept of the lost money for the "boat that could have been" Or the hypothetical boat (for the sticklers) is akin to a concept called "opportunity cost". All the time and effort and materials I used in the process of starting the build on the boat and not finishing is at the cost of what I could have gain by doing something else, whatever that is.

If I had been prevented by someone else from finishing the boat I could sue the person who stopped me from finishing the boat for the money I could have made by selling the boat. In that case the court would award me the money for a boat that does not exist.

Here is the post where I discuss the concept of opportunity cost and relate it to abortion. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4465015&postcount=306

Lithrael

26th February 2009, 07:44 AM

If you guys who don't like to talk about potentials or think they are meaningless you are free to debate that with an economics professor or economist. As far as I'm concered I feel justified in talking about potentials. Don't like it? Tough. You are the ones in denial of facts.

Ugh. I'm not denying that this is an existing and useful concept. I'm saying I don't see how it applies to giving up on an unwanted zygote, just like I don't see anyone awarding damages for ruined fruit in an untended orchard. The mere existence of potential is not enough; there has to be intent.

Whatever I gained by aborting the pregnancy is at the cost of what I could have gained by letting the pregnancy to continue. Understand?

If I don't understand, I'll ask, thanks.

uruk

26th February 2009, 07:59 AM

This all started out with the story about North Dakota saying that a fertilized egg was equal to a human. I and others said that was ridiculous. You seemed to disagree. Have you changed your mind, or are you now saying that there is some legitimate reasons to commit murder (of a zygote)?[quote] First. Yes. I disagreed at first but then was shown that my argument was fallacious and incorrect. I admitted to my mistake and I changed my views on that particular subject. I no longer claim that a fertilized egg is the equivilent of a human in value or rights. That called learning.
Second. I have never said that abortion is murder. I just claim that it prevents a hypotherical person from being produced. I have given a detail explination to support this claim.

I have never said there were no ligitimate reasons for abortion. I only said that there are some reasons that were, in my opinion, not ligitimate.

It is in your statment above that you are calling aborting a zygote murder. (re. "to commit murder -of a zygote-") That is not my claim. It never was. You are attempting to attribute a claim to me that I never made. Quite frankly I see that as dishonest.

[quote]It is my opinion that at that stage (bundle of cells) any reason is a legitimate reason to abort, for the same reason that any reason you feel like for stopping building a house will work. Moraly stopping building a house is not the same as stopping building a human. But you have a right to your own opinion. I don't agree with your opinion but thats o.k. I am not asking you to change your opinion. I am just explaining my opinions.

Yes, I may have gotten a bit confused in my own analogy there. What I meant by stumbling upon a brick in the road was an accidental pregnancy, as in:
"Oh, what's this here? I'm not planning on building a human! Better hit the cancel button." And as I have explained, I my opinion I do not see aborting an unwanted pregnancy simply because it is unwanted as being a ligitimate reason. Or a moral reason.
I have that opinion becaue I place a value on human life (by that I mean human life in general. Human life in the abstract and philosophical sense) and the product of a pregancy is a human life. I say that the product of a preganacy is a human life because that is what the reproductive process is. The reproduction of human life. If you do not agree or understand this statement I suggest that you look up the definition of "reproductive process". I have a link to it in a previous post.

When you abort the reproductive process you prevent a human being from being produced. And by that I mean a human being in the general and abstract sense. You lose something.
That something may not exist in the real sense but it exists in the abstract sense like Mickey Mouse or Captain Kirk.

Like when you say " Aw man! I could have had a V8!" You did not have the V8 but you recognize that you lost out on the benefit you could have had had you drank the vedgetable drink. Understand?

And I don't believe that what you gain by aborting the reproductive process for that particular reason is worth what you lose by not allowing it to continue.

In the gerneral sense it cheapens humanity as a whole to discard that product of reproduction so easily and off handed. It is denying or devaluing what that process represents.

That is my opinion. You don't have to agree with it.

Your original position seemed to be that a zygote was equal to a human, from what I understand you have come to another conclusion: that the zygote is less than human, but more than a bundle of cells, and that abortions should be avoided whenever possible.Not quite. Not that abortions should be avoided whenever possible but that abortions for certain specific reasons should be avoided whenever possible. It is a very small distiction to be sure but it is more accurate to what I believe. Everything else is you wrote there is accurate more or less.

I say that a zygote is nothing more or less than a bundle of cells and that abortions should be advised unless you are absolutely confidant in your ability to raise, and give a good life to another human. My only quibble with this particular opinion is that there are alternatives to aborting due to fiancial reasons. But I understand your reasoning.

Too many people take this responsibility too lightly IMO, people seem to have a, "Woops! I'm pregnant! Guess I'm having a baby! Never mind that I already have three, make 15k a year, and live in a trailer park!" kind of attitude. Yes Iagree. Some people do that on purpose for that very reason. But I disagree that abortion would be the sole solution to this situation.

Lithrael

26th February 2009, 08:13 AM

People can justify many an action, sometimes bad actions by judging that they had a "good reason" to do so. Do you think it is a good idea to leave it soley with the individual to judge what is a "good reason"? Example: Some on might judge that they have a "good reason" to rape or kill some one. Aren't you going to want to know what that reason is? Maybe have something to say about thier "good reason"?

I've already said I don't follow this line of reasoning on the issue of abortion because I do not see any significant negative impact on society worth abridging a woman's right to choose, in the way that I do see a significant negative impact on society worth abridging a person's right to swing his or her fist.

Because I think that it devalues the procreation process and, by extention, human life.

There are plenty of things that can in various people's opinions devalue human life. I can see where you're coming from with your opinion but I do not share it and your arguments aren't encouraging me to come around. My concerns on that issue are elsewhere.

MattusMaximus

26th February 2009, 08:15 AM

Yes Iagree. Some people do that on purpose for that very reason. But I disagree that abortion would be the sole solution to this situation.

No one has ever said here that abortion is the sole solution to anything. It is one possible solution, to be chosen by the pregnant woman if she wishes. Depending upon the context of the situation, I may think the woman is making a stupid or immoral decision, but that isn't the point.

Why do you insist upon presenting strawman arguments?

MattusMaximus

26th February 2009, 08:18 AM

Don't all our cells have all the genetic information of a human, just some genes are inactive?

Yes.

So every time I scratch an itch and remove a few skin cells, I'm a murderer?

If i choose to take chemo to kill cancer cells, I'm a murderer?

Well, in my opinion, if some people wanted to actually be consistent with their arguments, then yes they should be saying you're a murderer.

But instead they pick & choose their arguments because they realize how stupid they'd look.

Safe-Keeper

26th February 2009, 08:44 AM

Condoms stop the process as well More accurately, condoms prevent the process. A much better proposition than stopping the process once it has started. So what's your take on the morning after pill?

1. a sperm meets an ovum. This fertilizes the ovum and gets the whole thing started.
2. the fertilized egg starts to divide
3.an embryo is formed from the fertilized egg
4.a foetus is fromed from the embryo.
5. a baby is formed from the embryo
6. the baby makes it appeance into the world.
7. the baby is raised and gains exerpiance thought and becomes a person.Lemme add some points for you:

The male body produces sperm.
The sperm gets ejaculated into the female body, which should already have an egg waiting.
A sperm meets an ovum. This fertilizes the ovum gets the whole thing started.
[and so on]

Others may have yet another arbitrarily selected starting point.

AWPrime

26th February 2009, 08:57 AM

If you mean that a severly disabled foetus be aborted for the benefit of society. Then I agree. It is already being done in this society. Although I think they use a different line of thinking. I do not see a moral dilemma there.
But society protects the healthy baby.As I have already told you "the time to take existence away has past, as the first signs of personhood have appeared.".

It would seem that there is some circularity in the definitions of person and human being. According to dictionary.com person = human being. Do you disagree? There is some overlapping between terms but that is to be expected of common language and biology. If I take the definition of person of Philosophy and the first definition of human being, then they aren't equal for not all humans are self-conscious or rational. The relation between persons and humans is a correlation not a causation.

You seem to think: zygote=foetus=baby=person
But even the last step is flawed (for baby =!= person), in reality is closer to this: baby+raising+education+time~=person

Sorry. What does that have to do with those organizations valuing zygotes?Well you did compare it to cattle, you can blame yourself for that. But it also shows that value and rights are two different things. Something with value doesn't have to have rights.

The bricks value is in it relation to the house. It does not need any extra value to justify it's relation to the house.
It just a brick but you need it build the house.
It's not very rare but you still need the brick to make the house.
If you do not have that brick you cannot build the house.Actually the brick can never be near to value of a house because of all the other components and effort that needs to be invested before the house gains a function and thus value.

uruk

26th February 2009, 09:02 AM

Ugh. I'm not denying that this is an existing and useful concept. I'm saying I don't see how it applies to giving up on an unwanted zygote, just like I don't see anyone awarding damages for ruined fruit in an untended orchard. The mere existence of potential is not enough; there has to be intent. To me the issue is about the value we place on human life in general. I think we place more value on the product of the reproductive process than the product of agriculture.

I do not see the reason that the pregnancy is unwanted as justification to discard the product of an unwanted preganacy in light of the value we place on the end product of the process.

uruk

26th February 2009, 09:30 AM

So what's your take on the morning after pill?http://health.howstuffworks.com/morning-after.htm
It is not yet completely understood how the the morning after pill works but it is believed that it either delays the ovum from being released from the ovary or it prevents the sperm from fertilizing the ovum. The MA pill prevents stage 2 from occuring.

There is also some evidence to suggest that the MA pill prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall like the IUD. At which point it would stop the process at somewhere between stage 2 and 3. Somewhere between stage 1 and 3 the fertilized cell implants in the uterine wall. Stage 3 doesn't happen untill implantation. The egg wont make it to stage 3 if it doesn't get implanted because it would have gotten flushed by the menstral cycle before then.

If that is the case then I see it as a grey area. Life is not black and white so, eh, I'll live with it. I'm not an absolutist.

Lemme add some points for you:

The male body produces sperm.
The sperm gets ejaculated into the female body, which should already have an egg waiting.
A sperm meets an ovum. This fertilizes the ovum gets the whole thing started.
[and so on]

Others may have yet another arbitrarily selected starting point. Yep.

uruk

26th February 2009, 09:49 AM

No one has ever said here that abortion is the sole solution to anything. It is one possible solution, to be chosen by the pregnant woman if she wishes. Depending upon the context of the situation, I may think the woman is making a stupid or immoral decision, but that isn't the point.

Why do you insist upon presenting strawman arguments?
Third eye open said:
I say that a zygote is nothing more or less than a bundle of cells and that abortions should be advised unless you are absolutely confidant in your ability to raise, and give a good life to another human.
. (Bolding mine) He said "abortion should be advised unless..." He seemed to narrow down the solution and condition to me. If I mistook his intention then I appologise.

And I agree with you. That was my point. I was arguing that I think that the woman making that choice for that specific reason was making an immoral decision. Not that the choice should be taken away from her. I never that it should have been.

My other argument about the infringing of rights and so forth was about a theoretical justification for suspending certain woman's rights under certain conditions if society deemed it necessary base on cases where society has infringed on individual rights for the good of the society in the past and present.

uruk

26th February 2009, 09:52 AM

Yes.

Well, in my opinion, if some people wanted to actually be consistent with their arguments, then yes they should be saying you're a murderer.

But instead they pick & choose their arguments because they realize how stupid they'd look. Oye vey!. Please show me how the cells of follicles and skin are identical in relation to a human being compared to the group cells of a zygote in relation to a human being.

Third Eye Open

26th February 2009, 10:53 AM

Third eye open said:
. (Bolding mine) He said "abortion should be advised unless..." He seemed to narrow down the solution and condition to me. If I mistook his intention then I appologise.

.....

Right, should be advised, not as the only option, but as an option, and a good one, especially very early on.

I'm not really sure what is being debated anymore, from what I gather you think:

1. Abortion should stay legal.
2. Abortion can be immoral in some situations, but is still the woman's choice.

I agree on both counts, though the number of situations I would find immoral is probably far less that you would.

uruk

26th February 2009, 11:09 AM

As I have already told you "the time to take existence away has past, as the first signs of personhood have appeared.". Personhood does not change the fact that the baby is a member of the genus Homo sapien. You are just saying the "personhood" gives the homo sapien more value in the society than the younger, uneducated homo sapien. I say it depend on your point of view. You say the more rights the homo sapien has is an indication of his importance to society. I argue that the laws passed to protect are also an indication of the homo sapiens value in that society. When you protect something it is because you value that thing.

There is some overlapping between terms but that is to be expected of common language and biology. If I take the definition of person of Philosophy and the first definition of human being, then they aren't equal for not all humans are self-conscious or rational. The relation between persons and humans is a correlation not a causation. So it does come down to semantics. We still place a value on the human being that is not or does not yet have self-consciousness or is rational because we have laws that protect that not-yet-self-conscious human being. I could argue it is because people or persons recognise the potential for that not-yet self-concious human being to become self-concious and rational otherwise why would we put the effort into raising and teaching it if we gave no importance to that potential?

You seem to think: zygote=foetus=baby=person No I don't. I'm sorry I meant to put arrows between the words but I was distracted I meant to write zygote-->foetus-->baby-->person. Meaning that the zygote leads to the foetus which leads to the baby which then leads to person even your philosophical person.

Each previous step makes the following step possible to exist. If you dont believe me then look up the definition of the reproductive cycle and tell me what it says

And please stop with this silly idea about "well it doesn't happen all the time" as if it actually has any bearing to the process in general. That is a cheap and weak argument and I have already shown you why that is.

But even the last step is flawed (for baby =!= person), in reality is closer to this: baby+raising+education+time~=person OYE VEY!!!! a philosophical person is a human being with raising+education+time. You have said this yourself.

What happens to your equation when you take the baby away?
What are you then raising and education and puting time into if the baby is not there?

Now, how do babies get made?

If you need a refresher please look up reproductive cycle on google. Tell me what it says. There are steps in there aren't there. Fertilized egg? Yep. Zygote?. Yep. Embryo? Yep. Foetus? Yep. AND TA DA!!! A baby!!!!!!

Now you have something to raise and educate and put time into to become the philosophical person you so cherish and value and invest with rights and duties to society.

And you know something else? You get alot of them raised and educated and put them all to gether you get a society which can value each other and invest each others with rights and have duties to each other. And all because of what? Yes! that process that created them all. Now do you see why that process may have some importance to the society as a whole?
Wouldn't it be wise to protect it?

Well you did compare it to cattle, you can blame yourself for that. But it also shows that value and rights are two different things. Something with value doesn't have to have rights. No I did not compare a human zygote with cow zygotes. I showed how zygotes have value because cow zygotes have value to the cattle industry. I then said if someone values cow zygotes, then why is it that we don't value human zygotes. You said it is because we can eat cows. I said what? it seemed to me that you were saying that the cow zygotes only had value because we get a practical use out of them. So are you saying that we get no use out of human zygotes? What about the raising and educating of the human being that is the end result of the reproductive process of which the zygote is a part?

I mean we get hamburgers from the cows that are produced form the cow zygotes. You admitted that. Isn't it reasonable to assume that we would get human beings from human zygotes? It happens with the cow zygote why would it not with the human zygotes?

No, a thing with values does not have to have rights but the thing of value we are talking about is related to human beings. We place a value on the baby but it has no rights or very few. We put the time and effort and it becomes something that you would gives rights to.

In the case of the human zygote, no, you would not give it rights. But that thing has an additional value in that it could turn into something that could eventualy be something that you could give rights to provided that the conditions are right.

You attribute a potential to the baby when you said baby+rasing+education+time = person.
Anything can happen to that baby that would stop it from becoming a person. But that is irrelevent to the equation.

I argue that you give an appropriate potential that is comensurate to the zygote in that zygote+implantation in womb+time = baby. Again anything can happen that would stop the zygote from becoming a baby, but that is irrelevent to the equation.

Actually the brick can never be near to value of a house because of all the other components and effort that needs to be invested before the house gains a function and thus value. Ok let us not get lost in the house/brick analogy. In order for the house/brick analogy to more accurately reflect the zygote/human relation. The brick would build the house by dividing into the proper components of the house untill the house was fully formed.

It is crazy but that's the only way it will resemble the human/zygote relationship. Because it only takes one zygote to make one human. You don't use several thousand zygotes to build one human. Look it up.

In this light the brick would have a greater value in relation to the house that it would build.
If you used a differenent brick it would build a different house.

You could argue that this distinction is not important. A house is a house is a house. True.

But is this the same as a human is a human is a human? Do you begin to see how this attitude may devalue humans in general?

Let's look at this way. To your mother, are you the same to her as your friend Bill or Edna down the block, or me? Now do you begin to see what the difference and the importance of value is in refrence to human beings?

uruk

26th February 2009, 11:13 AM

Right, should be advised, not as the only option, but as an option, and a good one, especially very early on.

I'm not really sure what is being debated anymore, from what I gather you think:

1. Abortion should stay legal.
2. Abortion can be immoral in some situations, but is still the woman's choice.

I agree on both counts, though the number of situations I would find immoral is probably far less that you would.

I think that some are debating that my opinions and reasoning are fallacious. I am defending my reasoning and altering them where I can see that they are found to be fallacious.

And people can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh, and sorry for hijacking your thread.

Third Eye Open

26th February 2009, 11:15 AM

Oh, and sorry for hijacking your thread.

Ha! No worries, it's been much more interesting than I was expecting.

uruk

26th February 2009, 12:48 PM

I've already said I don't follow this line of reasoning on the issue of abortion because I do not see any significant negative impact on society worth abridging a woman's right to choose, in the way that I do see a significant negative impact on society worth abridging a person's right to swing his or her fist. It would depend on the situation. I see the situation in India and China very disturbing on many levels. I agree with Fiona that education is the best solution. But I also thinks she sees the inherent difficulties with educating out detrimantal cultural traditions and behaiviors. Culture changes very slowly and there is often huge resistance to it. It is slow going over here too.

My concern is that education may not be able to solve the problem before catastrophic damage to the society has been done. It is already in bad shape to start with. I believe that in this case not allowing the woman to abort the female foetus would aid the education solution in bringing about positive change quicker than just education alone or at least to slow down or stop the female to male ration from dropping. Of course there are enticements to persuade the woman not to abort the foetus but preventing the woman from aborting the foetus is more effective than persuasion.

This is an infringment of the womans rights, but it would be only temporary and in my opinion it does not make the woman a slave or second class citizen. It simply is a measure to prevent a catastrophy from happening. Sometimes drastic measures have to be taken for the good of society and the people as a whole.

pgwenthold

26th February 2009, 01:17 PM

So what's your take on the morning after pill?

Lemme add some points for you:

The male body produces sperm.
The sperm gets ejaculated into the female body, which should already have an egg waiting.
A sperm meets an ovum. This fertilizes the ovum gets the whole thing started.
[and so on]

Others may have yet another arbitrarily selected starting point.

I went to Catholic mass last weekend, and there they prayed for "souls lost due to abortion, contraception, and sterilization."

So Catholics are not only praying for the aborted fetuses now, they are praying for zygotes that never even formed.

Lithrael

26th February 2009, 01:44 PM

It would depend on the situation. I see the situation in India and China very disturbing on many levels. I agree with Fiona that education is the best solution. (...) My concern is that education may not be able to solve the problem before catastrophic damage to the society has been done. (...) I believe that in this case not allowing the woman to abort the female foetus would aid the education solution in bringing about positive change quicker than just education alone or at least to slow down or stop the female to male ratio from dropping. Of course there are enticements to persuade the woman not to abort the foetus but preventing the woman from aborting the foetus is more effective than persuasion.

I can definitely see where you're coming from and it is a sticky situation, but IMO making the disclosure of a fetus's gender to its parents illegal for a while would be a far better solution, without seriously abridging anyone's rights. Sure some people will gender test illegally but so will some people abort illegally if that becomes the only option.

Fiona

26th February 2009, 01:46 PM

And why do you believe that it is ok for society as a whole to suffer so that the individual rights can remain uninfringend?

A society cannot suffer. Only living beings can suffer.

I'm sorry what exactly about the statement do you dissagree with?

Do you believe the argument yourself? If you do not then I see no point in wasting time with it. If you do then it may become necessary to address it. I may be wrong but it seems to me that you do not believe it but you think it somehow follows from my position. It doesn't. So unless you have some other reason for raising it do you think it needs further exploration if neither of us accept it? If so, why do you?

Coersion would take the choice away from you and force you to some end. Persuasion would not take the choice away from you but would still try to influence you into choosing that end. If the persusion was successful you chose the desired end. In Both ways they got you to the end they desired. Although you are right in that persuasion would leave your rights intact.

Yes. Do you have a point?

No action is without it's reaction. The dowery once had a practical purpose.

I imagine it has a practical purpose now, don't you?

In this case so would I. Culture is a crazy thing though. This could also be an example of how our "free choices" arent really free.

If you are arguing we have no choice you are arguing against the possibility of morality. That is a fairy unusual position, but you would not be the first or last to hold it. It does seem to me that it rather undermines part of your case, however.

Depends what is is being taught and what is expected from the individual after the education.

I don't think it does. But then I draw a distinction between education and training: that may be the source of our disagreement here, I don't know. But I referred to my vocabulary and it obviously differs from yours. Not unexpected.

How does infringing certain rights automaticaly create second class citizens? Are soldiers who have temporarily given up some of thier individual right second class citizens? Sometimes society respects and honors those who have made the sacrifce of rights.

In response to your first sentence, it doesn't. I have already said under what conditions I believe it is acceptable to impose regulation and deprive a person of human rights. At present you are making an analogy between the conscripted soldier and the woman forced to carry a foeus to term against her will. From my perspective the two cases are obviously distinct, and if you wish to show why I am wrong about that go right ahead.

I would still like you to show the mechanism you propose, as I asked you to do. Once you have explained how you want to do this it may be that I will change my mind about the implications of what you propose.

In a democratic society the people make the decision. They decide wether the infringment is warranted and they decide what rights are infrigned, when they are infringed and who gets them infringed.

And you suggest there should be no limits to that? Have a blue hat!

When someone committs a crime, thier individual rights are grossly infringed for the benefit of society. It was the people who decided for what reasons and by how much the rights are infringed.

So there is no reason at all not to execute people for not wearing a blue hat? I am afraid I do not agree with that

Or do you think the criminal's rights should never be infringenged. If not then people suffer. Oh! You said that it is ok for the people to suffer so that individual rights can remain uninfringed.

Nope. I already laid out the conditions under which I think it is legitimate to abridge people's rights. So it would be nice if you stopped with the strawman.

Do you see why it is necessary to infringe individual rights for the benefit of society now?

Do you know that it is not really very clever to patronise an argument you do not appear to have understood?

Agreed. That is why the U.S. is a republic rather than a democracy because they realized the rights of the minority need to have some protection or compensation from the majority. they also realized that some rights have to be infringed. I believe the supreme court keeps an eye on this. Correct me if I am wrong.

Since I am not an American I will not comment on the nature of the US constitution nor on the role of the supreme court. But I no longer understand what you are arguing. So for clarification: do you believe that every thing which can be enacted by a simple (or even a threshold) majority vote is made right by virtue of that vote? Or do you believe that some things are not right even if the majority votes for them?

That still does mean that all individual rights will not have to be infringed. Sometimes it is necessary. And it is not taken lightly when it has to be done.

Indeed one would hope so.

Now let me ask you some things

Do you think that the concept of human rights is meaningful? I ask because I know that there are some people who do not believe they are, so it is not a foregone conclusion.

If you do believe the concept has meaning then can you summarise what it entails?

Do you believe that the concept of human rights which you have summarised are to be enjoyed by all human beings as a default assumption?

In what circumstances to you believe it is ok to deprive another person of those rights, assuming you value them?

Do you consider that it is morally wrong to use another human being as a tool to satisfy your own ends?

AWPrime

26th February 2009, 01:54 PM

Personhood does not change the fact that the baby is a member of the genus Homo sapien.So what? DNA is highly superficial.

You are just saying the "personhood" gives the homo sapien more value in the society than the younger, uneducated homo sapien. I say it depend on your point of view. You say the more rights the homo sapien has is an indication of his importance to society. I argue that the laws passed to protect are also an indication of the homo sapiens value in that society. When you protect something it is because you value that thing. I only seem to be getting from you is how you 'feel' about this subject.

So it does come down to semantics. We still place a value on the human being that is not or does not yet have self-consciousness or is rational because we have laws that protect that not-yet-self-conscious human being. I could argue it is because people or persons recognise the potential for that not-yet self-concious human being to become self-concious and rational otherwise why would we put the effort into raising and teaching it if we gave no importance to that potential?Actually this is false, the human is only gains any legal protection months after conception. Heck in ancient cultures infanticide was legal and causing an abortion against the parent wishes was punished with a fine.

OYE VEY!!!! a philosophical person is a human being with raising+education+time. You have said this yourself.
What happens to your equation when you take the baby away?The same thing as you take any of the other element away, you don't get a developed person.

And you know something else? You get alot of them raised and educated and put them all to gether you get a society which can value each other and invest each others with rights and have duties to each other. And all because of what? Yes! that process that created them all. Now do you see why that process may have some importance to the society as a whole?
Wouldn't it be wise to protect it?Nothing you actually suggest actual protects society. By overvaluing potential life and undervaluing actual persons, your society is likely to devalue human potential to death.

I showed how zygotes have value because cow zygotes have value to the cattle industry. I then said if someone values cow zygotes, then why is it that we don't value human zygotes. You said it is because we can eat cows. I said what? it seemed to me that you were saying that the cow zygotes only had value because we get a practical use out of them.Unless its a special breed of cow, nobody is going to buy if you offer to sell a cow zygote to them. Zygotes are far removed from any value. As raw material (think sand, mud or anything that) it can only be sold after refinement, special treatment and/or in bulk.
You might say that people do buy human zygotes, but remember they only do it with specific specs, which would fall under special treatment. And thus they aren't paying for the zygote but for the treatment of that raw material.

I mean we get hamburgers from the cows that are produced form the cow zygotes. You admitted that. Isn't it reasonable to assume that we would get human beings from human zygotes? It happens with the cow zygote why would it not with the human zygotes?And how is this relevant?

Again anything can happen that would stop the zygote from becoming a baby, but that is irrelevent to the equation.Only you are of that opinion. I disagree for the other elements must be given.

Ok let us not get lost in the house/brick analogy. In order for the house/brick analogy to more accurately reflect the zygote/human relation. The brick would build the house by dividing into the proper components of the house until the house was fully formed.Except of course that the zygote can't divide without help. Which is simular in the analog to buying more material.

Let's look at this way. To your mother, are you the same to her as your friend Bill or Edna down the block, or me? Now do you begin to see what the difference and the importance of value is in refrence to human beings?If someone has gone back in time and switched zygotes in my mother, and thus she would have given birth to a different baby would my mother have cared? Or if that person just removed me before she knew she was pregant?

The answer to both is NO. The emotional attachment does begin after several months but mutual emotional connections only started developing along side one personhood. To truly value someone you must know them. And before you can do that there must be a person to know.

Fiona

26th February 2009, 02:21 PM

It would depend on the situation. I see the situation in India and China very disturbing on many levels. I agree with Fiona that education is the best solution. But I also thinks she sees the inherent difficulties with educating out detrimantal cultural traditions and behaiviors. Culture changes very slowly and there is often huge resistance to it. It is slow going over here too.

My concern is that education may not be able to solve the problem before catastrophic damage to the society has been done. It is already in bad shape to start with. I believe that in this case not allowing the woman to abort the female foetus would aid the education solution in bringing about positive change quicker than just education alone or at least to slow down or stop the female to male ration from dropping. Of course there are enticements to persuade the woman not to abort the foetus but preventing the woman from aborting the foetus is more effective than persuasion.

This is an infringment of the womans rights, but it would be only temporary and in my opinion it does not make the woman a slave or second class citizen. It simply is a measure to prevent a catastrophy from happening. Sometimes drastic measures have to be taken for the good of society and the people as a whole.

The problem here as I see it is oversimplification. Your stance is predicated on a number of assumptions which do not seem to be supported by the evidence.

In the first place you assume that cultural pressure in favour of male children is relatively weak. By this I mean that you presume it will be solved if female children are born.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0209/p11s01-wosc.html

MADRAS, INDIA –
The oleander plant yields a bright, pleasant flower, but also a milky sap that, if ingested, can be a deadly poison. It's one of the methods families use to kill newborn girls in the Salem District of Tamil Nadu, a part of India notorious for female infanticide.
Though the government has battled the practice for decades, India's gender imbalance has worsened in recent years. Any progress toward halting infanticide, it seems, has been offset by a rise in sex-selective abortions. Too many couples - aided by medical technology, unethical doctors, and weak enforcement of laws banning abortion on the basis of gender - are electing to end a pregnancy if the fetus is female.

As you can see the abortion of female foetuses substitutes for female infanticide. As you seem to be uncertain as to the status of the foetus vis a vis a human being, this possibly is morally equivalent in your code: it is not in mine, however.

Again:

India has long struggled with an inordinate number of male births, and female infanticide -- the killing of newborn baby girls -- remains a problem. The abortion of female fetuses is a more recent trend, but unless "urgent action is taken," it's poised to escalate as the use of ultrasound services expands, the United Nations Children's Fund said in a report this year.

Now it is true that the gender imbalance has worsened since the ability to determine the gender of a foetus has been widespread. It is not a simple situation. We can speculate about why this might be, but there is not a lot of evidence to found on. This article is quite interesting

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s992850.htm

It is anecdotal but it does show that your presumption that it is the woman who makes the choice is at least questionable:

KUSUM (translated): My mother-in-law had warned me that she did not want a female child. She had told me that she only wanted a grandson. She said she wanted a child that would carry forward the family name.

I was made to undergo a sex determination test, and we found that I was carrying a girl. Immediately, they stopped giving me food and began harassing me, beating me up. For two months I was barely given any food, they told me I was fit for starving and asked me to leave the house.

If you pass a law preventing the abortion of the female foetus I suppose it is possible that that family will just shrug and be nice to Kusum: or maybe they won't.

One peculiar finding is that the gender imbalance is greater in more affluent households.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/gender-imbalance-highest-among-indias-affluent-harvard-study_100130870.html

The article speculates as to why that might be: perhaps the more affluent have greater access to abortion and that might explain it: or perhaps the impact of the dowry is proportionally greater.

What is very clear is that this is a very very strong cultural thread which is seen at all levels of income, though in different degrees in different parts of the county.

I am not persuaded that the denial of abortion will do much to change this, and I am not convinced that in a society where women are still burned alive if the dowry is not paid that the outcomes of the change you wish to impose will have the positive benefits for women or for society you wish to see

Fiona

26th February 2009, 03:25 PM

Please enlighten me as to what the reasons are for the late (i.e. 25+ weeks) abortion and I will perform the moral calculations again.

Abortion at 25+ weeks is not permitted in the uk unless

There is no time limit on abortion where two doctors agree that a woman’s health or life is gravely threatened by continuing with the pregnancy or that the fetus is likely to be born with severe physical or mental abnormalities.

(1967 abortion act)

Does that answer your question?

For abortions up to 24 weeks

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2135792

Of women who had an abortion at 16 or more weeks' gestation, 71 percent attributed their delay to not having realized they were pregnant or not having known soon enough the actual gestation of their pregnancy. Almost half were delayed because of trouble in arranging the abortion, usually because they needed time to raise money. One-third did not have an abortion earlier because they were afraid to tell their partner or parents that they were pregnant. A multivariate analysis revealed that respondents under age 18 were 39 percent more likely than older women to have delayed because they were afraid to tell their parents or partner.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3038208

Abstract
Context: The immediate explanation that women often give for seeking induced abortion is that the pregnancy was unplanned or unwanted. However, the myriad social, economic and health circumstances that underlie such explanations have not yet been fully explored. Methods: Findings from 32 studies in 27 countries were used to examine the reasons that women give for having an abortion, regional patterns in these reasons and the relationship between such reasons and women's social and demographic characteristics. The data come from a range of sources, including nationally representative surveys, official government statistics, commu- nity-based studies and hospital- or clinic-based research. Results: Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason-socioeconomic concerns- includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to pro- vide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's percep- tion that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons. Women's charac- teristics are associated with their reasons for having an abortion: With few exceptions, older women and married women are the most likely to identify limiting childbearing as their main rea- son for abortion. Conclusions: Reasons women give for why they seek abortion are often far more complex than simply not intending to become pregnant; the decision to have an abortion is usually motivated by more than one factor. While improved contraceptive use can help reduce unintended preg- nancy and abortion, some abortions will remain difficult to prevent, because of limits to women's ability to determine and control all circumstances of their lives.

http://www.popline.org/docs/0697/030847.html

Abstract:

This investigation of late abortion (midtrimester) in England and Wales was aimed at verifying the accuracy of official statistics, identifying causes of delay in requesting or carrying out abortion, obtaining information on the current range of methods and their complications, and examining the prevalence and accuracy of diagnosis of congenital abnormalities in pregnancy terminations. The data were drawn from a study sample of 9732 cases from the official notification system and a questionnaire sample of 3028 cases on which more detailed information was collected. Comparison of gestational age data on notification forms with physicians' estimates of gestational age at operation (questionnaire sample) revealed complete agreement in 81.1% of responses; moreover, in very late abortions (20-27 weeks gestation), official forms tended to overestimate rather than underestimate gestational age. The majority of 2nd-trimester abortions (excepting those done because of a risk of congenital malformations) are performed in the private sector rather than in the National Health Service (NHS); for abortion at 20-27 weeks gestation, the ratio between private and NHS sector abortions exceeds 6:1. Women under 20 years of age comprise over 40% of late abortions carried out for reasons other than risk of congenital malformations. Failure to recognize pregnancy accounted for the delay in obtaining abortion in 30% of 2nd-trimester abortion cases, although lengthy delays between initial consultation and abortion, especially in the NHS, were a major factor as well. In addition, women under 20 years showed a reluctance to consult their general practitioner, and referred themselves to the abortion service. Private clinics tend to use vaginal operative methods involving cervical dilatation for midtrimester abortion, whereas the NHS favors extra-amniotic prostaglandin administration. Late abortions appear to be relatively safe, and most are performed by highly skilled physicians.

These reasons have not changed much

http://www.soton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2007/apr/07_54.shtml

There was no single reason why women have abortions in the second trimester: respondents reported a whole variety of reasons that explained their delay in seeking and obtaining an abortion.
A major reason for delay in the pathway to abortion was women not realising that they were pregnant.
Much of the delay occurs prior to women requesting an abortion: half the women questioned were more than 13 weeks pregnant by the time they requested an abortion.
Women’s concerns about what is involved in having the abortion are also important in creating delay.
Various aspects of relationships with their partners and/or parents played a role in delays in women’s decision-making about whether to have an abortion.
Forty one per cent of women in the study said that they were unsure about having an abortion and therefore it took some time to make up their minds. Over half the teenage women said they were worried how their parents would react, while 23 per cent overall said that their relationship with their partners had broken down or changed.
After requesting an abortion, delays were partly service-related, to do with waiting for appointments, and partly ‘women-related’, to do with missing or cancelling appointments. Service-related reasons for delay at this stage included delays in getting further appointments and confusion amongst doctors first approached about where a procedure should take place.

In the uk 1.6% of abortions were carried out after 20 weeks in 2004, and 0.1% of abortions were carried out after 24 weeks in 2007. This improvement is directly related to an explicit policy of improving early access to abortion services which is in part a response to the earlier findings that delays between consultation and abortion referred to above

4.3.2 Department of Health policy is that women, who are legally entitled to an abortion, should have access to the procedure as soon as possible. Evidence shows that the risk of complications increases the later the gestation. In 2001, the Government set a standard of a maximum waiting time of 3 weeks. Significant investment was made to improve early access and PCOs’ performance in this area was measured as part of the Healthcare Commission's annual healthcheck until 2006/7. The latest data for 2007 show that progress continues to be made to increase early access: 68% of NHS funded abortions took place at under 10 weeks compared with 51% in 2002. This represents a 33% increase in the total number of abortions taking place at under 10 weeks between 2002 and 2007 compared with a 13% rise in the total number of abortions over the same period

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:xqVqZkJeUOQJ:www.fpa.org.uk/attachments/published/807/APPG%2520Why%2520women%2520need%2520late%2520abort ions%25202006.pdf+reasons+for+late+abortion+uk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=uk

That is also an interesting discussion of the reasons for delay in abortion: in addition to reasons already given they include concern for the effect of a new baby on existing children: the breaking of a promise from a violent partner that he will cease to assault her: difficulty in finding a doctor who will make a referral (conscientious objection by physicians make access to abortion a bit of a lottery in the uk); late diagnosis of foetal abnormality etc

One of the interesting things is the situation in Holland.

http://hollandsouth.angloinfo.com/countries/holland/abortion.asp

That country has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. Women in Holland can have an abortion on request up to 24 weeks, with no restrictions at all (though two doctors must agree after the first trimester). Thus the choice is entirely in the woman's hands. In this situation the rate of abortion has dropped since the law was passed. It would appear that there are no adverse consequences for society at all if women's status as fully autonomous moral agents is left intact.

uruk

26th February 2009, 04:19 PM

I can definitely see where you're coming from and it is a sticky situation, but IMO making the disclosure of a fetus's gender to its parents illegal for a while would be a far better solution, without seriously abridging anyone's rights. Sure some people will gender test illegally but so will some people abort illegally if that becomes the only option.Agreed. Some people fail to see degrees of severity. There are small abridgements and there are gross abridgements. Some either can't see that or refuse to see that or are absolutists and say that there should be none at all. If you don't bend with the wind you might find that the wind will break you.

No soultion is perfect. But trying something is better than doing nothing. If the the solution the doesn't work, then abandon it.

Fiona

26th February 2009, 04:24 PM

Agreed. Some people fail to see degrees of severity.

Yes, they do, don't they.

Tell you what, Uruk: here is an alternative solution which should meet your objective of preventing abortion and also encourage men to change their attitudes to female foetuses: why don't we lock the father up until the foetus is successfully delivered or for 9 months, whichever is the shorter?

uruk

26th February 2009, 07:09 PM

A society cannot suffer. Only living beings can suffer.
Ask yourself this. What are the physical elements that compose a society? People.
From dictionary.com:
society:
1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
2. a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
3. the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
4. a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.

If the people suffer so does the society. The larger the group that suffers the more society suffers. And usually if the people are suffering so can the systems and organizations that make up the intangible elements of society. I also realize that systems of society can break down when the people are doing pretty good as in decadence. Or so they say.

Do you believe the argument yourself? If you do not then I see no point in wasting time with it. If you do then it may become necessary to address it. I may be wrong but it seems to me that you do not believe it but you think it somehow follows from my position. It doesn't. So unless you have some other reason for raising it do you think it needs further exploration if neither of us accept it? If so, why do you? I meant is it that you disagreed that the test did not have the effect of taking the choice away from the mother?

I beleive that the test has the effect of taking the choice away from the mother. Because without knowing the gender of the foetus, the only way she could be sure to exercise her right to deny the female zygote permission to user body with out infringement of her rights would be to abort the foetus no matter what. If she aborts the foetus without knowing the sex of the foetus she risks aborting a male foetus to which she wants to give consent.

If she waits untill the baby is born and it is female then she has unwittingly given consent to the female foetus to use her body against her will. The test that would have told her the the gender of the foetus prevented her from exercising her right to deny consent to the female.

If that was not what you were disagreeing with then what was it about my original statement did you disagree with. Or did you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing with me?

Yes. Do you have a point? I was illustrating how persuasion and coersion can lead the mother to make the decision that was desired by whom ever wanted her to stop her from making the choice of not aborting the female foetus. In a way a will was still imposed upon the mother just one way was with vinegar while the other way was with honey.

Look at this way. I want you to do something that you don't want to do. I can put a gun to your head and force you to do it or I can entice you with something to get you to do it.
The bottom line is that I still got you to do something I wanted you to do but you did not want to do in the first place. I still imposed my will upon you.

I imagine it has a practical purpose now, don't you? Yes. the dowery is used as compensation for the loss of the income the son provided his parents now that he has a new family to support.

That's one reason why trying to eliminate the dowery will be a really, really hard sell in that culture. Meanwhile the male to female ration slips even further.

If you are arguing we have no choice you are arguing against the possibility of morality. That is a fairy unusual position, but you would not be the first or last to hold it. It does seem to me that it rather undermines part of your case, however. If our choices is actually being made for us by some hidden hand of culture or events then our will is not truely free. You have people that have huge philosophical debates wether we have actual free will or the illusion of free will all the time. It is not an easy question to answer. Especially if you include religion into the mix.

But I do not see exactly how free will and morality are tied together so that you can't have one without the other. Can you explain it to me? I may not be seeing something here.

I don't think it does. But then I draw a distinction between education and training: that may be the source of our disagreement here, I don't know. But I referred to my vocabulary and it obviously differs from yours. Not unexpected. Well it is a differnce of being educated and being allowed to ignore that education or being educated and being expected to adhere to what was taught. Is that the distiction you are making between education and training?

In response to your first sentence, it doesn't. I have already said under what conditions I believe it is acceptable to impose regulation and deprive a person of human rights. At present you are making an analogy between the conscripted soldier and the woman forced to carry a foeus to term against her will. From my perspective the two cases are obviously distinct, and if you wish to show why I am wrong about that go right ahead.

I seem to have missed where you stated what you believed were acceptable imposed regulation and deprivation of rights. Can you point me to where you stated those conditions?

The conscripted solder is forced to go to war against his will for defense of country. the benefit is that the country survives a threat to its existance.

The mother is forced to carry a foetus against her will so that the foetus will come to term. The benefit is that a human life is produced and that human can add to and contribute to society.

If I apply this to the situation in India, The mother is forced to carry a female foetus against her will so that the female to male ratio does not decline.

I know some people say human life, big woop. But it depends on the value you place on human life. If human life is important to you then you see that life gained as a benefit.

Human life is important to me. I value you as a human being not because you may be rich or be somebody important like a scientist or a doctor or a teacher or be of some use to me. I value you because you are a human being like me. You have a life that is important to you and just like I have a life that is important to me. I recognize that importance and your right to exist. "No man is an island" and soforth. Call me shmaltzy, call me a romantic, call me an idealist, call me an idiot, I don't really care. That is my view on that subject, so sue me. You dont't have to agree, except maybe with the calling me an idiot part.

I would still like you to show the mechanism you propose, as I asked you to do. Once you have explained how you want to do this it may be that I will change my mind about the implications of what you propose. I am not sure exactly what you are refering to here. Can you please explain further.

And you suggest there should be no limits to that? Have a blue hat!
Can you show me where I suggested that? I don't seem to remember that I did.

So there is no reason at all not to execute people for not wearing a blue hat? I am afraid I do not agree with that I was describing how a pure democracy would chose who, what, where, and when rights get infringed.

The only thing that would keep a democracy from killing people with blue hats is if they decide not to do it. Or if the the people in blue hats could defend themselves from the ones who wanted them dead. Hence the quote about the three wolves and the lamb. The whole quote goes. A democracy is three wolves and one lamb deciding what they are going to have for dinner. A republic is three wolves and one well armed lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. Meaning that in a republic the rights of the minorty were protected from the rogths of the majority.

Frankly there is really nothing that would stop a a government or a society from doing anything except if they place restrictions on themselves. We have the bill of rights where the government promises it constituents that they won't do certain things like take away certain rights.

I am sorry it is getting late where i am and I need to go home i will address the reat of your post at a later time.

Be back soon.

MattusMaximus

26th February 2009, 10:09 PM

Oye vey!. Please show me how the cells of follicles and skin are identical in relation to a human being compared to the group cells of a zygote in relation to a human being.

They all have the same DNA and therefore genetic information, which you stated in your original argument as being the premise of your wacky "zygote = human being" claims.

Fiona

27th February 2009, 02:47 AM

Ask yourself this. What are the physical elements that compose a society? People.
From dictionary.com:
society:
1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
2. a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
3. the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
4. a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.

If the people suffer so does the society. The larger the group that suffers the more society suffers. And usually if the people are suffering so can the systems and organizations that make up the intangible elements of society. I also realize that systems of society can break down when the people are doing pretty good as in decadence. Or so they say.

Nope. This is just an abuse of language, though I fully accept that you are not aware of that., There are just fewer things in your universe than there are in mine, it seems. I think that is unfortunate because if you cannot separate one thing from another in a meaningful way it is much harder to think: words are what we think with. A society is composed of people. So is a family and a community: do you think there is any reason why we have different words for these things? Do you think that any collection of people is a society?

I meant is it that you disagreed that the test did not have the effect of taking the choice away from the mother?

I beleive that the test has the effect of taking the choice away from the mother. Because without knowing the gender of the foetus, the only way she could be sure to exercise her right to deny the female zygote permission to user body with out infringement of her rights would be to abort the foetus no matter what. If she aborts the foetus without knowing the sex of the foetus she risks aborting a male foetus to which she wants to give consent.

If she waits untill the baby is born and it is female then she has unwittingly given consent to the female foetus to use her body against her will. The test that would have told her the the gender of the foetus prevented her from exercising her right to deny consent to the female.

If that was not what you were disagreeing with then what was it about my original statement did you disagree with. Or did you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing with me?

Problem with this is that she has not unwittingly given consent for the female zygote to use her body if she does not have information about its gender: she knows she does not know and it is one factor which will go towards informing her choice about what to do. It is certainly true that her choice will be better informed if she does know: but lack of that knowledge does not result in direct lack of control over her body, and this is the bit you keep glossing over. In the absence of full information she still makes the decision: but in your system you you take control of her body and make the decision instead. Can you see the difference?

I was illustrating how persuasion and coersion can lead the mother to make the decision that was desired by whom ever wanted her to stop her from making the choice of not aborting the female foetus. In a way a will was still imposed upon the mother just one way was with vinegar while the other way was with honey.

Look at this way. I want you to do something that you don't want to do. I can put a gun to your head and force you to do it or I can entice you with something to get you to do it.
The bottom line is that I still got you to do something I wanted you to do but you did not want to do in the first place. I still imposed my will upon you.

Nonsense. If you persuade me to your point of view I now want to do what you want me to do. There is no imposition there at all. If you coerce me then I do not want to do it. You know this

Yes. the dowery is used as compensation for the loss of the income the son provided his parents now that he has a new family to support.

That's one reason why trying to eliminate the dowery will be a really, really hard sell in that culture. Meanwhile the male to female ration slips even further.

Yep.

If our choices is actually being made for us by some hidden hand of culture or events then our will is not truely free. You have people that have huge philosophical debates wether we have actual free will or the illusion of free will all the time. It is not an easy question to answer. Especially if you include religion into the mix.

But I do not see exactly how free will and morality are tied together so that you can't have one without the other. Can you explain it to me? I may not be seeing something here.

It is discussed much further upthread. See post #108 and subsequent exchanges with Piero.

Well it is a differnce of being educated and being allowed to ignore that education or being educated and being expected to adhere to what was taught. Is that the distiction you are making between education and training?

Education means imparting knowledge and hopefully the skills with which to evaluate the validity of any given conclusion. Training means teaching someone how to do some particular thing in a particular way. The question of whether one accepts what one is taught or rejects it is entirely separate from whether one is free to act on your conclusions.

I seem to have missed where you stated what you believed were acceptable imposed regulation and deprivation of rights. Can you point me to where you stated those conditions?

Post #237

I know some people say human life, big woop.

If there are such people I have never met them.

But it depends on the value you place on human life. If human life is important to you then you see that life gained as a benefit.

That implies that anyone who does not oppose abortion does not value human life. That is not true.

Human life is important to me. I value you as a human being not because you may be rich or be somebody important like a scientist or a doctor or a teacher or be of some use to me. I value you because you are a human being like me.

No Uruk: you don't. I know you think you do but you really don't. If you did value me as a "human being like me" then you would not be prepared to take my right to control over my body away from me so lightly. You would not be prepared to use me as a tool to serve your own ends.

Now I know that you have said you would not actually act on your belief, in that you would not make me serve your purpose in practice: and if that is true then I have absolutely no quarrel with you. You are fully entitled to come to your own moral judgement and to carry any foetus you conceive to term. If that contributes to overpopulation or to any other adverse consequence for "society" it does not matter: it is your decision to make.

The problem is that you appear to base this equity on pragmatism rather than any recognition of a principle: and that worries me because if you will do the right thing for the wrong reason you might also do the wrong thing for the same reason. If I have misunderstood you and if you uphold my rights as a fully autonomous person then I apologise

You have a life that is important to you and just like I have a life that is important to me. I recognize that importance and your right to exist. "No man is an island" and soforth. Call me shmaltzy, call me a romantic, call me an idealist, call me an idiot, I don't really care. That is my view on that subject, so sue me. You dont't have to agree, except maybe with the calling me an idiot part.

I value my life and your life: but I do not think it is a human life in any meaningful sense if it does not entail the right to control my own body as a default. I am my body since there is nothing else for me to be. To take away my right to control it is not a wee thing, Uruk: it is an enormity and it needs an enormous justification. You have given none which begins to approach sufficient justification on this issue.

I would like you to think about that. You and others have presented this as trivial and I can only think you have no imagination and no capacity for empathy. Suppose that overpopulation is a pressing problem in a country you belong to. Do you honestly think it would be right for "society" to decide do deal with that problem by imposing sterilisation on every male child born in a given period of 5 years? It is only taking control of their bodies, after all: and it is for the good of society. And if the problem is solved at some point in their adulthood we can reverse the sterilisation. I suspect you think that would be fine. I don't. I think it is an abhorrent imposition on the individual. In short I think it is immoral

I am not sure exactly what you are refering to here. Can you please explain further.

It is quite simple. You said that changing society for the better required the infringement of some human rights. I want to know who you think should make that decision: which groups are to be deprived of those rights and on what basis: and how it is to be enforced. I will add a further question based on what you have now said is your view of what a society is: how can society be improved by depriving individual of rights if a society is individuals. Perhaps you think it is a numbers game? I don't. As I said before, there is no floor under that kind of thinking

Can you show me where I suggested that? I don't seem to remember that I did.

I was describing how a pure democracy would chose who, what, where, and when rights get infringed.

The only thing that would keep a democracy from killing people with blue hats is if they decide not to do it. Or if the the people in blue hats could defend themselves from the ones who wanted them dead. Hence the quote about the three wolves and the lamb. The whole quote goes. A democracy is three wolves and one lamb deciding what they are going to have for dinner. A republic is three wolves and one well armed lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. Meaning that in a republic the rights of the minorty were protected from the rogths of the majority.

Frankly there is really nothing that would stop a a government or a society from doing anything except if they place restrictions on themselves. We have the bill of rights where the government promises it constituents that they won't do certain things like take away certain rights.

I am sorry it is getting late where i am and I need to go home i will address the reat of your post at a later time.

Be back soon.

Well the distinction between republic and democracy is a peculiarly american conception. I do not understand how calling it a republic protect the minority rights more than calling it a democracy: though democracy certainly does not do that by itself. It matters not. The question is whether you believe that the will of the majority makes a given decision right or whether there is a need for something more. In short: does might make right?

Ivor the Engineer

27th February 2009, 04:36 AM

<snip>

Does that answer your question?

Yes. You will notice in one of my previous posts I mentioned the conditions I consider an X+ week abortion acceptable:

Just to clarify, in my opinion the right to terminate a foetus after X weeks should be balanced against the opportunity a woman has had up to X weeks to decide if she wishes to give birth to the child. I consider it a social contract, where society gives a woman X weeks to decide if she wants to continue with the pregnancy and after this time period has expired require her to carry the foetus to term, except in the case of unusually high risk of death or serious disability to either party. Personally I see little reason for X to be greater than 16 weeks.

My preference for 16 weeks is because the majority of the risks of disease and disability to both parties can be estimated reasonably reliably within this time period.

<snip>

One of the interesting things is the situation in Holland.

That country has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world. Women in Holland can have an abortion on request up to 24 weeks, with no restrictions at all (though two doctors must agree after the first trimester). Thus the choice is entirely in the woman's hands. In this situation the rate of abortion has dropped since the law was passed. It would appear that there are no adverse consequences for society at all if women's status as fully autonomous moral agents is left intact.

I don't think it is reasonable to infer causality. There are many other factors which could be far more significant in explaining a drop in the rate of abortion.

In fact inferring causality implies that women in Holland, prior to the change in the law, were seeking abortions just to test the law, which does not give me confidence Dutch women are capable of making a reasonable decision about abortion.:p

Fiona

27th February 2009, 06:10 AM

Yes. You will notice in one of my previous posts I mentioned the conditions I consider an X+ week abortion acceptable:

My preference for 16 weeks is because the majority of the risks of disease and disability to both parties can be estimated reasonably reliably within this time period.

Yes I am aware that is your position. But you asked and I answered, and I am wondering why I bothered. The information I have given you speaks directly to why you are wrong when you say that "the majority of risks of disease and disability can be estimated reasonably reliably within this time period". They can in some cases, and not in others. Life is complicated like that.

And next week or next year you will argue for 12 weeks on the same reasoning: and then 8 and so on. Well perhaps you won't, but many will. This would be a slippery slope argument if it were not for the fact that this is already happening.

It is irrelevant in any case, is it not? As I understand it you are arguing a pure form of might is right, in that the views of the majority are all that is necessary to demonstrate that a law is correct. So it really doesn't matter whether we can estimate the chance of disease or disabilty reliably does it? They have nothing to do with it, intrinsically. It is unfortunate that this will justify slavery and genocide and execution for drinking alcohol as well; but it is a consistent political position. I disagre with it for the reasons given, but we will have to leave it there I think.

I don't think it is reasonable to infer causality.

It isn't. That is one of reasons I didn't

There are many other factors which could be far more significant in explaining a drop in the rate of abortion.

It is inherent in my position that there are definitely many factors which tend to a reduction in the incidence of abortion, and that the imposition of laws which forbid it are neither effective nor justified: they are irrelevant to the problem, if problem it be: but very relevant to question of the status of the individual in terms of human rights, and thus the inclusion of women as full members of the human race.

In fact inferring causality implies that women in Holland, prior to the change in the law, were seeking abortions just to test the law, which does not give me confidence Dutch women are capable of making a reasonable decision about abortion.:p

Well if anyone was inferring causality I suppose that might follow. But since they weren't......

Actually I am completely amazed that you can have taken any such meaning from my post and if you were only being facetious then my apologies; it is a serious issue for me and my sense of humour becomes intermittent in face of it :)

uruk

27th February 2009, 08:02 AM

They all have the same DNA and therefore genetic information, which you stated in your original argument as being the premise of your wacky "zygote = human being" claims.

That's fine and dandy, but your comparison there leaves out a very important distinction between a skin cell and a zygote.

Secondly, I no longer hold the zygote=human being claim to be true. So why act as if I still hold that claim? Contemporise man, live in the present.

And I abandoned my previous claim even though some people here seem to ignore the implication of what a zygote is in relation to a human being. You say it simply a group of cells seemingly without ever admitting what those group of cell are in relation to a human being.

And I am telling you that those group of cells are not the same thing in relation to a human being as skin cells and hair follicles. If you do not believe me look it up in a biology book. If you still choose to ignore that concept then it is you who are in denial of facts.

Don't argue it with me then, argue it with a biologist.

uruk

27th February 2009, 02:54 PM

To continue.

~snip~
Nope. I already laid out the conditions under which I think it is legitimate

to abridge people's rights. So it would be nice if you stopped with the

strawman.

Do you know that it is not really very clever to patronise an argument you

do not appear to have understood? My deepest appologies, I seem to

have missed where you laid out these conditions. Some of your responses to

my posts lead me to believe that you advocated absolutely no limitations on

individual rights regardless of the conditions. One in particular about

allowing people to suffer so that individual rights remain uninfringed.

Without the proper context, I missunderstood. For clarity can you please

reiterate those conditions or point me to where you laid them out.

Since I am not an American I will not comment on the nature of the US

constitution nor on the role of the supreme court. But I no longer

understand what you are arguing. So for clarification: do you believe that

every thing which can be enacted by a simple (or even a threshold) majority

vote is made right by virtue of that vote? Or do you believe that some

things are not right even if the majority votes for them? Again, I

was describing a pure democracy illustrating the inherent problem that exist

in that system. You said that you chose democracy, I wanted to see if you

understood the problems with that system in reference to rights.

I believe that some things are not right (by my defintions of right and

wrong) Even if the majority votes for them. But right and wrong are

relative. I believe there is no over-arching or written in stone mandate

etched forth by a finger of a diety that sets what things are right or what

things are wrong. When a majority votes for or against something, Idealy

they believe what ever they voted for was right. Provided some self-vested

interest was not involved in the voting process.

But then some degree of self-interest is always involved in what an

individual believes is right or wrong.

Indeed one would hope so.

Now let me ask you some things

Do you think that the concept of human rights is meaningful? I ask because I

know that there are some people who do not believe they are, so it is not a

foregone conclusion. Yes I do. Just like I think the concept of

human value is meaningful.

If you do believe the concept has meaning then can you summarise what

it entails? Human rights are entitlements and permissions confered

onto individuals by mutual allowance of those entitlements and permissions

by other individuals. I believe this because the only way any individual

have entitlements and permissions is if others allow them to the individual

or allows the individual to exercise them.

A single person need never worry about rights or infringement. He does not

require permissions because there is nothing give or deny those permissions.

He gives himself permissions. He creates his own entitelments. It is when

you add other people does the issue of mutual recognition become apparent.

Others can deny or allow permissions or entitlements. If everybody decides

not to interfere with each others permissions and entitlements then they

have bestowed upon each other rights.

There are other issues as to wether an individual can protect his rights by

defense or strength. Hence "armed lamb." This where concepts of protection

of the rights of the weak by the self-restraint of the strong. But that may

only happen because the strong choose to do so and place mechinisims that

makes it difficult or not in thier best interest to go back on thier word.

Do you believe that the concept of human rights which you have

summarised are to be enjoyed by all human beings as a default assumption? Yes. But that is only because I believe that it is right to do so. What another person sees as right might be differnt.

[quote]In what circumstances to you believe it is ok to deprive another person of those rights, assuming you value them? When it is necessary for the achievement of what is most good for both society and the individual.

Often what is good for society is not good for the individual and vice-versa. So there has to be a balance because if one totaly breaks down so may the other. You cannot have a society without people. And people can not survive without a society.

O.k so now I understand what you meant by your statement that it is ok for people to suffer so that the individuals rights will not be infringed.

I hope that you can also understand where it may be ok for the individual give up some of thier individual rights so that the suffering of the people may be reduced.

Do you consider that it is morally wrong to use another human being as a tool to satisfy your own ends? If it my personal or a particular individuals ends I would find it just about every case to be immoral by my standards of morality.

If it is to serve society's ends then It depends on what is asked of the individual and what that end is.

CurtisP

27th February 2009, 05:06 PM

My issue with this involves In Vitro Fertilization, in which the woman is induced to superovulate. If an excessive number of eggs are harvested and successfully fertilized (usually more than four), then the extras will be cryogenically frozen. Unfortunately, not all the embryos survive the thawing process. If these embryos are considered humans, did the lab technician then just commit murder?

Piero

27th February 2009, 05:17 PM

Fiona, I’m disappointed. Though I thought your arguments in favour of unrestricted abortion were exceedingly weird, at least I could credit you with originality. As it turns out, however, you arguments were first put forward in 1971 by Judith Jarvis Thomson:You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
According to Thomson, you would be morally justified in unplugging yourself from the violinist, because the right to life does not entail the right to use another person’s body.

Thomson is a professor of philosophy at MIT; which goes to show that cleverness and stupidity are not mutually exclusive.

First, the thought experiment assumes that it would be moral for you to unplug yourself from the violinist. In turn, this assumes that the right to control your body is the summum bonum, and nothing can ever interfere with it. I dispute such claims: in fact, I believe it is an open question. Is it in fact moral to unplug yourself? Is there any factual justification for its morality beyond a mere assertion of principle? Someone may hold that the prevention of death is the summum bonum: would that make the bombing of abortion clinics morally justified? Basing our morals on fundamentalist principles is certainly not the most promising path.

Second, even if we grant the assumption that control over your body is in fact the summum bonum, the analogy fails for several reasons.

For a start, the foetus cannot be charged with anything. It cannot think, have values, or understand the consequences of its actions. Indeed, its very existence depends of the conscious, deliberate and morally bound actions of other people. Unlike the violinist and his/her friends, the foetus is not a body snatcher lying in wait for a suitable victim to come by: the foetus wouldn’t even exist at all if some conscious and morally bound humans had acted otherwise.

Furthermore, unplugging from the violinist would leave him/her in the state he/she was before. Unplugging from a foetus does not leave it in the state it was before. For the analogy to work, you would have to assume that aborted foetuses are transplanted into someone else’s uterus.

You will have noticed I have consistently referred to foetuses, not to embryos or zygotes. This is because the only reasonable foundation for morals is the existence of interests, which in turn spring from desires. Something that has no desires is not a valid object of moral considerations. We do not care about the rights of plants or rocks. So I would propose the following definitions:

a moral object is an entity capable of desires (not potentially, but actually)
a moral agent is a conscious moral object
the overriding moral principle is: moral agents ought not to hurt moral objects

Consequently, I can see no objection other than bigotry for abortions carried out before the 26th week of gestation. After the 26th week, we have reasonable evidence to suppose that the foetus is a moral object, and that it has therefore acquired the right not to be hurt by moral agents.

This seems to be the position adopted by Thomson herself: Some women want abortions. Why? They have a variety of reasons. The woman who is pregnant due to rape may feel devastated by the prospect of carrying and giving birth to the child of the man who violated her. The woman whose health is already at risk may not want to undergo the increased risk that carrying the fetus to term would impose on her. The woman who has already had several children, and has now been deserted by the man she lived with, may believe herself unable to supply a decent life for yet another child. A woman may discover that the child she will deliver will be horribly deformed. A woman who is preparing to embark on a career that requires hard work and single-mindedness may prefer to wait until she is in a position to give a child the attention a child needs.
Opponents of abortion seem to think that women who choose to have abortions typically do so thoughtlessly. Hence the common idea that if abortion is to be available at all, it should be available only after a 24-hour waiting period, during which time the woman can be allowed, indeed invited, to contemplate the seriousness of the step she has decided to take. Why this forced contemplation? Does any woman decide on an abortion thoughtlessly? Surely not. It should not need repeating -- over and over again -- that women who decide on abortion typically do so for weighty reasons, and that their decisions have already been preceded by serious thought.
Other women do not want abortions for themselves, but want abortions to be available to others. I have two things in mind here. First, there are the children who become pregnant. The literature on abortion typically refers to pregnant women, but 13 year-old girls are not women, they are children. Many women regard it as an outrageous idea that a child, pregnant due to rape or seduction, is morally required to carry the fetus to term. Second, and more generally, many women rightly believe that constraining access to abortion impedes the achievement of political, social, and economic equality for women. If women are denied rights over their own bodies, they are denied rights to equal participation in the work of the world; if they are not permitted to make, for themselves, such deeply important decisions as whether to bear a child, they are not permitted to occupy the status of autonomous adult, morally equal to men.
So this is an issue of great importance to women. Denial of the abortion right severely constrains their liberty, and among the consequences of that constraint are impediments to their achievement of equality.
…
And I would add that if I was correct in saying that there is nothing unreasonable in believing that at least early abortion violates no rights, and therefore that the deeply valued liberty to obtain an abortion cannot be constrained on the ground that it does violate rights, then there can be no principled objection to the settlement of the issue by the judicial rather than the legislative branch. Vindicating our fundamental liberties is, after all, exactly what courts are supposed to do.
(Judith Jarvis Thomson, 1995)
“At least early abortion violates no rights”, however, sounds too much like bet-hedging to me. So I would prefer the more frank approach of Alonzo Fyfe: In general, my view on abortion is this: A woman has, until the fetus acquires a brain, and thus acquires interests, the right to determine whether or not she will consent to the use of her body. If she wishes, she may have an abortion, and no wrong has been done.
However, if she waits until the fetus has a brain and thus has interests, then she has consented to a situation in which a being with interests is dependent on the use of her body to survive. Only dire circumstances -- such as risk to the life of the mother -- would justify terminating that relationship.
'Rape' and 'incest' never have any moral weight as to whether an abortion is permissible. Before the conceptus becomes a fetus with a brain and morally relevant interests, any fetus, however conceived, may be aborted. After this point, interests of the person conceived through rape or incest is no less than those conceived through willing sex.
(Alonzo Fyfe, 2005)

Third Eye Open

27th February 2009, 05:39 PM

Lonewulf

27th February 2009, 06:03 PM

This is stupid. Why would they kidnap me instead of offering monetary compensation? He is a full grown human and is famous, he has no need therefor to be a leech. Comparing a fetus, which is in general useless, to a full grown and accomplished person that can give compensation for the use of your liver (or whatever) is a poor analogy.I agree, very poor analogy, and not one that Fiona was trying to make either. It's a bit like a strawman to bring in an outside argument and deconstructing it, isn't it?

If I was in this situation I would unplug myself simply on principle. Someone has kidnapped me and is using me for something against my will, without asking permission or even discussing it with me. They have decided that they are so important that my life and well being is no concern of theirs. Screw them.

I don't know, though. What if the person that you were attached to wasn't an accomplice to the kidnapping, and was innocent of it all? Let's say, for instance, that the kidnapper was a rich father that wanted for you to save the life of his young girl, 6 years of age, for instance. Would you disconnect yourself on principle then?

It's a silly analogy, but I find the philosophical question intriguing in its own right. I may have to use a version of it in a future story of mine...

Piero

27th February 2009, 06:08 PM

I agree, very poor analogy, and not one that Fiona was trying to make either. It's a bit like a strawman to bring in an outside argument and deconstructing it, isn't it?
What do you mean by "a bit like a strawman"? Is it a strawman or is it not?

Piero

27th February 2009, 06:18 PM

I don't know, though. What if the person that you were attached to wasn't an accomplice to the kidnapping, and was innocent of it all? Let's say, for instance, that the kidnapper was a rich father that wanted for you to save the life of his young girl, 6 years of age, for instance. Would you disconnect yourself on principle then?
I too find the scenario intriguing. If it could be shown that zygotes are sentient, then resolving this scenario would be relevant to early abortions too.

uruk

27th February 2009, 11:02 PM

So what? DNA is highly superficial. That statment has absolutly nothing to do with the fact that your philosophical person cannot exist without the human being.

You are only saying that a particular strand of DNA that hold in your hand is in and of itself worthless. Big woop. But you are missing the big picture. You are taking it out of context and saying it is worthless

A hundred dollar bill you hold in your hand in and of itself is just a piece of paper. It has no value when you look at it in that context. But you wouldn't just throw it away would you? No, because it has meaning. It has value, It has potential to do something for you.

The DNA, the zygote, the foetus, the baby. You keep judging them out of context.
Just like that hundred dollar bill has no value when taken out of context.

I only seem to be getting from you is how you 'feel' about this subject. What do my feelings have to do with the fact that there are laws to protect the baby and the foetus when it has reached a certain age? You kill a baby, you go to jail and If your in Texas, you get executed. My "feelings" have nothing to with the laws.

Actually this is false, the human is only gains any legal protection months after conception. Heck in ancient cultures infanticide was legal and causing an abortion against the parent wishes was punished with a fine. I was refering to the baby.
Here are some links to texts that deals with the question of when an infant becomes self-aware or self-concious.
http://books.google.com/books?id=icANAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=self+consciousness+in+newborn&source=bl&ots=VRDveP68TX&sig=7c5P0Iwz1QMbuBj_xO1UCFhI0z0&hl=en&ei=Q8CoScOPFdG3twfol8HyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-the-psychology-of-selfconsciousness.html

Here is an interesting book preview dealing what we are pretty much debating about. It looks interesting and it touches on some points we seem to disagree about. The book is called "The Ethics of Killing" including infants and even children. The particular pages this links points to talks about value and self conciousness. It looks like interesting reading. I'll have to see if I can buy the book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IZmLl_88-xcC&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=self+consciousness+in+newborn&source=bl&ots=l8LZl7ZDgg&sig=3W-fKcmhtz0PE5k7hsEcyKBJ7Ok&hl=en&ei=Q8CoScOPFdG3twfol8HyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA354,M1

The same thing as you take any of the other element away, you don't get a developed person. How so? If you take education away. You still are raising and putting time in the baby. You just wind up with an uneducated person. Education has nothing to do with self-awareness. If you keep the baby alive long enough It'll develop sefl-consciouness on it's own and meet one of your criteria for personhood. Are you suggesting that an uneducated human being is not a person?

If you take the baby away, What the hell are you raising and educating and putting time and effort into? I'd say the baby is the most important part of your equation

Nothing you actually suggest actual protects society. By overvaluing potential life and undervaluing actual persons, your society is likely to devalue human potential to death. I did not say to overvalue potential life or to undervalueing actual persons. Do not attribute to me statments or arguments that I do not make.

I said give the reproductive process it's importance in refrence to human life.

Unless its a special breed of cow, nobody is going to buy if you offer to sell a cow zygote to them. Zygotes are far removed from any value. As raw material (think sand, mud or anything that) it can only be sold after refinement, special treatment and/or in bulk.
You might say that people do buy human zygotes, but remember they only do it with specific specs, which would fall under special treatment. And thus they aren't paying for the zygote but for the treatment of that raw material. Nope. Zygotes, or actually embryos, are not far removed from any value. Here is a web site for farmers who wish to buy and sell cow embryos:
http://www.roweshowcattle.com/embryos.htm
http://www.showsteers.com/NAV/embryos.htm

Here, farmers are paying for the raw materials. Your argument does not hold water in tha face of facts.

Without the zygote/embryo there is nothing to process or refine or to give special treatment to. And I know that without the process the raw material does not turn into the desired product.

You round-a-bout just made my original argument concerning the importance of the process in rrelation to the final product. You get no finished product unless you have the raw material or the process.

Do you see?

And how is this relevant?no raw material, no finished product. No zygote no human being. I don't know why people can't see this? Or is it they are refusing to see it.

Only you are of that opinion. I disagree for the other elements must be given. Either you can't see the bigger picture or you are refusing to see the bigger picture. In my equation "other elements" are implied. Just like the are "other elements" that were not stated in your equation but were implied.

Except of course that the zygote can't divide without help. Which is simular in the analog to buying more material. That does not change the meaning of the analogy. It's still the brick that is going through and controlling the process. Having to buy more material to give to the brick so that it can continue the process of becoming a house is part of the process. Just like how the zygote requires materials to continue the process of becoming a baby is part of the process.

If someone has gone back in time and switched zygotes in my mother, and thus she would have given birth to a different baby would my mother have cared? Or if that person just removed me before she knew she was pregant? Care exactly about what? The switch? or the child that is produced? If she is unaware of the switch she would be unable care one way or the other about the switch. If she was aware of the switch then she would be able to make a judgement of wether she would care or not care about the switch.

If she was unaware of the switch she would still value that child over strangers. And you would not exists because of the switch

Ok. So then this brings up the argument of substitution. The book I mentioned earlier talks about this concept of substitution and morality and value of life.
It really has no bearing in wether your mother's values of the child she bore over that of strangers. But it does have something to say about my "a human is a human is a human." argument. I'd like a chance to read more about the argument of substitution before I comment further on this point. Depending on what I read it may have some significant impact on my arguemnts. It could change my beliefs on some key issues that I argue.

The answer to both is NO. The emotional attachment does begin after several months but mutual emotional connections only started developing along side one personhood. To truly value someone you must know them. And before you can do that there must be a person to know. I would probably ask your mother or other mothers about when they first started to have emotional attachments to thier child befor you hold this view.
I've often heard my mother tell me that she loved me since I was in her womb. I sure that she had no idea at that time of the person that I am now or was when she told me told me that, but that did not seem to make a difference to her. she loved whatever it was that was growing in her womb. It was the abstract concept of what I was going to be that she loved and valued.

I was born before sonograms, but ask a mother who bore a child after sonograms were invented. Asked them if they felt emotional attachment to what they saw on the screen.

uruk

28th February 2009, 12:50 AM

Nope. This is just an abuse of language,though I fully accept that you are not aware of that., I'm not sure what you mean here. Are saying that having definitons of words is an abuse of language or that it is not meaningful? If it is then that is an odd position to hold? If not please tell me what is the abuse that you see I am making.

There are just fewer things in your universe than there are in mine, it seems. I think that is unfortunate because if you cannot separate one thing from another in a meaningful way it is much harder to think: words are what we think with. How do the difference of the number of things in our uninverses affect my thinking? What is it that I need to separate the things that are pertinate to my understanding of the relationship between people and society in a meaningfull way?

Maybe it would help If you could tell me how you define the word society? And explain to me your understanding of how people relate to society. We can only think with words and we can only communicate what we think with words. Maybe if we synched up on some of those defintions it will help us to understand each other. or at least help me to understand what you mean.

A society is composed of people. So is a family and a community: do you think there is any reason why we have different words for these things? Do you think that any collection of people is a society? The different words for the particular groups describe the nature of the relationship and interaction between the specific group of peoples. The nature of the relationships and interactions in a family are differnt than than the nature of the relationships and interactions between people in a community. Hence the differnt words for the different groupings of people.

No. It depends on the nature of the interactions and the focus between the people. Families and communities are subgroups within a society. Government is also a subgroup of society. They all have different function within society. But all those aspects of society relies on the people. Essentially, if you have no people you have no society. Society cannot exist without the people.

Problem with this is that she has not unwittingly given consent for the female zygote to use her body if she does not have information about its gender: While the foetus is in her body it is using her body. Allowing the foetus to stay there is the same as giving permission for the foetus to use her body. The intent is implied. She knows she has a foetus inside her. Letting it stay there is the same as allowing it to use her body. She has made a choice of letting it use her body while it is there untill she can find out the gender of the foetus. And if she does not know that the gender of the foetus is female and she allows the foetus to remain in her womb she has allowed the female foetus to use her body without knowing the feotus is female. She has unwittingly given consent to the female foetus.

"Giving permission and allowing" has the same meaning as consent. (That is unless you have a nonstandard definition of consent. If so please give me your definition of consent) "Unwittingly" means not to have knowledge of something. Allowing the foetus to use her body with out knowlegde of the gender of the foetus has the same effect as "unwittingly given consent".

Only when she knows the gender of the foetus can she make the choice of allowing or refusing the foetus use of her body. That is, to give or not give consent.

she knows she does not know and it is one factor which will go towards informing her choice about what to do. Knowing that she does not know limits her choices as I have mentioned before.

She can either chose to allow the foetus to use her body untill it is born so that she find out what the gender the child is. If the child is female then she had allowed the foetus to user her body all the way to birth. The other choice is to abort the foetus no matter what the gender the foetus is. But that defeats the porpose of getting a male child. This choice allows her deny the female foetus consent but then it does not allow her to exercise her right to give the male foetus consent. Either way it denys her the desired right she wantes to exercise. The first denied her right to refuse consent to the female feotus, the second choice denies her right to give consent to the male foetus. You could say "ah ha" but she still has got the right to make a choice. Unfortunatly nether choice gives her what she wants. Both choices denied some of her rights and the conditions forces or imposes only two choices.

The only way she wins is if she makes the first choice and she got a male. But that leaves alot up to random chance. That is to say that she got to exercised her right to give consent to the male foetus, which is the right she wants to exercise.

Sounds like a pyricc victory to prove a point.

It is certainly true that her choice will be better informed if she does know: but lack of that knowledge does not result in direct lack of control over her body, and this is the bit you keep glossing over. In the absence of full information she still makes the decision: but in your system you you take control of her body and make the decision instead. Can you see the difference? Yes I believe I do. But as I mention above she is making a choice between two choices that are imposed upon her by the conditions set up the not allowing the gender test. This freedom of the choice is an illusion. Its like saying I give you the choice of choosing between the lesser of two evils. In either choice you still wind up with evil.

Or more to the point in the above situation. The woman has the choice of which rights that get denied from her. It is a choice in the academic sense of the word but I think it misses the point of the intent and she still get some of her rights denied.

Nonsense. If you persuade me to your point of view I now want to do what you want me to do. There is no imposition there at all. If you coerce me then I do not want to do it. You know this. Point conceeded.

It is discussed much further upthread. See post #108 and subsequent exchanges with Piero. Thank you, I will read.

Whew! It is getting late in the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers. I will respond to the rest of the post at a later time.

be back

Fiona

28th February 2009, 01:20 AM

@ Piero: The fact that you have come to a conclusion without bothering to find out what the arguments against your position are is not that surprising. As I said, you need to get out more.

AWPrime

28th February 2009, 09:44 AM

That statment has absolutly nothing to do with the fact that your philosophical person cannot exist without the human being. A person can't exist without a lot of things, having potential for intelligence is just one of them.

A hundred dollar bill you hold in your hand in and of itself is just a piece of paper. It has no value when you look at it in that context. But you wouldn't just throw it away would you? No, because it has meaning. It has value, It has potential to do something for you.Actually the only reason that money has value is because its mutual agreed upon. Try to do that with a zygote.

What do my feelings have to do with the fact that there are laws to protect the baby and the foetus when it has reached a certain age? You kill a baby, you go to jail and If your in Texas, you get executed. My "feelings" have nothing to with the laws.And these same sets of laws also limit them.

Here is an interesting book preview dealing what we are pretty much debating about. It looks interesting and it touches on some points we seem to disagree about. The book is called "The Ethics of Killing" including infants and even children. The particular pages this links points to talks about value and self conciousness. It looks like interesting reading. I'll have to see if I can buy the book.From the preview, it looks like a good pro-abortion book.

How so? If you take education away. You still are raising and putting time in the baby. You just wind up with an uneducated person. Education has nothing to do with self-awareness. If you keep the baby alive long enough It'll develop sefl-consciouness on it's own and meet one of your criteria for personhood. Are you suggesting that an uneducated human being is not a person?Self-awareness has a lot to do with education, it can increase self-awareness and awareness of the world to a significant degree. I have known plenty of people who are controlled by instincts and only have the basics of rationality and self-awareness. They are persons, but personhood is in degrees, thus it isn't limited to the on/off options that you might desire.

If you take the baby away, What the hell are you raising and educating and putting time and effort into? I'd say the baby is the most important part of your equation.I beg to differ. Lack of the other factors cause death or severely stumped development. And the future can in theory replace the baby in the equation with vat grown trans/post human beings or even AIs. So please forget about all that human exceptionalism, it just don't work in the long run.

I did not say to overvalue potential life or to undervalueing actual persons. Do not attribute to me statments or arguments that I do not make. Its the end results of forcing women to have children.

Nope. Zygotes, or actually embryos, are not far removed from any value. Here is a web site for farmers who wish to buy and sell cow embryos:
[snip]
Here, farmers are paying for the raw materials. Your argument does not hold water in tha face of facts.Actually that are paying for specific breeds, a refinement done by earlier breeders. If you give no detail about the heritage, then none will buy.

Either you can't see the bigger picture or you are refusing to see the bigger picture. As far as I can read, your bigger picture is about some innate value of based upon emotional attachment and possible use by society. The former is not a constant it might even be inverted. The latter is also not assured. In fact I think that abortion benefits society in the long run.

That does not change the meaning of the analogy. It's still the brick that is going through and controlling the process. Having to buy more material to give to the brick so that it can continue the process of becoming a house is part of the process. Just like how the zygote requires materials to continue the process of becoming a baby is part of the process.The zygote has as much control over the process as a boulder rolling down the hill. Its the body or mind of the woman that can stop it.

Care exactly about what? The switch? or the child that is produced? If she is unaware of the switch she would be unable care one way or the other about the switch. If she was aware of the switch then she would be able to make a judgement of wether she would care or not care about the switch.
If she was unaware of the switch she would still value that child over strangers. And you would not exists because of the switch
Ok. So then this brings up the argument of substitution. The book I mentioned earlier talks about this concept of substitution and morality and value of life.
It really has no bearing in wether your mother's values of the child she bore over that of strangers. But it does have something to say about my "a human is a human is a human." argument. I'd like a chance to read more about the argument of substitution before I comment further on this point. Depending on what I read it may have some significant impact on my arguemnts. It could change my beliefs on some key issues that I argue.Oke

I was born before sonograms, but ask a mother who bore a child after sonograms were invented. Asked them if they felt emotional attachment to what they saw on the screen.It varies.

Lonewulf

28th February 2009, 09:48 AM

What do you mean by "a bit like a strawman"?

It shares many similarities. It's an argument that actually existed, sure, but it wasn't Fiona's argument or analogy, so bringing it in is rather a non sequitor, at best.

Is it a strawman or is it not?
Yeah, see that ending? That's a question mark. "...is it not?" indicates that I'm asking for someone else's opinion.

You may go away more knowledgeable now.

Lonewulf

28th February 2009, 09:49 AM

I too find the scenario intriguing. If it could be shown that zygotes are sentient, then resolving this scenario would be relevant to early abortions too.

All of the evidence points to them not being sentient at all. If you have any to provide, please do so.

Piero

28th February 2009, 10:06 AM

Holy s***! I am so stupid! I've just had a revelation! Seriously. I've understood Fiona's argument! This is an amazing feeling of relief mixed with shame!

I was trying to figure out how it was possible that an obviously intelligent and considerate person could support the view that getting rid of a fully-formed foetus was justified. Then I remembered reading somewhere that if men were the ones that got pregnant, the only discussion concerning abortion would be which beer goes best with it. I tried to picture a group of male friends, going to the "abortion bar" and having a good time. I had to admit the scene had an air of verisimilitude, until I realized that none of the men was really pregnant: "if men got pregnant" suggested to me a different, unnoticeable form of "pregnancy". It did not really fit: in fact, I was imagining a non-pregnant man having an "abortion". Then I remembered a film poster which depicted Arnold Schwarzenegger pregnant with a huge belly, and I tried to imagine myself in that condition. The more I thought about it, the less sense it made that someone would, for no reason, get rid of this life floating around in her belly. So I was right: it was morally unacceptable to allow late-term abortions. I felt quite pleased with myself, having validated my righteousness to my satisfaction.

Then it struck me: of course! If I really did have a life floating around in my belly, who else would be in a better position than me to judge the morality of the issue? How could anybody think that I would get rid of this life for no reason? How could anyone arrogate for themselves the right to tell me what's right and what's wrong concerning the welfare of a being that resides within me?

I understood Fiona's argument for not imposing an uncertain system of morals. How can anyone be so sure about any moral truths that his/her convictions would supersede the moral sense of the person carrying the foetus inside her? I understood the outrage of those who blamed me for thinking that a woman would have an abortion on a whim.

I am absolutely and abjectly ashamed. I cannot even claim in my defense that I was motivated by a genuine concern for the welfare of the unborn baby. It is not true. I was engaging in a battle of wits, and I lost. My apologies.

JoeTheJuggler

28th February 2009, 12:42 PM

Amazing epiphany there, Piero.

Now if only Rep. Dan Ruby had the ability to admit being wrong rather than just digging in and continuing to argue a failed case.

You're a far superior mind to many I've run into around here, Piero! (I myself admit to putting my foot in my mouth so often I use Desenex orally.) Well done.

Ivor the Engineer

28th February 2009, 12:48 PM

Yes I am aware that is your position. But you asked and I answered, and I am wondering why I bothered.

You read my mind.

The information I have given you speaks directly to why you are wrong when you say that "the majority of risks of disease and disability can be estimated reasonably reliably within this time period".

No, it doesn't.

They can in some cases, and not in others. Life is complicated like that.

Not that complicated.

And next week or next year you will argue for 12 weeks on the same reasoning: and then 8 and so on. Well perhaps you won't, but many will. This would be a slippery slope argument if it were not for the fact that this is already happening.

I will argue for whatever is a reasonable compromise between the rights of the woman and the rights of the foetus, unlike feminazis who only consider womens' rights and prefer to dehumanize the foetus to a mere parasite which just happens to look like a small dead baby when it's dragged out of a woman's body 12 weeks early.

It is irrelevant in any case, is it not? As I understand it you are arguing a pure form of might is right, in that the views of the majority are all that is necessary to demonstrate that a law is correct. So it really doesn't matter whether we can estimate the chance of disease or disabilty reliably does it? They have nothing to do with it, intrinsically. It is unfortunate that this will justify slavery and genocide and execution for drinking alcohol as well; but it is a consistent political position. I disagre with it for the reasons given, but we will have to leave it there I think.

I hope there aren't any naked flames nearby what with all that straw around...

<snip>

It is inherent in my position that there are definitely many factors which tend to a reduction in the incidence of abortion, and that the imposition of laws which forbid it are neither effective nor justified: they are irrelevant to the problem, if problem it be: but very relevant to question of the status of the individual in terms of human rights, and thus the inclusion of women as full members of the human race.

They are not irrelevant to the problem at all. Laws make it clear what responsibilities society expects individuals to take, though I appreciate that feminism concentrates on rights rather than responsibilities.

<snip>

Actually I am completely amazed that you can have taken any such meaning from my post and if you were only being facetious then my apologies; it is a serious issue for me and my sense of humour becomes intermittent in face of it :)

My sense of humour vanishes when I think about how terribly we treat children.

Anyhow, you've managed to piss me off with your blinkered feminist nonsense and so I'll not be participating further in the thread.

Piero

28th February 2009, 12:51 PM

JoeTheJuggler

28th February 2009, 01:04 PM

Thanks a lot, Joe. I am extremely embarrassed. I never realized I could be so dumb. That's counterbalanced, however, by the sheer exhilaration of having learned something new and important.

It reminds me of my student times. I was embarrassed when I just didn't "get" a theorem which my brighter mates had no trouble with. But the feeling of exhilaration when I finally got it was amazing all the same.

I don't buy Fiona's extreme position either, though. I think Roe v. Wade is about right.

At some point we do recognize the fetus as another human being. I don't think there's anything magical at birth that gives it that status. (As mentioned, I'd use the desire utilitarianism approach and say whenever the baby is capable of having desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled is a good standard. I'm cool with more conventional anatomical or physiological arguments though.)

I'm sympathetic to her position, though, because I don't think as a society we're anywhere near in danger of erring on the side of giving the woman too much control over this decision!

Still---is there any difference between a very late term abortion and delivering the baby and tossing it into a trash dumpster? Surely both are crimes against a person.

Piero

28th February 2009, 01:25 PM

I will argue for whatever is a reasonable compromise between the rights of the woman and the rights of the foetus, unlike feminazis who only consider womens' rights and prefer to dehumanize the foetus to a mere parasite which just happens to look like a small dead baby when it's dragged out of a woman's body 12 weeks early.
Ivor, until this morning I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly, but I had, as Joe put it, an epiphany. Bear with me.

Picture yourself pregnant. But really: imagine you have a belly, and you feel something moving inside. You've been carrying this around with you for several months. You've come to identify the thing's reactions; you know it dislikes some things, and you know your emotional states have an incidence on its behaviour. In short, you've come to develop a relationship with the thing. Naturally, you wouldn't like to see it harmed. You find the idea of having it forcibly dragged out of you appalling. You cannot think of any circumstances that would make you choose to abort it. Yet such circumstances arise; would you then like to be forced to carry your pregnancy to end, even though you have overriding moral reasons for terminating it? Do you think other people should have the right to tell you what to do with the thing, even though it's been you who has carried the thing around inside you? Presumably, you trust your own moral sense, and are confident that you will make the most moral decision.

Back to reality. Why should I, or you, or anybody else, have the right to tell any woman what to do with her foetus? What entitles us to presume we have taken the relevant moral issues into consideration, and she has not? This would be equivalent to saying: "Pregnant women might not have the relevant moral characteristics; so we'd better decide the issue ourselves". Can you see how that is deeply offensive and unwarranted?

JoeTheJuggler

28th February 2009, 01:37 PM

Back to reality. Why should I, or you, or anybody else, have the right to tell any woman what to do with her foetus?

Again, I really appreciate your willingness to change position.

I'm not so sure your change was based on a sound argument. (The stuff about imagining yourself to be pregnant sounds like an appeal to emotion. It also sounds like you assume anyone arguing against Fiona's position is a man. Many extreme pro-lifers are in fact women who have in fact been pregnant.)

At any rate--to answer your question (quoted her): the same thing that gives me a right to tell any human they can't harm or kill another human.

The moral and legal question lies in where to draw the line between something that is not human (or at least not protected with human rights) and something that is. Something that is capable of desires or not.

ETA: And I'm happy with the line drawn by the current state of law in the U.S. (Roe v. Wade) which didn't answer the question of when the fetus becomes human but took the other approach of defining when a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion.

The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother"). Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision).

Piero

28th February 2009, 01:42 PM

I don't buy Fiona's extreme position either, though. I think Roe v. Wade is about right.

At some point we do recognize the fetus as another human being. I don't think there's anything magical at birth that gives it that status. (As mentioned, I'd use the desire utilitarianism approach and say whenever the baby is capable of having desires that can be thwarted or fulfilled is a good standard. I'm cool with more conventional anatomical or physiological arguments though.)

I'm sympathetic to her position, though, because I don't think as a society we're anywhere near in danger of erring on the side of giving the woman too much control over this decision!

Still---is there any difference between a very late term abortion and delivering the baby and tossing it into a trash dumpster? Surely both are crimes against a person.
Well, I would agree with you, but now I'm scared of being dead wrong again! I agree that five minutes before and five minutes after birth the baby is the same being. However, I cannot see anyone dumping the newborn into a trash can unless there were overriding reasons for doing so. Of course, it could the be argued that we should then allow murder, because nobody would kill someone else just for the fun. I think that's correct, actually: in many cases murder is the final outcome of a long process which more or less forced someone to become a murderer. Besides, murder can happen on the spur of the moment.
Anyway, I shall say no more. I'll tread softly from now on.

Piero

28th February 2009, 02:00 PM

I'm not so sure your change was based on a sound argument. (The stuff about imagining yourself to be pregnant sounds like an appeal to emotion. It also sounds like you assume anyone arguing against Fiona's position is a man. Many extreme pro-lifers are in fact women who have in fact been pregnant.)

At any rate--to answer your question (quoted her): the same thing that gives me a right to tell any human they can't harm or kill another human.

The moral and legal question lies in where to draw the line between something that is not human (or at least not protected with human rights) and something that is. Something that is capable of desires or not.

ETA: And I'm happy with the line drawn by the current state of law in the U.S. (Roe v. Wade) which didn't answer the question of when the fetus becomes human but took the other approach of defining when a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion.
Yes, you are right. The emotional factor played an important role in my change of heart. Let me try to summarize the way I see things, and you tell me whether I'm being fair:

Fiona's position: abortion should be freely available at any time. Women, as moral agents, have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. Imposing restrictions is tantamount to declaring women second-class citizens or minors.

My previous position: when the foetus acquires the capacity to have desires, its interests should be considered. Abortion should be restricted, even though this militates against women's autonomy, because it would be reckless to allow the possibility of a foetus being aborted by immoral reasons.

My current position: Holy s***! I don't know what to think!

Piero

28th February 2009, 03:39 PM

Joe, may I (as if it were possible) add further confusion to the issue?

Yet, humans do have a reason to promote in others an aversion to thwarting the desires of those who cannot act on their own behalf. This is true because each of us, at times, cannot act on our own behalf (while unconscious or otherwise disabled) or care about somebody who cannot act on their own behalf (infants, pets, friends who might fall unconscious or are similarly disabled).
(Alonzo Fyfe)
So, after all, we are morally enabled to act on the foetus's behalf, even if that trumps the right of the woman to control her body. But wait, wouldn't it be morally right to act on behalf of the woman whose desire to control her body is being thwarted? But wait...

JoeTheJuggler

28th February 2009, 04:09 PM

So, after all, we are morally enabled to act on the foetus's behalf, even if that trumps the right of the woman to control her body. But wait, wouldn't it be morally right to act on behalf of the woman whose desire to control her body is being thwarted? But wait...

I wouldn't say that rights of a late term fetus trump the rights of the woman.

In fact, if it's ever a decision between the life of the fetus and the life of the woman, we have no problem aborting the fetus.

In law (and morality), these kinds of balancing acts are done all the time.

At any rate, I think we could all come together around the cause of reducing the number of abortions through supporting women's rights (ERA for the 21st Century??), real sex education, access to health care in general (and contraception in particular) and so on.

As I said, I wouldn't argue against Fiona's position--even though I don't actually agree with it-- just because I think we're nowhere near in danger of going too far that direction. For now, we're only holding onto Roe v. Wade by the skin of our teeth. (Remember the makeup of the Supreme Court that pretty much named Bush president in 2000? Guess which way it's changed since then?)

Piero

28th February 2009, 04:45 PM

For now, we're only holding onto Roe v. Wade by the skin of our teeth. (Remember the makeup of the Supreme Court that pretty much named Bush president in 2000? Guess which way it's changed since then?)
Joe, I live in a country where all abortions are illegal. Period. No exceptions. Even the morning-after pill is frowned upon, and some chemists refuse to sell it. This is bigots' paradise. I doubt we'll manage to get anything like Roe v. Wade before 2050.

Lord Muck oGentry

28th February 2009, 06:26 PM

Laws make it clear what responsibilities society expects individuals to take, though I appreciate that feminism concentrates on rights rather than responsibilities

Miscue there, Ivor.
To concentrate on rights just is to concentrate on responsibilities. If a woman has rights then — trivially— others have responsibilities.

uruk

2nd March 2009, 11:54 AM

A person can't exist without a lot of things, having potential for intelligence is just one of them. Again this is still irelevent to that basic fact I previously stated.

Actually the only reason that money has value is because its mutual agreed upon. Try to do that with a zygote. As are rights and value. You keep trying to take the zygote out of the context of the system in which it has value. The physical dollar bill only has value when it is within it the context of the system that gives it value.

I few people here make the statistical argument concerning the ratio of zygote that do make it to term to those that don't as if it meant to reduce the value of the zygote. The zygote within the context of being in a womb in the processe of producing a baby has a certain amount of value because of its potential end result.

Look at it this way. People die every day. by the hundred every minuet of the day. Nobody knows, waking up in the morning, if they are going to make it back home at the end of the alive or dead. you nor I know when and how we are going to die. Yet we still get out of bed , go to that job, enter in to relationships, etc. as if we are certain we are going to have a future. Why is that? Because people tend to err on the side of the positive rather than the negative.
If the zygote is in favorable conditions to sucessfully develop into baby we should err on the side of the positive. We should be disinclined to end the process unless there is a justifiable reason to do so. I argue that there are reasons that are not justifiable in the context to what the developing foetus is in relation to human beings.

To statistcs argument is a weak argument

And these same sets of laws also limit them. And so? You never explained what my feeling had to do with the subject.

From the preview, it looks like a good pro-abortion book. Possibly. But then again I do not oppose all abortion. There are only a few specific conditions that I have an issue with.

Our argument here is about the worth of the procreation process and it products in relation to the final product. The arguement in the book which I thought applies to our argument was the issue of "substitution" which was brought up with your point about switching zygotes in the womb.

Self-awareness has a lot to do with education, it can increase self-awareness and awareness of the world to a significant degree. I have known plenty of people who are controlled by instincts and only have the basics of rationality and self-awareness. They are persons, but personhood is in degrees, thus it isn't limited to the on/off options that you might desire. I did not make the on/off arguement. I am aware that self-awarness is not yet fully understood and when it present is itself is debated. And by your argument the person you mentioned here would have less value as compared to a well educated person. So it is not so bad when we kill the less educated person right? The Constsution and the Bill of rights has it all wrong then?

I beg to differ. Lack of the other factors cause death or severely stumped development. And the future can in theory replace the baby in the equation with vat grown trans/post human beings or even AIs. So please forget about all that human exceptionalism, it just don't work in the long run. I think that it is still irrelevent to what the equation was stating. If you take away the thing that is developing and has the potential to learn (vat grown clone, A.I. positronic brain, Hyper-chicken lawyers) your equation becomes meaningless.

Its the end results of forcing women to have children. There are alot of things that end with having people forced into doing something. Fight wars, pay taxes, not yell "fire" in a crowded theater, not Smoke in restaraunts, not smoke pot, not drive 90mph, not say **** on TV, not pull the plug on a coma patient (comes and goes), etc.. The list goes on. Just look at any municipal, state and federal code. These are all decided upon by mutual agreement. Some agree soem don't but it is usual by majority vote or forced by litigation that they do get enacted.

Actually that are paying for specific breeds, a refinement done by earlier breeders. If you give no detail about the heritage, then none will buy. All cows are if specific breeds. And so now you agree that in some conditions a zygot is not a zygote, is not a zygote. I mention this because in the past some persons were not the same as other persons. It stll goes on to day in most palces around the world.

As far as I can read, your bigger picture is about some innate value of based upon emotional attachment and possible use by society. The former is not a constant it might even be inverted. The latter is also not assured. In fact I think that abortion benefits society in the long run. No, only that one type of value is emotional attachments. Value is a derived notion amoung people. It is people that decide value. What they value now is not what they may value in the future. And people value value things for diferent reasons.

The zygote has as much control over the process as a boulder rolling down the hill. Its the body or mind of the woman that can stop it. it is the DNA in the zygot that controls the development. The mother has no control over that other that to stop it or to let it continue. The only way to have some control over the devlopment process directly is to manipulate the DNA. I believe that it is currently illegal to alter the DNA of a human being for porposes other than correcting defects.

It varies. But the fact remains.

AWPrime

2nd March 2009, 01:13 PM

Again this is still irelevent to that basic fact I previously stated.And I find your so called fact irrelevant.

If the zygote is in favorable conditions to sucessfully develop into baby we should err on the side of the positive. We should be disinclined to end the process unless there is a justifiable reason to do so. I argue that there are reasons that are not justifiable in the context to what the developing foetus is in relation to human beings.Then you might want to gain some arguments for abortion non-justifiable. Because birth itself is neutral, the chance for an Einstein is a big as for a Hitler.
In many situations its for society's best if its aborted even if there are no health risks. This is the latter better child.

I did not make the on/off arguement. I am aware that self-awarness is not yet fully understood and when it present is itself is debated. And by your argument the person you mentioned here would have less value as compared to a well educated person. So it is not so bad when we kill the less educated person right?You do wish to make a on/off argument the last sentence in this quote says enough. You may not be aware of it but its there.

I think that it is still irrelevent to what the equation was stating. If you take away the thing that is developing and has the potential to learn (vat grown clone, A.I. positronic brain, Hyper-chicken lawyers) your equation becomes meaningless.And as I have stated the same thing applies to the others 'ingredients'. You're just obsessed with a particular one.

There are alot of things that end with having people forced into doing something. Fight wars, pay taxes, not yell "fire" in a crowded theater, not Smoke in restaraunts, not smoke pot, not drive 90mph, not say **** on TV, not pull the plug on a coma patient (comes and goes), etc.. The list goes on. Just look at any municipal, state and federal code. These are all decided upon by mutual agreement. Some agree some don't but it is usual by majority vote or forced by litigation that they do get enacted. And yet none of these examples can ever get close to the core to the violation of self that is forced birthing/breeding.

All cows are if specific breeds. And so now you agree that in some conditions a zygot is not a zygote, is not a zygote. I mention this because in the past some persons were not the same as other persons. It stll goes on to day in most palces around the world.Sorry, I can't translate any meaning from this. But you seem to completely miss my point. The value is not that it is a zygote but the specific specification of it. And these vary. One breed might be valuable but if the economic situation changes it may drop to nothing.

No, only that one type of value is emotional attachments. Value is a derived notion amoung people. It is people that decide value. What they value now is not what they may value in the future. And people value value things for diferent reasons.Point?

it is the DNA in the zygot that controls the development. The mother has no control over that other that to stop it or to let it continue. The only way to have some control over the devlopment process directly is to manipulate the DNA. I believe that it is currently illegal to alter the DNA of a human being for porposes other than correcting defects.By that definition cancer has control over cancer and how it runs. However cancer can't stop, but we can cure it. So who has the most control?

But the fact remains.And some mothers hate their children, another fact for you to enjoy.

Fiona

6th March 2009, 01:22 PM

To continue.

My deepest appologies, I seem to

have missed where you laid out these conditions. Some of your responses to

my posts lead me to believe that you advocated absolutely no limitations on

individual rights regardless of the conditions. One in particular about

allowing people to suffer so that individual rights remain uninfringed.

Without the proper context, I missunderstood. For clarity can you please

reiterate those conditions or point me to where you laid them out.

Answered above

Again, I

was describing a pure democracy illustrating the inherent problem that exist

in that system. You said that you chose democracy, I wanted to see if you

understood the problems with that system in reference to rights.

I believe that some things are not right (by my defintions of right and

wrong) Even if the majority votes for them.

Agreed. That is why the question of morality is separate from politics and law

But right and wrong are

relative. I believe there is no over-arching or written in stone mandate

etched forth by a finger of a diety that sets what things are right or what

things are wrong.

Then why do you believe that your judgement of the morality of a particular action is so certain that you are prepared to impose it on someone who is just as able to make moral judgements as you are yourself?

When a majority votes for or against something, Idealy

they believe what ever they voted for was right. Provided some self-vested

interest was not involved in the voting process.

But then some degree of self-interest is always involved in what an

individual believes is right or wrong.

Usually, yes

Yes I do. Just like I think the concept of

human value is meaningful.

Ok.

Human rights are entitlements and permissions confered

onto individuals by mutual allowance of those entitlements and permissions

by other individuals. I believe this because the only way any individual

have entitlements and permissions is if others allow them to the individual

or allows the individual to exercise them.

Ok. What, then, is the basis of those rights? It is clearly not morality, because you have said that you believe that some things are not right even if the majority votes for them. It follows that the delineation of human rights, which is predicated on mutual agreement, can also be wrong. Where do they come from? I assume that you take a pragmatic view and that the only rights which have meaning for you are those temporary entitlements allowed by a society at a given moment in history. That is a reasonable position but it is nothing to do with morality: it is merely the will of the strong (whoever they may be)

A single person need never worry about rights or infringement. He does not

require permissions because there is nothing give or deny those permissions.

He gives himself permissions. He creates his own entitelments.

This is when an individual is living on a desert island, is it? Ok.

It is when

you add other people does the issue of mutual recognition become apparent.

Others can deny or allow permissions or entitlements. If everybody decides

not to interfere with each others permissions and entitlements then they

have bestowed upon each other rights.

They have reached a system of law, certainly. But that law can be based on the will of one dictator or an oligarchy or any system at all which can be backed up by force. We are back to execution for not wearing a blue hat, as you clearly recognise.

There are other issues as to wether an individual can protect his rights by

defense or strength. Hence "armed lamb." This where concepts of protection

of the rights of the weak by the self-restraint of the strong. But that may

only happen because the strong choose to do so and place mechinisims that

makes it difficult or not in thier best interest to go back on thier word.

Yes. "All reason retreats in the face of a gun" as the song says. But you contradict yourself do you not? If the lamb is armed then the protection is not based on the self restraint of the strong: it is based on the firepower of the weak: who are, by this definition, not in fact weak. What you are suggesting is an armed society with no law but the law of force. That is not how we organise ourselves in practice, except in times when society has broken down, for example in war. Even where there is the right to bear arms that is not how questions of competing interest are normally settled; nor would I like to live in such a situation: that is not in my mind a society: it is an armed truce at best: though I would not put much confidence in the truce part of it.

The rule of law is important to all of us: there are no strong. There are only people who are strong in some circumstances and for a limited period of their lives: if you think of strength as physical then we are all babies at some point; and we all get old. If you think of strength as a product of intelligence: we are all children who know little and many of us go gaga in later life. And so for any other conception of strength you might wish to come up with, including group strength. So the rule of law is the roof which shelters us all.

The protection of minority groups is the measure of civilisation. The objections to democracy which you raised before are in fact objections to what you now seem to say is the only basis for the rule of law: I disagree. Mob rule is not generally admired, and the theory of law is a complex subject precisely because of this fact. We can agree that everyone is entitled to protection because if we exclude anyone then it could be us. Self interest? I really, really hope so! Are you familiar with the "veil of ignorance" proposed by Rawl? I find it quite helpful, though of course it is still limited by our capacity to really imagine what a given course is like for another: and in truth this inability seems to me to be at the root of your position. But that is a failing we all share and we have to work hard to overcome it.

Yes. But that is only because I believe that it is right to do so. What another person sees as right might be differnt.

I think this is muddled. You are a moral relativist and that fits with your earlier statement that you are clear on your position about abortion but would not impose it on others.

However you have placed the question of rights firmly outside morality and into politics, so far as I read what you have written. Politics is a group activity, and the individual's belief is not really relevant except insofar as it contributes to what is subsequently enshrined in law.

If rights are solely those things which the majority decide to uphold, then it is irrational to universalise them. Thus there is no reason to suggest that all human beings, or even all citizens, should enjoy the same rights. It will be in the interest of the majority to ensure that is not true, at least in some times and places: slavery is, for example, quite a successful way to organise at some periods. On your reasoning we have no basis of objection, have we? In fact I think your position leads to the conclusion that it is wrong for any individual to oppose slavery, if its abolition would cause harm to the society which is best organised in that way. The suffering of slaves is acceptable for the greater good, is it not? It is no good saying that there is no greater good for society, because that is not demonstrably true.

When it is necessary for the achievement of what is most good for both society and the individual.

Interesting. I agree with that. But you cannot found the annulment of a woman's rights over her body on that because it is not good for her and it is not good for society either (or at least not demonstrably so). I think where the difference between us lies is in the fact that you do not really accept that the individual we are talking about is the woman. This seems to be confirmed by what follows

<snip>

I hope that you can also understand where it may be ok for the individual give up some of thier individual rights so that the suffering of the people may be reduced.

This is the same conflation as before: we can of course hope that people will give up some rights for altruistic reasons: what we cannot legitimately do is deprive them of those rights by force if they decline to do so. Your use of the phrase "give up" is not honest because you are talking about coercion not persuasion.

If it my personal or a particular individuals ends I would find it just about every case to be immoral by my standards of morality.

If it is to serve society's ends then It depends on what is asked of the individual and what that end is.

And again

Fiona

6th March 2009, 02:32 PM

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are saying that having definitons of words is an abuse of language or that it is not meaningful? If it is then that is an odd position to hold? If not please tell me what is the abuse that you see I am making.

See the difference in the parts I bolded in your defintions compared to the parts you bolded. Defintions are important but so is your interpretation of them. The crucial part of the concept of society is not the individuals, but the organisation

How do the difference of the number of things in our uninverses affect my thinking? What is it that I need to separate the things that are pertinate to my understanding of the relationship between people and society in a meaningfull way?

Well I think it is just a fact of how we think. The example nearest to hand is your conflation of coercion and persuasion: if you do not make a clear distinction between those two things it leads you to the odd conclusion that the outcome of the one is the same as the outcome of the other. I have two things in my universe and you appeared to have one thing for which there were two words. Since you have conceded the point I hope you can see that this is an example of what I mean.

Maybe it would help If you could tell me how you define the word society? And explain to me your understanding of how people relate to society. We can only think with words and we can only communicate what we think with words. Maybe if we synched up on some of those defintions it will help us to understand each other. or at least help me to understand what you mean.

The different words for the particular groups describe the nature of the relationship and interaction between the specific group of peoples. The nature of the relationships and interactions in a family are differnt than than the nature of the relationships and interactions between people in a community. Hence the differnt words for the different groupings of people.

Exactly. It is the organisation which is the defining element of a society or a family etc; it is not the people. But you went on to say:

If the people suffer so does the society. The larger the group that suffers the more society suffers. And usually if the people are suffering so can the systems and organizations that make up the intangible elements of society. I also realize that systems of society can break down when the people are doing pretty good as in decadence. Or so they say.

Can you see that you are again conflating concepts? A society is comprised of people, but it is not people: it is not any living thing at all. It is a set of rules which we use to regulate some of our interactions. t is not true to say that if the people suffer the society suffers: some societies are founded on the suffering of some of the people - for example those which practice human sacrifice or infanticide. Those things were cohesive elements and in the case of infanticide were often responses to shortage of resource. The were rational (or at least functional) and they did not "hurt" the society: they were an integral part of what made it work.

The rules can change without any damage to the individuals who make up the society: or with a shift in who is damaged by the rules (since there are always those who are damaged given we are not perfect and do not make perfect rules); or indeed we can abandon all rules and try anarchy for a while (though that will not work I think, for we cannot escape our social nature) . Some of those outcomes will be good for people and some of them will not. But what they will not do is cause society to suffer: it is not the right sort of thing to suffer. As I said, you seem to be reifying society and I do not think it is helping

No. It depends on the nature of the interactions and the focus between the people. Families and communities are subgroups within a society. Government is also a subgroup of society. They all have different function within society. But all those aspects of society relies on the people. Essentially, if you have no people you have no society. Society cannot exist without the people.

Indeed: a necessary condition but not a sufficient one

While the foetus is in her body it is using her body. Allowing the foetus to stay there is the same as giving permission for the foetus to use her body. The intent is implied. She knows she has a foetus inside her. Letting it stay there is the same as allowing it to use her body. She has made a choice of letting it use her body while it is there untill she can find out the gender of the foetus. And if she does not know that the gender of the foetus is female and she allows the foetus to remain in her womb she has allowed the female foetus to use her body without knowing the feotus is female. She has unwittingly given consent to the female foetus.

"Giving permission and allowing" has the same meaning as consent. (That is unless you have a nonstandard definition of consent. If so please give me your definition of consent) "Unwittingly" means not to have knowledge of something. Allowing the foetus to use her body with out knowlegde of the gender of the foetus has the same effect as "unwittingly given consent".

Only when she knows the gender of the foetus can she make the choice of allowing or refusing the foetus use of her body. That is, to give or not give consent.

I know what the words mean, Uruk. But I can't make any sense of what you have written. Look at the parts I have bolded. She has given consent: she has made a choice: she has decided. That she has decided on the basis of incomplete information is not important. We do that all the time but nobody says it is unwitting if we know we do not have complete information. That is just NOT what the word means. The last part is particularly strange: she can and does make a choice so how can you say she does not?

Knowing that she does not know limits her choices as I have mentioned before.

Yes. The point is it is still her choice. I am really puzzled as to why you cannot understand that this is what is at issue

The only way she wins

You think it is a competition or a game? Can you be any more insulting?

i That is to say that she got to exercised her right to give consent to the male foetus, which is the right she wants to exercise.

Nope. The right she wants to exercise is the right to make a choice because she is a moral agent. She may wish to do so on the basis of better information, but that is not the point. The point is it is her choice to make: not yours or anybody else's.

Sounds like a pyricc victory to prove a point.

I asked if you could be any more insulting: congratulations:rolleyes:

Yes I believe I do. But as I mention above she is making a choice between two choices that are imposed upon her by the conditions set up the not allowing the gender test. This freedom of the choice is an illusion. Its like saying I give you the choice of choosing between the lesser of two evils. In either choice you still wind up with evil.

No, you obviously don't. If I have a choice, even between two evils, I have a choice. If I do not have a choice because you have decided to make your choice supersede mine then I don't have a choice. You have taken that choice away. That is an enormity which you cannot justify and it is in no way comparable. What you seem to be saying is that if I cannot have complete freedom to achieve my ends in their entirety then it does not matter if I have no freedom at all. I do not think you believe that and I also think you are arguing against a position I do not hold. Fair enough.

Or more to the point in the above situation. The woman has the choice of which rights that get denied from her. It is a choice in the academic sense of the word but I think it misses the point of the intent and she still get some of her rights denied.

and this has bearing on whether it is her choice or yours how, exactly? You have tried very hard to bring this red herring to bear on this discussion. I have told you that it is not relevant to my position and I have told you why. Can you accept it is irrelevant or would you like to show me how it has bearing from your position?

uruk

10th March 2009, 10:50 AM

[QUOTE=Fiona;4492571]Then why do you believe that your judgement of the morality of a particular action is so certain that you are prepared to impose it on someone who is just as able to make moral judgements as you are yourself? If the majority of the people judge that the imposition is necessary, the people will make it law or moral inspite of the fact the individual who is imposed upon has differing moral judgements than the people at large. The rights of the individual or minority is not always protected.

This happens even though the people, in the form of a government, has decided that certain rights be protected. They still violate those protections anyway because of specific reasons.
In the past our government, dispite what was written in our bill of rights, deprived the African-American of many rights. In world war two our government placed Japanese-Americans in concentrations camps.

Today, in our country homosexuals are being deprived of a fundamnetal right that the rest of the people enjoy and that was determined to be unabridgable. Yet the government still allows that abridgement of thier right because of the will of the majority. You can argue that it is right or wrong. Personaly I see it as wrong, But the majority of the people see it as right and moral because they view the lifestyle of homosexuals as being immoral.

Again it is a conflict of who sees what is right or wrong or what is moral or immoral.

I see abortion under certain, specific reasons as being immoral or wrong but most people do not. That is why abortion is presently legal and that most people do not view it as being immoral for whatever reason they may hold to not judge it as so.

Ok. What, then, is the basis of those rights? It is clearly not morality, because you have said that you believe that some things are not right even if the majority votes for them. It follows that the delineation of human rights, which is predicated on mutual agreement, can also be wrong. Where do they come from? I assume that you take a pragmatic view and that the only rights which have meaning for you are those temporary entitlements allowed by a society at a given moment in history. That is a reasonable position but it is nothing to do with morality: it is merely the will of the strong (whoever they may be) Morality is also decided upon by the people. There are many things now that we view as being immoral such as slavery, polygamy, marrige at young age, etc. that were perfectly moral in the past.

What we as individuals view as right or wrong usually comes down to personal opinion. What is right or wrong on a more metaphysical sense depends on the criterias involved. What is "right" in a religious sense may "wrong" in a secular sence. What is "right" on a humanistic level may be "wrong" on a scientific or pragmatic level.

Some people view abortion in general as wrong because of religious beliefs other view it as right in the light of the woman's right over the control of her body. Who is right or wrong, which criteria is more important depends on your particular POV.

They have reached a system of law, certainly. But that law can be based on the will of one dictator or an oligarchy or any system at all which can be backed up by force. We are back to execution for not wearing a blue hat, as you clearly recognise.
Unfortunately this is a fact of life. Unless the people (in the form of a government) choses to delinetate what limitations they will place on themselves in reguards to abridgements of the rights of the individual, there is nothing really to stop them from abridging rights.

Of course there is always the threat of dissent or rebellion which happens quite often. It happen to the U.S. in the civil war and the civil rights movement.

Yes. "All reason retreats in the face of a gun" as the song says. But you contradict yourself do you not? If the lamb is armed then the protection is not based on the self restraint of the strong: it is based on the firepower of the weak: who are, by this definition, not in fact weak. What you are suggesting is an armed society with no law but the law of force. That is not how we organise ourselves in practice, except in times when society has broken down, for example in war. Even where there is the right to bear arms that is not how questions of competing interest are normally settled; nor would I like to live in such a situation: that is not in my mind a society: it is an armed truce at best: though I would not put much confidence in the truce part of it. Self-restraint of the strong can be based on either the idealistic self-conviction of the strong or the threat/fear of dissent and rebellion and thus a breakdown of the system. If you were the pragmatic type you would probably lean toward the latter. If idealistic, the former.

In practice I'd say it is a littel bit of both. Considering the civil war and the civil rights movment.

The rule of law is important to all of us: there are no strong. There are only people who are strong in some circumstances and for a limited period of their lives: if you think of strength as physical then we are all babies at some point; and we all get old. If you think of strength as a product of intelligence: we are all children who know little and many of us go gaga in later life. And so for any other conception of strength you might wish to come up with, including group strength. So the rule of law is the roof which shelters us all. Agreed. But the laws in that system are still decided upon by the people. And in many situations a minorty group still has to suffer for the system to work as smoothly as possible. Even in the case where the strong limits itself, there are still issues of interpretation. Certainly that was the case concerning slavery early in America's past.

There is no condition or system that I know of where every member of that system goes without some suffering of individual rights. Do you know of any?

The protection of minority groups is the measure of civilisation. The objections to democracy which you raised before are in fact objections to what you now seem to say is the only basis for the rule of law: I disagree. Mob rule is not generally admired, and the theory of law is a complex subject precisely because of this fact. We can agree that everyone is entitled to protection because if we exclude anyone then it could be us. Self interest? I really, really hope so! Are you familiar with the "veil of ignorance" proposed by Rawl? I find it quite helpful, though of course it is still limited by our capacity to really imagine what a given course is like for another: and in truth this inability seems to me to be at the root of your position. But that is a failing we all share and we have to work hard to overcome it. High idealisim is fine and good but you still have to deal with the pragmatic reality of conditions and human nature.

Laws are passed usualy based on the concept of the "greater good." And when they are not, they are sometimes based on preserving whatever idealistic standard is being held at the time. Or they are passed based on the influence a special interest group has exerted on the law makers.
I am not against idealisim. I just recognise the fact that reality has a way of impeading our idealistic endevours.

I am not familiar with Rawl's specific view. Is it anything similar to the "walk a mile in another shoes" addage?

Even if you are well aware of the other persons condition and situation and the effect a law or decision will have on them there are still situations where it is necessary to place the interest of the majority over thier's. There are of course other times where the opposite is desired.

There are many demands or expectations placed upon us by society based on our gender or capabilities, etc. that we as individuals or groups may not agree with or would rather not have to deal with. But we must otherwise the system breaks down.

I think this is muddled. You are a moral relativist and that fits with your earlier statement that you are clear on your position about abortion but would not impose it on others. My view is my own. I know it is not shared by pro-choice because of the abridgement of rights that it entails. My view is also not shared by pro-lifers because I believe that there are legitmate reasons to perform abortion.

However you have placed the question of rights firmly outside morality and into politics, so far as I read what you have written. Politics is a group activity, and the individual's belief is not really relevant except insofar as it contributes to what is subsequently enshrined in law. I believe that both rights and morality come from the same, ultimate source. People. Rights and morals vary from group to group and time to time.

If rights are solely those things which the majority decide to uphold, then it is irrational to universalise them. Thus there is no reason to suggest that all human beings, or even all citizens, should enjoy the same rights. It will be in the interest of the majority to ensure that is not true, at least in some times and places: slavery is, for example, quite a successful way to organise at some periods. On your reasoning we have no basis of objection, have we? In fact I think your position leads to the conclusion that it is wrong for any individual to oppose slavery, if its abolition would cause harm to the society which is best organised in that way. The suffering of slaves is acceptable for the greater good, is it not? It is no good saying that there is no greater good for society, because that is not demonstrably true. It is a fact that it has been that way in the past. It still exists today in some cultures. What is good for society as a whole also changes. Nothing is unchanging. The reason why groups have decided that slavery is wrong or immoral is not due to some pragmatic or practical reason or effect on society. They have done so on idealistic, religious and humanistic reasons. And they have forced thier decisions on others, who did benefit from slavery, by using force of physical violence.

The truth of the matter is that there is debate on the practical advantaged and disadvantages of slavery to society and the indiviual. By saying that I by no means support or state that slavery is good or right or moral nor do I wish to see it's return to our society or that it should continue to exist in other cultures. But I realize that those reasons that I abhorre slavery are not for pragmatic reasons.

And before you say that forcing a woman to carry a foetus to term, (under the conditions I have previously stated) is slavery I would beg to differ that it does.

Interesting. I agree with that. But you cannot found the annulment of a woman's rights over her body on that because it is not good for her and it is not good for society either (or at least not demonstrably so). I think where the difference between us lies is in the fact that you do not really accept that the individual we are talking about is the woman. This seems to be confirmed by what follows I think it can. I do not suggest that under the condition that I would suggest "forcing" a woman to bring to term an unwanted pregnancy to be totaly uncompensated for her momentary sacrifce of rights and suffering.

I feel that if society deems the potential life important enought to infringe upon the woman's right then the society should not place any undue burdens other that the intitial infringment. For example, the govenrment would pay for any medical cost incured and insure that the womans job would be secure for her while she is in delivery and recovery. (much the same way your job is secure when you have to perform jury duty or activities in the national guard)
Our government pretty much supports a woman when she is unemployed and expectant.
This would not that much of a stretch. But it does open up possibilities for abuse of the system as it does with "welfare queens"

This is the same conflation as before: we can of course hope that people will give up some rights for altruistic reasons: what we cannot legitimately do is deprive them of those rights by force if they decline to do so. Your use of the phrase "give up" is not honest because you are talking about coercion not persuasion. In the case of conscription or draft that is exactly the case. A person is drafted against thier will and is forced to fight in a war against thier will. If they refuse they are imprisoned. If they refuse in the battle field thier lives can be instanly forfeit without even so much as a trial.

Heck, even today here in the US where there is no conscription in the military a male who has reached the age of 18 still has to sign up for the draft. If he does not he can be punished for not doing so.

It would be much preferable for the woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to chose to see an obligation to the potential life and carry it to term of her own free will. But if at any time the conditions arise that society may deem it necessary to force or coerce the woman into carring the unwanted pregnancy to term then it will probably do so. That is just a fact of life.

AWPrime

10th March 2009, 01:10 PM

Hi Uruk nice to see you back here.

If the majority of the people judge that the imposition is necessary, the people will make it law or moral inspite of the fact the individual who is imposed upon has differing moral judgements than the people at large. The rights of the individual or minority is not always protected.Such laws would affect the rights of half the population, that isn't a individual or a minority.

I think it can. I do not suggest that under the condition that I would suggest "forcing" a woman to bring to term an unwanted pregnancy to be totaly uncompensated for her momentary sacrifce of rights and suffering.From a mechanical POV if the birth is without complications then it is momentary. But the emotional suffering might last far far longer. And of course births without complications can't be guaranteed, also giving birth has been described to be the most painful thing that one can experience.

But if at any time the conditions arise that society may deem it necessary to force or coerce the woman into carring the unwanted pregnancy to term then it will probably do so. That is just a fact of life.Then can you give a set of realistic conditions that would trigger this?

uruk

10th March 2009, 01:12 PM

See the difference in the parts I bolded in your defintions compared to the parts you bolded. Defintions are important but so is your interpretation of them. The crucial part of the concept of society is not the individuals, but the organisation I'd say there is a close proximity of people to those organizations. the organization is how the people interact with each other and the rules they make up to governing those interactions.

Well I think it is just a fact of how we think. The example nearest to hand is your conflation of coercion and persuasion: if you do not make a clear distinction between those two things it leads you to the odd conclusion that the outcome of the one is the same as the outcome of the other. I have two things in my universe and you appeared to have one thing for which there were two words. Since you have conceded the point I hope you can see that this is an example of what I mean. I do. I did make the mistake of conflating coersion with persuasion. But I can also see where one can be twisted into the other. I'l try to explain further down.

Exactly. It is the organisation which is the defining element of a society or a family etc; it is not the people. But you went on to say:

Can you see that you are again conflating concepts? A society is comprised of people, but it is not people: it is not any living thing at all. It is a set of rules which we use to regulate some of our interactions. t is not true to say that if the people suffer the society suffers: some societies are founded on the suffering of some of the people - for example those which practice human sacrifice or infanticide. Those things were cohesive elements and in the case of infanticide were often responses to shortage of resource. The were rational (or at least functional) and they did not "hurt" the society: they were an integral part of what made it work. I recognised that aspect of the relationship between society and the people. You do also realize the other side of that coin. If condition arise that the people in a society are severly reduced in number or become extinct or if one subgroup within that society gains too much power over the others, for example, the rules and interaction of that society can cease to exist or cease to exist in thier present state or breakdown in dgrees or completly.

The rules can change without any damage to the individuals who make up the society: or with a shift in who is damaged by the rules (since there are always those who are damaged given we are not perfect and do not make perfect rules); or indeed we can abandon all rules and try anarchy for a while (though that will not work I think, for we cannot escape our social nature) . Some of those outcomes will be good for people and some of them will not. But what they will not do is cause society to suffer: it is not the right sort of thing to suffer. As I said, you seem to be reifying society and I do not think it is helping You may be having a problem with my use of the word "suffer". A more precise word or words may be "breakdown" or "exhibit detrimental effects to it's integrity and function".

Indeed: a necessary condition but not a sufficient one I am not sure I understand you here. What kind of human society can we have without people on which the society is derived?

I know what the words mean, Uruk. But I can't make any sense of what you have written. Look at the parts I have bolded. She has given consent: she has made a choice: she has decided. That she has decided on the basis of incomplete information is not important. We do that all the time but nobody says it is unwitting if we know we do not have complete information. That is just NOT what the word means. The last part is particularly strange: she can and does make a choice so how can you say she does not? Please tell me the difference. How is unwittingly not an approproate word in this case? would it have been more correct to say that she gave consent to a female foetus without her knowledge of the foetus being female?

Yes. The point is it is still her choice. I am really puzzled as to why you cannot understand that this is what is at issue It is because there are some choices that are not really choices.

For instance I come up to some person and say I am going to kill you but I give you the choice of dying by gun or knife.

I do not see that as a true choice. The choice offered is meaningless and insignificant in reguard to the outcome. You can still argue that the person was given a choice but it was a meaningless choice hence "pyricc victory".

I can make it more relevent to the issue in giving you two options. One option is so repugnant or untennable or just plain impossible that you would in all cases opt for the other choice which what I wanted you to do in the first place.
For instance Christianity. You can either worship god or burn forever in hell. (this only works if the whole thing was real though)

I am manipulating the conditions so that you are going to choose the option I want you to chose. You can still argue that a choice was made. But it is a meaningless choice. An academic choice.

You think it is a competition or a game? Can you be any more insulting? By "win" I meant arive at the condition she wanted, which is to say give birth to a male child. The only real choice the ban on the test gives her is to take her chances that the foetus will be male. The other choice is not a practical choice.

Nope. The right she wants to exercise is the right to make a choice because she is a moral agent. She may wish to do so on the basis of better information, but that is not the point. The point is it is her choice to make: not yours or anybody else's. Unless that choice was arrived at by manipulating the conditions of the choices available to her. She had the illusion of choice but the other options were made so undesirable that she would make the choice others wanted her to make.

I asked if you could be any more insulting: congratulations:rolleyes: See above. You are claiming "victory" in stating that she has made a choice even though that choice was in essence "forced" upon her by the manipulation of conditions.

No, you obviously don't. If I have a choice, even between two evils, I have a choice. If I do not have a choice because you have decided to make your choice supersede mine then I don't have a choice. You have taken that choice away. That is an enormity which you cannot justify and it is in no way comparable. What you seem to be saying is that if I cannot have complete freedom to achieve my ends in their entirety then it does not matter if I have no freedom at all. I do not think you believe that and I also think you are arguing against a position I do not hold. Fair enough. Then what would you call it if I controll the choices that are available to you? If I control the conditions under which you make those choices? Do you really have freedom there?

and this has bearing on whether it is her choice or yours how, exactly? You have tried very hard to bring this red herring to bear on this discussion. I have told you that it is not relevant to my position and I have told you why. Can you accept it is irrelevant or would you like to show me how it has bearing from your position?
See above.

Fiona

10th March 2009, 01:25 PM

Well Uruk, I cannot make any more sense of your position than I could before. You continue to move back and forth between levels of analysis and in doing so you make mincemeat of your argument, so far as I can follow it.

In my view law is one thing:morality is another. You apparently agree when you say that there are things which you consider to be wrong though they are passed into law. Yet in the next breath you say that morality is decided on by the politically powerful. That is a direct internal contradiction, and it cannot be reconciled. Insofar as you act to persuade others to your dissident belief you are an immoral individual, in fact. Is that what you wish to convey?

If you campaign in favour of homosexual marriage when the political power (be it a dictator or an oligarch or a majority of the people) opposes it you are morally wrong, on this analysis. Is that your belief? It leads to some very odd consequences, not least of which is the fact that you must decide the morality of any given position by second guessing the view of whoever has the political power. How are you going to determine what the morality will be, then? Will you just accept the instruction of the dictator? Be guided by the college of bishops or imams? Perhaps you are going to vote? Oh wait......

If you take this view it is my contention that you have given up any claim to be a moral agent: and that makes you less than fully human, in my view. You may wish to abdicate your humanity and that is also your choice: but you have no right to impose that same decision on me.

This is an entirely different point from your next: which is merely that law (or in your analysis, morality) is backed by force and there is nothing else but that force in play. This is a doctrine of despair, as you present it. It is certainly true that at some times and in some places the rights of the individual count for absolutely nothing, in practical terms. But this is not always true and it is not the best we can do. I think that the history of civilisation is the history of the whole group finding ways of controlling sub-groups who are powerful ( through force or money or nepotism or any number of things) and which promote their own agenda at the expense of others. This is not easy and it is only partially successful. But the fact that it is successful at all is encouraging.

You acknowledge that there is the possibility of "self restraint" of the strong but you present a false limit on this. According to you this can only be based on idealism: I disagree. The strong are not always strong, and therefore it is in their interest to promote the rule of law. At the very least the powerful like to have property rights, and most of them prefer to have some control of guns so they are not in the hands of psychopaths.

The powerful are also human and, as such, they are also moral beings. Very few people consider that might is the only right, and most prefer to self delude if they choose to act on that basis. Even monsters must face the mirror in the morning. It is often said that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue: and that is not trivial.

I think you are correct that the fear of rebellion also plays some part in restraining the powerful: but your characterisation of this dichotomy of pragmatic and idealistic approaches to how this restraint comes about is false IMO. Dissent is not the same thing as rebellion and once again you conflate entirely separate concepts. Dissent holds no terror at all for the powerful: despite your idea that morality is dictated by power it is absolutely evident from the very existence of dissent that most people do not agree.

Can you see that the concepts of right and wrong; good and evil; and legal and illegal need to be separated? For me it is nonsensical to say that slavery was ever moral: it was certainly legal and it was arguably "good" for society. But it was never moral. And when the black people found a voice it was often not just their own voice: many white people were influential in condemning that practice and they had nothing direct to gain. Many who were not black understood the case they made and this was nothing to do with fear of rebellion (indeed the rebellion arguably came from those who opposed this moral judgement: and on your "pragmatic" analysis that should have been enough to prevent the war): nor was it to do with self restraint. Leaving aside the complexity of the other factors such as state sovreignty and stuff, this war was a war which arose from moral outrage. I contend that outrage did not lie with government and the cynical stuff you propose; it lay with the campaigners against slavery who were, as ever, individuals.

Those considerations apply even more to the civil rights movement because society had changed. The injustices were not so apparent and so the source of the movement was amongst black people themselves to a greater extent. The white people had to be told that what they thought was important was not enough. They had to be told what was happening and what was wrong with it, in moral terms. And when they were told it was uncomfortable, and it was not readily accepted. Well we don't much like change especially change which tends to suggest we have not been very nice for quite a while: and particularly change which demands a shift in the locus of power away from our own group. But the moral case was irresistible. I do not think the main thrust was fear of war nor was it self restraint: it was the clear breach of moral precept that was at the root of this change. though the change itself was legal.

And you agree with all of this in another contradiction inside your post. You state that change was based on what you call " idealistic, religious and humanistic reasons." In other words on a moral basis. But that moral basis did not form in a vacuum: they had to be exposed to another point of view because they already had a "moral" basis for slavery: it is supported in the bible, for example. But you say that the existing view of the powerful is the only morality: and in doing so you render such education immoral in itself. Or so it seems to me.

But what is really troubling about your argument is your refusal to make any kind of case which relates to abortion. We are agreed that there are circumstances where individual rights need to be abridged. How about you lay out what those circumstances are in your world, if they are not just might is right? Because that is all you seem to have said so far

uruk

10th March 2009, 01:33 PM

Hi Uruk nice to see you back here. Great to be back. I've been learning alot inthis thread.

Such laws would affect the rights of half the population, that isn't a individual or a minority. I think that would depend on the distribution. If a law was arrived at by majority vote rather than a court ruling, a majority vote implies a minority that voted against.
In the case of war the suspension of rights does boil down to the individual.

From a mechanical POV if the birth is without complications then it is momentary. But the emotional suffering might last far far longer. And of course births without complications can't be guaranteed, also giving birth has been described to be the most painful thing that one can experience. Same thing with being drafted for war. For those who survive the war the effects can be severly detrimental and psychologicaly damaging in the long term.

Oh BTW. I personally heard this from a woman who has given birth to children. Passing a kidney stone hurts worse. This is anecdotal and I'm sure it varies from person to person though.

Then can you give a set of realistic conditions that would trigger this? The fact of life part was in refrence to society coercing or suspending rights.

But some conditions could be dangerously low birth rates (Statistics show birth rates decline depending on how affluent or educated a culture is), severly low populations due to war or disaster, religious fundamentalists take over the house and senate and supreme court and. There are probbably a few more that I can't think of at the moment.

Fiona

10th March 2009, 01:56 PM

But some conditions could be dangerously low birth rates (Statistics show birth rates decline depending on how affluent or educated a culture is), severly low populations due to war or disaster, religious fundamentalists take over the house and senate and supreme court and. There are probbably a few more that I can't think of at the moment.

Banning abortion is not going to deal with low birth rates nor with low populations due to war or disaster, Uruk.

AWPrime

10th March 2009, 03:06 PM

I think that would depend on the distribution. If a law was arrived at by majority vote rather than a court ruling, a majority vote implies a minority that voted against.
In the case of war the suspension of rights does boil down to the individual.So if that half doesn't want equal rights then..... you do know how crazy it sounds, right?
By that same logic I can even have the majority vote to impose a dictator. It can happen but it isn't a good idea.

Same thing with being drafted for war. For those who survive the war the effects can be severly detrimental and psychologicaly damaging in the long term.Now you're moving the goal posts. First you say that pregnancy and birth is a momentary sacrifice of rights and suffering, with an implied low risk of complications.
When that failed, you compare it to war, which definitely isn't a momentary sacrifice of rights, suffering and has large risks. So I want to know, do you admit that pregnancy and birth isn't such a little thing?

Oh BTW. I personally heard this from a woman who has given birth to children. Passing a kidney stone hurts worse. This is anecdotal and I'm sure it varies from person to person though.I think that giving birth is more hazardous for a woman's health then passing a kidney stone. It wasn't the leading cause of death for adult women in the past for nothing.

But some conditions could be dangerously low birth rates (Statistics show birth rates decline depending on how affluent or educated a culture is),Those countries also tend to be overpopulated. If a population gets really low then the pressures that made it low will disappear and the population will rise again. Nature can take care of this.

severly low populations due to war or disaster,Doesn't require forced birth. Nature can take care of this.

religious fundamentalists take over the house and senate and supreme court and. There are probbably a few more that I can't think of at the moment.That isn't an actual condition that triggers anything but an very unlikely aftereffect that directly seeks to impose it.

uruk

10th March 2009, 05:23 PM

[QUOTE=Fiona;4503517]Well Uruk, I cannot make any more sense of your position than I could before. You continue to move back and forth between levels of analysis and in doing so you make mincemeat of your argument, so far as I can follow it. I'm sorry if that is the case.

In my view law is one thing:morality is another. You apparently agree when you say that there are things which you consider to be wrong though they are passed into law. Yet in the next breath you say that morality is decided on by the politically powerful. That is a direct internal contradiction, and it cannot be reconciled. Insofar as you act to persuade others to your dissident belief you are an immoral individual, in fact. Is that what you wish to convey? You seem to be confusing what "I" believe is right or wrong on a personal level with what society deems is right or wrong.

Each individual has a sense of what they see as moral and immoral but it does not necessarly reflect what society deems moral and immoral since that is decided as a whole.

It just so happens that what ever the majority of the people see as moral gets seen and heard over that of the individual. That is often reflected in our mainstream entertainment and art.

If you campaign in favour of homosexual marriage when the political power (be it a dictator or an oligarch or a majority of the people) opposes it you are morally wrong, on this analysis. Is that your belief? It leads to some very odd consequences, not least of which is the fact that you must decide the morality of any given position by second guessing the view of whoever has the political power. How are you going to determine what the morality will be, then? Will you just accept the instruction of the dictator? Be guided by the college of bishops or imams? Perhaps you are going to vote? Oh wait...... I may see it as being morally wrong by my personal standards but those in authority over me may not. In thier eyes I am moraly wrong.

If I decide to live within that society and they have a specific set of rules in reguard to their moral code I have to abide by those rules wether or not I agree with them. In the case of a democracy or republic I may have avenues in which I can try to over turn the rules I do not agreee with. Or I can just simply move to a country that has morals and rules to my liking.

Most people arive at thier particular moral convictions through various means. Ethier they are indoctrinated or you come to them by experiance or by contemplation or by a little of each.

If you take this view it is my contention that you have given up any claim to be a moral agent: and that makes you less than fully human, in my view. You may wish to abdicate your humanity and that is also your choice: but you have no right to impose that same decision on me. Please define what you mean by "moral agent" and it's relation to humanity.
Are you saying that I am incapable of having morals? I do have morals. They may not necessarily be the same as yours or society as a whole. And I arived at them by the means I mentioned above. I base them on what I find to be important and reasonable and beneficial to human beings as a whole. If that means that I believe that I have to suffer for them then so be it. If it also means that I believe that others have to suffer for them then so be it. I do not wish to impose my moral values on on others. I just wish to live my life by them where they do not uncessarily have to interfere with others.

How do you decide what you hold to be moral and immoral. What is it that you base them on? Are your morals the same as others or society in general? Do they differ in some fashion? Do they differ a little or a lot?

This is an entirely different point from your next: which is merely that law (or in your analysis, morality) is backed by force and there is nothing else but that force in play. This is a doctrine of despair, as you present it. It is certainly true that at some times and in some places the rights of the individual count for absolutely nothing, in practical terms. But this is not always true and it is not the best we can do. I think that the history of civilisation is the history of the whole group finding ways of controlling sub-groups who are powerful ( through force or money or nepotism or any number of things) and which promote their own agenda at the expense of others. This is not easy and it is only partially successful. But the fact that it is successful at all is encouraging. I hope that I am not conflating law with morality. I just said that they are arrived at in a society by more or less the same means.

I agree with you here. it is alwasy best when the individual does not have to have his rights suspended. And I agree that on the whole society is striving to improve itself despite our nature and tendancies. I think it bodes well for us as a species.

You acknowledge that there is the possibility of "self restraint" of the strong but you present a false limit on this. According to you this can only be based on idealism: I disagree. The strong are not always strong, and therefore it is in their interest to promote the rule of law. At the very least the powerful like to have property rights, and most of them prefer to have some control of guns so they are not in the hands of psychopaths. Well actually I said that it can be based on idealisim or fear of loss of power. But I agree that self-interest, as you seem to be implying, can be a factor. I agree the strong are not always strong.

The powerful are also human and, as such, they are also moral beings. Very few people consider that might is the only right, and most prefer to self delude if they choose to act on that basis. Even monsters must face the mirror in the morning. It is often said that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue: and that is not trivial. I think that is the idealistic reason as to why the powerfull would limit themselves. They feel thay have an obligation because of that power and that they are sympathetic to others.

The exception being the sociopath. To the sociopath all that matters is themselves. So they have no problem at looking at themsleves in the mirror.

I think you are correct that the fear of rebellion also plays some part in restraining the powerful: but your characterisation of this dichotomy of pragmatic and idealistic approaches to how this restraint comes about is false IMO. Dissent is not the same thing as rebellion and once again you conflate entirely separate concepts. Dissent holds no terror at all for the powerful: despite your idea that morality is dictated by power it is absolutely evident from the very existence of dissent that most people do not agree. That is why I mentioned dissent and rebellion as separate. But both challenges the authority and power of those who rule and dissent can lead to rebellion. That is why those who rule are concerned about dissent.

Morality is not necessarily dictated by power. It is the number of people in a group or society holding similar moral values that creates a prevailing moral code or system. It is an agregate system. Those that hold differing moral beliefs to the majority get thiers drowned out by the larger group. The exception to this rule are those that are more vocal or active in expressing thier moral beliefs.

The moral issue of homosexuality is one example. I think that most people don't really believe that homosexuality is immoral. I could be wrong. But there are religious beliefs that serve to support those who find it immoral. If you buy into the religious system of beliefs chance are that you will hold that particular moral belief. And because these groups are more politicaly active and organized, they tend to affect politics to a greater degree.
I mean there are laws passed in some states that make sodomy illegal. It's crazy but there you have the "will" of the people being exercised. Or at least nobody cared enough about the issue to vote it down. Or it could be that there are closet homophobes or people that believe inwardly that homosexuality is immoral but publicly express the opposite.

Can you see that the concepts of right and wrong; good and evil; and legal and illegal need to be separated? For me it is nonsensical to say that slavery was ever moral: it was certainly legal and it was arguably "good" for society. But it was never moral. I think that would depend on who you spoke with at the time. What one person sees as moral another may not. Quite a few of our founding fathers saw no issue with it. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin all had slaves. And these are the guys that co-wrote and defended the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.And when the black people found a voice it was often not just their own voice: many white people were influential in condemning that practice and they had nothing direct to gain. They did it for idealistic reasons or personal convictions. They did what they felt was "right". Many who were not black understood the case they made and this was nothing to do with fear of rebellion (indeed the rebellion arguably came from those who opposed this moral judgement: and on your "pragmatic" analysis that should have been enough to prevent the war): nor was it to do with self restraint. Leaving aside the complexity of the other factors such as state sovreignty and stuff, this war was a war which arose from moral outrage. I contend that outrage did not lie with government and the cynical stuff you propose; it lay with the campaigners against slavery who were, as ever, individuals. The federal government did come in line with the abolishonist's outrage in the end. The abolishionists were only the minority in the south. Most northern states had already abolished or were in the process of abolishing slavery by the time of the civil war.

There are debates as the real reason why Lincoln finally publicly stated that the war was over the issue of slavery rather than secession. There are some who said that Lincoln originaly want to leave the slavery issue out of the war but brought up the at the end when he found out that he could gain a moral upper hand in the eyes from those he sought support.

It is well known that one of Lincoln's first case as a lawyer was to return a run away slave to a plantation owner. That could be apocryphal though. Maybe somebody who is more versed in history can correct me on that.

The war was actually started by Lincoln. The southern slave states wanted to seceed from the union as was constitutionaly thier right. (this was, of course, due to the growing issue of slavery amoung others) Lincoln would not allow them to seceed and threated war. The southern states called his bluff and Lincoln made good on his threat.

Those considerations apply even more to the civil rights movement because society had changed. The injustices were not so apparent and so the source of the movement was amongst black people themselves to a greater extent. The white people had to be told that what they thought was important was not enough. They had to be told what was happening and what was wrong with it, in moral terms. And when they were told it was uncomfortable, and it was not readily accepted. Well we don't much like change especially change which tends to suggest we have not been very nice for quite a while: and particularly change which demands a shift in the locus of power away from our own group. But the moral case was irresistible. I do not think the main thrust was fear of war nor was it self restraint: it was the clear breach of moral precept that was at the root of this change. though the change itself was legal. By then there was a major shift in prevailing morals of the U.S. under way. The civil rights movement happened during the 50s and 60s about the same time baby boomers were being exposed to new ideas in literature, science and philosophy and also came to voting age. The baby boomers represented a significant portion of the population. They still do.

And there was violence and riots during that time. The government was greatly concerned over what the riots and violence meant or implied. It meant that people were willing to fight and die over the issues.

It was not just soley moral ideals that pushed through many of the laws. There was an element of fear and threat. There was also a significant population who shared moral beliefs and were politicaly active that helped to pass those laws.

And you agree with all of this in another contradiction inside your post. You state that change was based on what you call " idealistic, religious and humanistic reasons." In other words on a moral basis. But that moral basis did not form in a vacuum: they had to be exposed to another point of view because they already had a "moral" basis for slavery: it is supported in the bible, for example. But you say that the existing view of the powerful is the only morality: and in doing so you render such education immoral in itself. Or so it seems to me. I never said that the moral view of the majority couldn't change for one reason or another. I gave an example in this post how the moral view of a majority could change as the population changed from one generation to another. Sometimes being exposed to other ideas and lines of reasoning can cause a change in the prevailing moral belief system. Sometime the change is quick, sometimes it is gradual. Nothing is immutable.

But what is really troubling about your argument is your refusal to make any kind of case which relates to abortion. We are agreed that there are circumstances where individual rights need to be abridged. How about you lay out what those circumstances are in your world, if they are not just might is right? Because that is all you seem to have said so far As I have said before I do not believe that it is right or moral to abort a pregnancy for the simple reason of inconvienence due to a failure to take precausions (failure of the contraceptive is a different issue, pardon the pun) or vanity. I do not think these reasons justify ending the pregnancy. That is my personal moral conviction. I have already laid out why I think this way. I value the human life that may be the end product of that pregancy. I say that it is reasonable to err on the postive in that the pregnancy will produce a child.
I feel that what we can gain from the potential life is worth or is greater than what is lost by temporarily abridging the rights of the woman in this particular instance.

You are free to completely disagree with me. And I do not see you as being immoral for believing other wise. I see the choice made by the woman in that instance as being immoral not necessarily the woman as being immoral. I hope you can see the differnence in that statement.
I also know that I am in the extreme minority for this aprticular belief.

The whole issue becomes moot if and when science can solve the issue by transplant to someone who is willing or have an artifical environment where the devlopment can continue.

uruk

10th March 2009, 05:50 PM

Banning abortion is not going to deal with low birth rates nor with low populations due to war or disaster, Uruk.
It depends on the conditions. I had a friend who's grandfather said that all jewish people should procreate profusely in order to compensate for all those lives lost in WWII because of the holocaust .
He was against any abortion of jewish children. You get enough like minded people together who make up significant portion of whatever remained of the population and you get a mind set that would consider aborting children immoral and possibly illegal.

In the case of endagered species It is illegal to take eggs or interfere with the ability of the species to procreate. It is illegal to even alter thier habitat.

If human beings started to become an endagered species due to disease or climate change or otherwise, a woman might be allowed to abort a pregnancy. Although at that point I don't think that the woman would want to at any rate.

uruk

10th March 2009, 06:13 PM

So if that half doesn't want equal rights then..... you do know how crazy it sounds, right? Do you mean for themselves or for other groups.
If it is the former, I never said or implied that. If it is the latter, It has happend int he past.
By that same logic I can even have the majority vote to impose a dictator. It can happen but it isn't a good idea. They have in the past. That's how Hitler got into power. It wasn't a good idea even then, but that didn't seem to stop them at the time.

Now you're moving the goal posts. First you say that pregnancy and birth is a momentary sacrifice of rights and suffering, with an implied low risk of complications.
When that failed, you compare it to war, which definitely isn't a momentary sacrifice of rights, suffering and has large risks. So I want to know, do you admit that pregnancy and birth isn't such a little thing? I never said that it wasn't a little thing. I brought up the war to show that rights were abridged for even greater dangers to the individual than the one pregnancy presents to the mother. And medical science is improving at a steady rate. In 2000 the death rate due to pregnancy is 1 in 10,000. a woman has a greater chance of dying in an auto accident that dying in childbirth.

I think that giving birth is more hazardous for a woman's health then passing a kidney stone. It wasn't the leading cause of death for adult women in the past for nothing. You said painfull. I recounted an anecdote where a woman said that passing a kidney stone was more painful. And according to statistics it is more hazardous for a woman to be in a car than to give birth.

Those countries also tend to be overpopulated. If a population gets really low then the pressures that made it low will disappear and the population will rise again. Nature can take care of this. It depends on what is reducing the population. Nature couldn't "take care" of those species who went into extiction due to our actions.

Human beings are not so much dependent on nature as we are on "our own devices" and I don't necessarily mean technology.

Doesn't require forced birth. Nature can take care of this. Not necessarily. See my reply to Fiona.

That isn't an actual condition that triggers anything but an very unlikely aftereffect that directly seeks to impose it. Sorry, that was total facetiousness on my part.

Fiona

10th March 2009, 06:52 PM

[QUOTE=Fiona;4503517]
You seem to be confusing what "I" believe is right or wrong on a personal level with what society deems is right or wrong.

No I think it is you who is doing that. Moral and immoral is personal: legal and illegal is societal. I do not think they are the same thing: you are conflating them

Each individual has a sense of what they see as moral and immoral but it does not necessarly reflect what society deems moral and immoral legal and illegal since that is decided as a whole.

Precisely. But I do not think that society deems things moral or immoral: it deems them legal or illegal: that is all a society can do

It just so happens that what ever the majority of the people see as moral gets seen and heard over that of the individual. That is often reflected in our mainstream entertainment and art.

Yes of course. If a lot of individuals think a thing is wrong then they are more likely to get a platform because it is more likely one of them will own one. So what ?

I may see it as being morally wrong by my personal standards but those in authority over me may not. In thier eyes I am moraly wrong.

If they believe you are morally wrong it matters not one iota unless they have made it a legal matter

If I decide to live within that society and they have a specific set of rules in reguard to their moral code legal system I have to abide by those rules wether or not I agree with them. In the case of a democracy or republic I may have avenues in which I can try to over turn the rules I do not agreee with. Or I can just simply move to a country that has morals laws and rules to my liking.

Fixed that for you

<snip>

Please define what you mean by "moral agent" and it's relation to humanity.

See post #169

Are you saying that I am incapable of having morals?

Of course not

I do have morals.

That is good

They may not necessarily be the same as yours or society as a whole.

Direct contradiction of your stated position. If morals are decided by the political power then yours must be the same or they are not morals, by definitin

And I arived at them by the means I mentioned above. I base them on what I find to be important and reasonable and beneficial to human beings as a whole.

You cannot arrive at them that way and at the same time claim morality is what the political power decides it is. It is incoherent

If that means that I believe that I have to suffer for them then so be it.

How could you suffer? If your morals are determined by the political power who would impose suffering upon you?

If it also means that I believe that others have to suffer for them then so be it.

Yes I understand that this is part of your moral code: it is inevitable in any version of the hive mind

I do not wish to impose my moral values on on others. I just wish to live my life by them where they do not uncessarily have to interfere with others.

That is not possible. Your whole argument is based on the idea that morality has no existence outside the political power. Once again there is the bit where you say it and the bit where you take it back. At present you are trying to say that there is no morality except that which is determined by whatever political power is in charge at any given moment: that that political power can do whatever it likes, to whoever it likes. any time it likes: and that is a wholly moral situation. That is obviously not comfortable for you though it is the essence of your position. So now you try to extract yourself from the responsibility of the consequences of your position. You do this by reifying "society" and saying "it wasn't me, guv". Even if that were a tenable position it falls because you also say that society is the people rather than the organisation. So it is you and you cannot get out from under in that way.

How do you decide what you hold to be moral and immoral. What is it that you base them on?

Post #169 and others

Are your morals the same as others or society in general? Do they differ in some fashion? Do they differ a little or a lot?

No idea

I hope that I am not conflating law with morality. I just said that they are arrived at in a society by more or less the same means.

Have to disagree about that: that is exactly what you are doing so far as I can see.

I agree with you here. it is alwasy best when the individual does not have to have his rights suspended. And I agree that on the whole society is striving to improve itself despite our nature and tendancies. I think it bodes well for us as a species.

Well I would say because of our nature and tendencies: but ok

<snip>

Morality is not necessarily dictated by power.

That is my position though I hold it more strongly than that: I do not think morality has anything whatsoever to do with power

It is the number of people in a group or society holding similar moral values that creates a prevailing moral code or system.

Certainly

It is an agregate system. Those that hold differing moral beliefs to the majority get thiers drowned out by the larger group. The exception to this rule are those that are more vocal or active in expressing thier moral beliefs.

Yes

The moral issue of homosexuality is one example. I think that most people don't really believe that homosexuality is immoral. I could be wrong.

No idea. I hope you are right, though

But there are religious beliefs that serve to support those who find it immoral. If you buy into the religious system of beliefs chance are that you will hold that particular moral belief. And because these groups are more politicaly active and organized, they tend to affect politics to a greater degree.

Yes

I mean there are laws passed in some states that make sodomy illegal. It's crazy but there you have the "will" of the people being exercised.

That cannot be true if you are correct in saying that morality consists in the political decisions of the society. It cannot be crazy: it can only be a moral outcome. Just as slavery was moral when that was sanctioned by law. Of course I do not agree with that: for me the law is entirely separate from morality: it is founded on political power. But you argue that any such decision makes the morality: you cannot have it both ways

<snip>

I think that would depend on who you spoke with at the time. What one person sees as moral another may not. Quite a few of our founding fathers saw no issue with it. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin all had slaves. And these are the guys that co-wrote and defended the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

No. I am not such a moral relativist and I think it is incumbent upon us to try to get to some more robust notion of morality than whatever somebody happens to be able to rationalise to themselves. I am not american and so I do not put those folk on any kind of pedestal: they were human and that is all they were. I have no idea how they justified slave owning to themselves: much that we do we do not question, because it does not occur to us to question it. No criticism for that: it is a matter of circumstance and opportunity largely. But that we have not questioned; or that we have found wriggle room for ourselves somehow; does not answer the moral question. If these people truly believed "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves " then they could not defend the morality of slavery. It is impossible. People often say that people in earlier times cannot be judged by our standards: I am judging by their own as professed in this document and in your declaration of independence where it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They knew enough to know it was wrong. I can only think that when they spoke of "men" they did not consider black men to be included. In short they did not see black men as fully human. And this is exactly the same mistake that is now made in relation to women. It is not an unusual mistake as you see: it is still a very grave error.

I never said that the moral view of the majority couldn't change for one reason or another. I gave an example in this post how the moral view of a majority could change as the population changed from one generation to another. Sometimes being exposed to other ideas and lines of reasoning can cause a change in the prevailing moral belief system. Sometime the change is quick, sometimes it is gradual. Nothing is immutable.

No. You argued that morality is wholly defined by the majority view, and it follows that it is immoral to dissent or to propose a different view. If, like me, you separate morals from law then there is no bar to such exchange; and this leaves open the possibility of the kind of change you outline: but if dissent is itself immoral that cannot be admitted.

As I have said before I do not believe that it is right or moral to abort a pregnancy for the simple reason of inconvienence due to a failure to take precausions (failure of the contraceptive is a different issue, pardon the pun) or vanity. I do not think these reasons justify ending the pregnancy. That is my personal moral conviction. I have already laid out why I think this way. I value the human life that may be the end product of that pregancy. I say that it is reasonable to err on the postive in that the pregnancy will produce a child.
I feel that what we can gain from the potential life is worth or is greater than what is lost by temporarily abridging the rights of the woman in this particular instance.

You are free to completely disagree with me. And I do not see you as being immoral for believing other wise. I see the choice made by the woman in that instance as being immoral not necessarily the woman as being immoral. I hope you can see the differnence in that statement.
I also know that I am in the extreme minority for this aprticular belief.

The whole issue becomes moot if and when science can solve the issue by transplant to someone who is willing or have an artifical environment where the devlopment can continue.

I understand this is your view. What you are not doing is showing me any moral principle on which you found. It matters not. If you are sincere in you statement that you have no wish to enshrine your view in law: no desire to act on you belief except in the case of your own pregnancy: then we have no quarrel. I am very sorry that you are unable to understand the profound immorality of your position: but I am sure you feel the same way about mine.

Piero

10th March 2009, 07:51 PM

Like Uruk, I've been learning a lot in this thread, and I think I've managed to reach a more or less coherent position, which I submit in the hope that you'll tear it apart gently.

1. Morality is meaningless for entities incapable of having desires.
2. Blastocists, zygotes and other early stages of embryonic development are incapable of having desires, and are hence non-moral entities.
3. Potential is irrelevant for non-moral entities. My potential matters to me because I can desire to fulfil that potential; the potential to become a human being is irrelevant to a zygote or to any other desire-less thing.
4. Newborn babies have desires, so they must have acquired that capacity in the womb, probably at some time after the 26th week.
5. Men cannot be forced to have babies. So women should not be forced either. Women should have the right to end pregnancies at any time.
6. The termination of a pregnancy can be carried out through abortion if the occupant of the uterus is not a moral entity.
7. If the occupant of the womb is a moral entity and is viable, the pregnancy should be terminated through anticipated delivery.
8. If the occupant of the uterus is a non-viable moral entity, I don't know what the moral thing would be; but the problem will sort itself out when desire-less stages of development become viable ex utero.

Piggy

10th March 2009, 07:54 PM

The Georgia General Assembly, in its infinite wisdom, is currently floating a bill to declare that a human embryo is a person, and destroying one is a crime.

Expected result: All women in the state of Georgia charged with manslaughter.

Foster Zygote

11th March 2009, 06:54 AM

quixotecoyote

11th March 2009, 10:21 AM

AWPrime

11th March 2009, 11:08 AM

Do you mean for themselves or for other groups.
If it is the former, I never said or implied that. If it is the latter, It has happend int he past.
They have in the past. That's how Hitler got into power. It wasn't a good idea even then, but that didn't seem to stop them at the time.Actually you have implied the former, as it takes a true majority to make such changes.

I never said that it wasn't a little thing. I brought up the war to show that rights were abridged for even greater dangers to the individual than the one pregnancy presents to the mother.You have yet to show the need for it.

And medical science is improving at a steady rate. In 2000 the death rate due to pregnancy is 1 in 10,000. a woman has a greater chance of dying in an auto accident that dying in childbirth.If you look at it very simply but we drive all the time, women only give birth a couple of times. And even then these statistic rely on ideal conditions.

It depends on what is reducing the population. Nature couldn't "take care" of those species who went into extiction due to our actions.But do you have any relevant human examples then?

Not necessarily. See my reply to Fiona.
---
It depends on the conditions. I had a friend who's grandfather said that all jewish people should procreate profusely in order to compensate for all those lives lost in WWII because of the holocaust.He was against any abortion of jewish children. You get enough like minded people together who make up significant portion of whatever remained of the population and you get a mind set that would consider aborting children immoral and possibly illegal.First thing first, humanity is anything but endangered. There are some minorities that seek to expand because they are minorities relative to other populations.

In the case of endagered species It is illegal to take eggs or interfere with the ability of the species to procreate. It is illegal to even alter thier habitat.You know it isn't actually illegal for the member of such a endangered species to decide not to procreate. Which is essentially what abortion is.

If human beings started to become an endagered species due to disease or climate change or otherwise, a woman might be allowed to abort a pregnancy. Although at that point I don't think that the woman would want to at any rate.I still don't see how banning abortion would help. In reality women who have the resources to have productive children will have them. It likely smarter to have an abortion during times of starvation, so that after those hard times the mother can have a child with far less risks and with better chances.

Piero

11th March 2009, 01:39 PM

The only criticism that leaps out to me is that 5 seems to belong in a different argument.
Thank you, Quixote.
I was trying to make the point that no human should be told what to do with their bodies, and at the same time call attention to the fact that the biological constraints of reproduction are irrelevant. There must be a better way of putting it.

JoeTheJuggler

11th March 2009, 02:38 PM

The only criticism that leaps out to me is that 5 seems to belong in a different argument.

Ditto.

I think it's very well explained except for point 5.

In fact, point 5 contradicts numbers 6 and 7 --unless you take "can terminate a pregnancy at any time" to mean "must carry the baby until anticipated delivery"--which seems impossible to me.

8. If the occupant of the uterus is a non-viable moral entity, I don't know what the moral thing would be;
As for this last one, I'd say it's the same as triage. If the decision is between a non-viable moral entity and a viable one, you choose in favor of the viable one.

JoeTheJuggler

11th March 2009, 02:46 PM

I was trying to make the point that no human should be told what to do with their bodies,
I think that's an unjustified premise. We (as a society and as governing states or whatever) tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies all the time.

We certainly tell them that they can't kill another moral entity without some justification.

In fact, that's exactly why I always say most "pro-life" people don't really believe that abortion is murder. If so, what is their justification for allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest? Or even for the health concerns of the woman? (Abortion aside, I can't think of any circumstance where I could kill someone to avoid a non-life threatening risk of danger to my health.)

Piero

11th March 2009, 04:30 PM

OK. Let me try again:

1. ...
2. ...
...

5. Women should have the right to end pregnancies at any time, through abortion if the occupant of the uterus is not a moral entity, and through anticipated delivery if it is.
6. If the occupant of the uterus is a non-viable moral entity, I don't know what the moral thing would be. The problem will sort itself out when desire-less stages of development become viable ex utero, but for the time being it would be morally safest for the woman to wait until the occupant is viable.

Joe, do we really tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies all the time? I think the prohibition of murder doesn't really fit here: it is a constraint on actions rather than bodies.

uruk

11th March 2009, 10:17 PM

[QUOTE=uruk;4504456]
No I think it is you who is doing that. Moral and immoral is personal: legal and illegal is societal. I do not think they are the same thing: you are conflating them Some of not most laws are based on moral beliefs. I understand that laws and morals are two separate things, but one has an effect on the other.

Precisely. But I do not think that society deems things moral or immoral: it deems them legal or illegal: that is all a society can do When the individual morals of a large group of people coincide there is a prevailing moral compass to that group. Indoctrination and peer pressure to others in the group strengthen that "societal" moral direction. You see those group morals appear in literature and enterainment. And the laws created by that group often reflect those group morals.

Yes of course. If a lot of individuals think a thing is wrong then they are more likely to get a platform because it is more likely one of them will own one. So what ? The morality of the majority is often the morality of the land.

If they believe you are morally wrong it matters not one iota unless they have made it a legal matter As I mentioned before laws are often based on the morality of the land which is usually the morality of the majority.

Fixed that for you If you say so. If you live within a society that has a prevailing moralty that is not in line with your own you often has a tough time of coexisting with the members of that society.

Direct contradiction of your stated position. If morals are decided by the political power then yours must be the same or they are not morals, by definitin No. I said the morals (or more precisely the morals of the land) are decided by the majority of a society. If your morals are different then that of the society that you live in, you will find life difficult for you. Look at the problem groups like homosexuals had to live with.

You cannot arrive at them that way and at the same time claim morality is what the political power decides it is. It is incoherent I did not say political power. It just so happens that the majority usually has the political power. Just look at the U.S. house and senate. One political group is in the majority at the moment. It also happens that these two political groups have some differeing moral beliefs that are affecting policies. And you know very well that the political activist group known as the pro-lifers are attempting to affect policies based on thier moral convictions.
I honest can't understand how you do not see the link between morals and law.

How could you suffer? If your morals are determined by the political power who would impose suffering upon you? As I mentioned before, if my morals are differnent than that of the prevailing moral convictions of the people in a society I can have difficulty coexisting with those people. Some would condem me socialy, others would ignore me when I am need of help or services. These people could make life difficult for me.

I mean look at what happens to a woman who chooses to talk to a man who is not member of her family in some countries.

Yes I understand that this is part of your moral code: it is inevitable in any version of the hive mind It is the consequence of living with a group of people. or in a society.

That is not possible. Your whole argument is based on the idea that morality has no existence outside the political power. Once again there is the bit where you say it and the bit where you take it back. At present you are trying to say that there is no morality except that which is determined by whatever political power is in charge at any given moment: that that political power can do whatever it likes, to whoever it likes. any time it likes: and that is a wholly moral situation. That is obviously not comfortable for you though it is the essence of your position. So now you try to extract yourself from the responsibility of the consequences of your position. You do this by reifying "society" and saying "it wasn't me, guv". Even if that were a tenable position it falls because you also say that society is the people rather than the organisation. So it is you and you cannot get out from under in that way. Look, you are the one who is claiming that I said morals are decided by political power. I am not making that claim. I said the morals are decided by the people in a society. Almost always it is the majority of the people who determine that moral code by the shear fact that the majority shares the same moral conviction.

If a social group is composed of individuals and the majority of those individuals share the same moral convictions then what is the moral convictions of that social group? You are going to have to average them out and the view held by the majority is what you are going to say is the moral code of the social group. Makes sense doesn't it?

And guess who's voice is going to be heard when the rules or laws are created for that group? That is why I say that morals and laws come from essentialy the same source.

That cannot be true if you are correct in saying that morality consists in the political decisions of the society. It cannot be crazy: it can only be a moral outcome. Just as slavery was moral when that was sanctioned by law. Of course I do not agree with that: for me the law is entirely separate from morality: it is founded on political power. But you argue that any such decision makes the morality: you cannot have it both ways I say it sounds crazy to me and possibly you because I believe that we do not share the same belief as the group who managed to get the laws passed.

Obviously to those who passed the law it is not crazy to them. In fact it is a perfectly moral law in thier eyes. Just as slavery was perfectly moral to those who believed in it.

I'm sure you agree that everyone have different morals right? Then why do you find it difficult to see that people who have different morals find thier beliefs perfectly moral even though you don't see thier beliefs as moral? As I mentioned before there are things that we find immoral now that were moral in the past. It wasn't untill some like minded people made convincing arguments against the old moral beliefs. Once the people came around to thier line of thinking the morals changed.

No. I am not such a moral relativist and I think it is incumbent upon us to try to get to some more robust notion of morality than whatever somebody happens to be able to rationalise to themselves. I am not american and so I do not put those folk on any kind of pedestal: they were human and that is all they were. I have no idea how they justified slave owning to themselves: much that we do we do not question, because it does not occur to us to question it. No criticism for that: it is a matter of circumstance and opportunity largely. But that we have not questioned; or that we have found wriggle room for ourselves somehow; does not answer the moral question. If these people truly believed "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves " then they could not defend the morality of slavery. It is impossible. People often say that people in earlier times cannot be judged by our standards: I am judging by their own as professed in this document and in your declaration of independence where it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

They knew enough to know it was wrong. I can only think that when they spoke of "men" they did not consider black men to be included. In short they did not see black men as fully human. And this is exactly the same mistake that is now made in relation to women. It is not an unusual mistake as you see: it is still a very grave error. That was one of the central issues that got people to change thier beliefs on slavery. Some individuals made the argument that the slaves were people. It was a shift in thinking that started the ball rolling and the shift in moral belief.
It is easy to enslave or subjugate a person when you do not see them as a person.
What really shocking is that you still hear that idea still being thrown around by certain groups. I believe someone quoted Bush Sr. as saying that he believed that athiests should not be considered as American or even as people. I don't how true that statement is, but it is troublesome if true.

And I agree that in many cultures, and even to some degree in this culture, women are seen as a second class or of less value than males.

No. You argued that morality is wholly defined by the majority view, and it follows that it is immoral to dissent or to propose a different view. If, like me, you separate morals from law then there is no bar to such exchange; and this leaves open the possibility of the kind of change you outline: but if dissent is itself immoral that cannot be admitted. Not wholly, Just more often that not. It is can be considered immoral to dissent in the eyes of those you are dissenting against. I am not saying that it is right or wrong. In our country dissent is allowed just so long as violence is not instigated. And our government has avenues in which to dissent peacefully and in case sucessfully.

I understand this is your view. What you are not doing is showing me any moral principle on which you found. It matters not. If you are sincere in you statement that you have no wish to enshrine your view in law: no desire to act on you belief except in the case of your own pregnancy: then we have no quarrel. I am very sorry that you are unable to understand the profound immorality of your position: but I am sure you feel the same way about mine. The moral that life is important and should be preserved when possible.

I have no desire to codify my morals into laws. As I mention before I would preferr that the woman choose to do so of her own free will. As a duty to life.

This just proves that we have differring morals in this instance. You see my belief as being immoral. I do not.
And so far you will find that the majority of Americans share your particular moral belief in this particular instance. That is why Rowe vs. Wade is still law. And the minority who disagrees can't change it.

Fiona

12th March 2009, 03:06 AM

[QUOTE=Fiona;4504740] Some of not most laws are based on moral beliefs. I understand that laws and morals are two separate things, but one has an effect on the other.

Well that is a shift in your position. I think. The following quote, and others, are what led me to my perceptions that you did not in fact see law and morals as two separate things

Morality is also decided upon by the people. There are many things now that we view as being immoral such as slavery, polygamy, marrige at young age, etc. that were perfectly moral in the past.

If you now accept the difference we can agree :)

When the individual morals of a large group of people coincide there is a prevailing moral compass to that group. Indoctrination and peer pressure to others in the group strengthen that "societal" moral direction. You see those group morals appear in literature and enterainment. And the laws created by that group often reflect those group morals.

Yes. I said as much in post #134 and elsewhere

Our legal system reflects the values in our society, though imperfectly That different societies do not agree is not a surprise because values differ. One thing that feeds into that is our moral conclusions: and that is why this kind of issue matters. The legal system is not arbitrary: for myself I would hesitate to remove moral discourse from that realm because some very nasty things are both easier and cheaper. Why do we bother with a trial - the red queen's approach would do the job just as well if we have no concern for the rule of law: which is a moral value in itself, I think

The morality of the majority is often the morality of the land.

Not sure what you mean. If you mean that those moral judgements which are shared by a majority are the moral judgements the majority share: then that is undeniable; but it is, as you see, a tautology.

If you mean that the moral judgements of the majority are enshrined in the law of the land, then no. That is the point of my example of slavery in the US, which was legal though the moral values of the majority, as enshrined in the declaration of independence and the constitution were wholly against it. You may say the law reflected the moral views of the majority, and the constitution etc did not: but I disagree. I do see that you use the word "often" so perhaps you think that is a rare exception. I don't.

The reason I don't is because I think that the moral views of the majority were indeed enshrined in the constitution etc: which is why those views prevailed in the end. The laws which allowed slavery were not based on morality at all: as is often the case those who sought to uphold them did look for some moral justification, and some found it in biblical authority: they were driven to do that because the moral foundation was being questioned, I think. And of course the biblical authority is shaky even if you are a christian, as most religious would now accept.

As I mentioned before laws are often based on the morality of the land which is usually the morality of the majority.

*sighs* Land does not have morality either

On the substantive point I think you are trying to make: no. As is implicit from what I have said above, most law is not based on morality though it is informed by it as one factor amongst many.

For most of us we find ourselves in moral comfort so long as we can keep things in separate compartments and not examine how one moral value impacts on others: we do this all the time because we cannot examine everything, and so some things are unquestioned. In my country their is a saying which covers one of the reasons for this: we say "it's aye been". Thus tradition and custom protect certain decisions from moral consideration though such things as cultural transmission.

In the case of slavery, we seem to be agreed that most people believed the precepts in the declaration of independence but they did not apply those precepts to black people. My point is that slavery was immoral within the moral system held by most individuals in the society: but the institution could exist because the question was not seen as a moral question at all: it was in a different box, probably marked " we have always done it this way"; or "we can't afford to think about that because a change would lead to the breakdown of <my income>/ <society> : or any number of other justifications which do not stand up to moral scrutiny.

So law does not reflect the moral values of most individuals in society a lot of the time: but when it does not then we can effect change by showing it does not. Within limits of course, because many other factors are in play including selfishness; and the institutional mechanisms which are in place to effect change

If you say so. If you live within a society that has a prevailing moralty that is not in line with your own you often has a tough time of coexisting with the members of that society.

Sure. As I said before, there are many instances where the political power or even the majority has killed someone whom we recognise as admirable for their moral fortitude. Most of us do not have that kind of courage: but we value it, do we not?

No. I said the morals (or more precisely the morals of the land) are decided by the majority of a society. If your morals are different then that of the society that you live in, you will find life difficult for you. Look at the problem groups like homosexuals had to live with.

Uruk, pause a moment. Ask yourself why you have shifted from using the "morals of society" and to "the morals of the land". It is frustrating for me because you seem to concede a point then you re-introduce it in another form of words. You did this earlier in your discussion with Mattus and I venture to say it annoyed him too ( he will correct me if I am wrong). We cannot get on if you keep doing this. So how about you now show what on earth can possibly be meant by "the morals of the land": If what you mean is that people share some moral positions: then yes. We are all moral agents so we reach moral judgments on some issues. And since there are not an infinite number of possible conclusions then some of us will come to the same conclusion and some will reach different ones. It follows that on any given issue it is likely that a majority will agree and a minority disagree about those conclusions. And since we are a self righteous lot we may take any instance where we agree with the majority as justification for bad behaviour directed against those we disapprove of. Uncomfortable for the minority, certainly. But it is not serious if it is not law. Your own example shows this. Do you not agree that the change in the laws against homosexuality have improved their situation? That laws which have been passed to protect them against direct discrimination have made a positive impact? Law cannot change the self righteous and cannot make things perfect: but the religious right accept that their disapproval is much less significant if they do not have the backing of the law: that is why they work so hard to get their bigotry enshrined in statute.

I did not say political power. It just so happens that the majority usually has the political power. Just look at the U.S. house and senate. One political group is in the majority at the moment. It also happens that these two political groups have some differeing moral beliefs that are affecting policies. And you know very well that the political activist group known as the pro-lifers are attempting to affect policies based on thier moral convictions.
I honest can't understand how you do not see the link between morals and law.

I sometimes wonder if you read what I say. I hope this is cleared up now. But for the avoidance of doubt: that people wish to enshrine their morals in the law is evidence of the crucial difference between morality and law. Morals are individual: law is group action. They are not identical and you cannot conflate them.

As I mentioned before, if my morals are differnent than that of the prevailing moral convictions of the people in a society I can have difficulty coexisting with those people. Some would condem me socialy, others would ignore me when I am need of help or services. These people could make life difficult for me

I mean look at what happens to a woman who chooses to talk to a man who is not member of her family in some countries.

Yes. There are bigots everywhere. Sometimes they burn people.

The institution of the family is not society, though again the powers of the family vis a vis the powers of the state is a matter determined by law. Many believe that interference in family life is not a matter for the state: others do not. I personally believe that how the rights of the powerless or of the minority are protected is the measure of civilisation. We cannot stop people being unkind but we can definitely stop them burning people if we choose.

It is the consequence of living with a group of people. or in a society.

No.

<snip> A lot of stuff already addressed

The moral that life is important and should be preserved when possible.

I have no desire to codify my morals into laws. As I mention before I would preferr that the woman choose to do so of her own free will. As a duty to life.

This just proves that we have differring morals in this instance. You see my belief as being immoral. I do not.
And so far you will find that the majority of Americans share your particular moral belief in this particular instance. That is why Rowe vs. Wade is still law. And the minority who disagrees can't change it.

Your final sentence seems to me to demonstrate that you have not begun to understand the moral case I am arguing. I do not know how to get you to think about it for I have explained it as well as I can and my powers of communication are inadequate to the task. Oh well. :)

uruk

12th March 2009, 06:54 AM

Actually you have implied the former, as it takes a true majority to make such changes. What did you mean by "half do not want equal rights"? For themselves or for others?

yet to show the need for it. Well obviously present conditions do not call for it. I am just saying that there may be some condition that may call for it.

And what I think some people fail to see that the opposite conditions that I mention also can cause the rights of a woman to be abridged. Presently China has laws in place that prevent the woman from having more than one child. The conditions in thier society have caused those in charge to abridge the rights of the woman.

There is not much of a difference between forcing a woman to not to have a baby and forcing a woman to have a baby. The end result are the same concerning her rights .

If you look at it very simply but we drive all the time, women only give birth a couple of times. And even then these statistic rely on ideal conditions. That is irrelevent. The point is that we do risky things all the time. Sometimes we are forced to do them.

But do you have any relevant human examples then? Any condition that can lead human beings into extinction or near exitinction. Some have claimed global warming has the capability to do so. There is also the possibility of asteroid impact, (asteroids have been the cause of at least two mass extinctions) ecological disasters, super virus, (The black plague wiped out a significant portion of the population of Europe. And there already are mutated viruses and bacteria that are becoming resistant to vaccination and anti-biotics) and nuclear exchange. Those ae just a few that i can think of off the top of my head.

First thing first, humanity is anything but endangered. There are some minorities that seek to expand because they are minorities relative to other populations. No we are not endagered at the present time. You asked me for cases where humanities number may be reduced to detrimental levels. I gave you an example where a group felt the need for increasing thier numbers by whatever means necessary. If you apply that line of thinking to a condition where humanity's numbers as a whole are severly reduced by some cause that could lead to some abridging of rights.
It has happend in China for the opposite reason. Thier numbers are too many so they have abridged rights in hopes of reducing that number.

You know it isn't actually illegal for the member of such a endangered species to decide not to procreate. Which is essentially what abortion is. Well if they were self aware enough and had the capability of abstract thought like laws and morals they just might make it illegal. You forget that abortion was at one time illegal because of the prevailing line of thought of the culture.

I still don't see how banning abortion would help. In reality women who have the resources to have productive children will have them. It likely smarter to have an abortion during times of starvation, so that after those hard times the mother can have a child with far less risks and with better chances. I agree with you in the case of starvation.
But the conditions might be different if the threat was due to something other than the lack of resources.

AWPrime

12th March 2009, 11:18 AM

What did you mean by "half do not want equal rights"? For themselves or for others?Please don't tell me you forgot..... I was talking about the female half of humanity voting their own rights away.

Well obviously present conditions do not call for it. I am just saying that there may be some condition that may call for it.And there might someday come a day where we need giant bunny painted pink mirrors in lunar orbit. Its unlikely but there may be some condition that may call for it.

There is not much of a difference between forcing a woman to not to have a baby and forcing a woman to have a baby. The end result are the same concerning her rights .Although the effect is very different. A longing vs being overburdened.

That is irrelevent. The point is that we do risky things all the time. Sometimes we are forced to do them.Its very relevant, the previous comparison couldn't be compared because the situation is just so different. When talking about danger, one should take care to factor in time exposure and surrounding conditions.

Any condition that can lead human beings into extinction or near exitinction. Some have claimed global warming has the capability to do so. There is also the possibility of asteroid impact, (asteroids have been the cause of at least two mass extinctions) ecological disasters, super virus, (The black plague wiped out a significant portion of the population of Europe. And there already are mutated viruses and bacteria that are becoming resistant to vaccination and anti-biotics) and nuclear exchange. Those ae just a few that i can think of off the top of my head. All of these are quite unlikely, and even then banning abortion won't do a thing.

Well if they were self aware enough and had the capability of abstract thought like laws and morals they just might make it illegal.If they were self-aware, they would likely value the person above mere flesh.

You forget that abortion was at one time illegal because of the prevailing line of thought of the culture.You're actually kinda wrong about that, that thought is usually imposed by an small interest group. When such a group loses power the anti-abortion stance goes away very quickly.

I agree with you in the case of starvation. But the conditions might be different if the threat was due to something other than the lack of resources.Most threats cause a lack of resources.

uruk

12th March 2009, 05:21 PM

If you mean that the moral judgements of the majority are enshrined in the law of the land, then no. That is the point of my example of slavery in the US, which was legal though the moral values of the majority, as enshrined in the declaration of independence and the constitution were wholly against it. You may say the law reflected the moral views of the majority, and the constitution etc did not: but I disagree. I do see that you use the word "often" so perhaps you think that is a rare exception. I don't.The words of the document themselves do not enshrine the moral values so much as it is how the people interpret the words of the law. The end of slavery came about because of the shift in interpretation of key words with in the document. "All men" at first did not mean to include slaves, people of non-european decent and to a large degree at the time, women by some of the people who framed the constitution.(you see this attitude reflected in the personal writings and biographies of the founding fathers of the constitution) They were denied much of what the initial interpretation of the document gave to white, land owning males at that time. When the line of thinking of the majority of the people shifted so did the prevailing morals and so did the interpretation of the words of the document. In fact policy making and enforcment is all about interpretation of the words of the law. Debates over the first and fourth amendments are about interpretation of the what the framers meant in both words and intention.

The reason I don't is because I think that the moral views of the majority were indeed enshrined in the constitution etc: which is why those views prevailed in the end. The laws which allowed slavery were not based on morality at all: as is often the case those who sought to uphold them did look for some moral justification, and some found it in biblical authority: they were driven to do that because the moral foundation was being questioned, I think. And of course the biblical authority is shaky even if you are a christian, as most religious would now accept. I agree for the most part. Especially about the using religious beliefs as justification. It is used as justification for many a line of faulty reasoning and atrocities. I used to say that I had nothing against god but I hated religion. I have since change my stance to "I hate what people do with religion".

But my point of contention is still that it is the shift in interpretation of the constitution that was instrumental in abolishing slavery. It was the change in the definition or interpretation of the word "men" in the constitution. Remember that some of the framers were in support of slavery and some were not. You can argue that the two factions compromised by using the word "men" in the generic, metaphysical sense (rather than specificaly stating who they meant) and left it up to future generations to interpret that as they situation dictated.
To me, that seems to be one of the strengths of the constitution. They made the wording vague enough so that it left room for interpretation depending on whatever situation that faced the nation at various points in time and hoped that cooler and more intelligent minds prevailed. They even created a branch of government that would constantly debate over the meaning of the constitution in relation to policies.

*sighs* Land does not have morality either Sorry for the confusion, I meant the prevailing morals of the majority or the common morals shared by the majority. But I think that you really knew what I meant.

On the substantive point I think you are trying to make: no. As is implicit from what I have said above, most law is not based on morality though it is informed by it as one factor amongst many. I may be wrong for using the word "most", but you do see the that there is a link between morals and some laws.

For most of us we find ourselves in moral comfort so long as we can keep things in separate compartments and not examine how one moral value impacts on others: we do this all the time because we cannot examine everything, and so some things are unquestioned. In my country their is a saying which covers one of the reasons for this: we say "it's aye been". Thus tradition and custom protect certain decisions from moral consideration though such things as cultural transmission. I agree with you here. It is a natural condition of humanity and a consequence of living in a society. Such moral conflicts or the need for examination never arise until an individual or a group with a different moral conviction or value or thier consideration or coexistance within the group requires a re-examination of the prevailing morals. There are many other factors both pragmatic and idealistc that also have an effect on the system.

We use the same argument in our country as well. One of the arguments against gay marriges is that "marriage" has "always been" defined as a union between a man and a woman. It is a weak argument because definitions change all the time. At one time the word "men" in our constitution was not defined to include people of African decent, other non-white races and women. The definition has since been changed.

In the case of slavery, we seem to be agreed that most people believed the precepts in the declaration of independence but they did not apply those precepts to black people. My point is that slavery was immoral within the moral system held by most individuals in the society: but the institution could exist because the question was not seen as a moral question at all: it was in a different box, probably marked " we have always done it this way"; or "we can't afford to think about that because a change would lead to the breakdown of <my income>/ <society> : or any number of other justifications which do not stand up to moral scrutiny. I agree with alot of what you wrote here.

But those who were pro slavery at the time did not see a moral problem because they did not see slaves as being human or as important or of the same value as other people of thier kind. They use many justifications including religeous, economic, legal interpretations, moral interpretations, scientific interpretaions, tradition, etc. Many groups still use similar sources of justifications to support thier socio-political views. Everything form abortion to gun control to immigration to human rights etc. My point here is that they never saw slavery as a moral question because it fell within thier moral belief system. They even felt keeping slaves was moral because they believed the slaves were incapable of caring or even thinking for themselves. They were viewed as being nothing more than cattle. You used the cattle but you had to see after their care. Obviously thier line of reasoning did not stand up to closer scrutiny considering that thier beliefs concerning the slaves were incorrect on several other levels and not just only by our present moral view on slavery. The opposing moral views on slavery was supported by those facts that went against the slaver owners reasoning.
But I think that is pretty much what you are saying also.

But my argument was never that the prevailing morals of a society defined the "rightness" or "wrongness" of one moral compared to another. I was just saying that what the morals are that are held by the majority of a society deterimined what social interactions, and in some cases laws, that were appllied to the whole of that group or society. Rightness and wrongness are determined by several other factors than just personal points of view.

So law does not reflect the moral values of most individuals in society a lot of the time: but when it does not then we can effect change by showing it does not. Within limits of course, because many other factors are in play including selfishness; and the institutional mechanisms which are in place to effect change I agree for the most part except that I believe that some laws do reflect the moral values of most of the individuals in a society. I think that there are some laws that just about everyone can agree on and can say that it reflects thier personal convictions. The devil is in the details though.

Sure. As I said before, there are many instances where the political power or even the majority has killed someone whom we recognise as admirable for their moral fortitude. Most of us do not have that kind of courage: but we value it, do we not? Sure. Our history is repleat with those instances

Uruk, pause a moment. Ask yourself why you have shifted from using the "morals of society" and to "the morals of the land". It is frustrating for me because you seem to concede a point then you re-introduce it in another form of words. You did this earlier in your discussion with Mattus and I venture to say it annoyed him too ( he will correct me if I am wrong). We cannot get on if you keep doing this. So how about you now show what on earth can possibly be meant by "the morals of the land": If what you mean is that people share some moral positions: then yes. We are all moral agents so we reach moral judgments on some issues. Sorry I was using both terms interchangebly. "Morals of the land" was meant to mean the "prevailing moral beliefs of the majority" or more precisely, the " common moral belifes shared by the majority". It was fewer words to type. Please forgive my lazyness. If you are confused by the wording I will cease using the "morals of the land".

And since there are not an infinite number of possible conclusions then some of us will come to the same conclusion and some will reach different ones. It follows that on any given issue it is likely that a majority will agree and a minority disagree about those conclusions. And since we are a self righteous lot we may take any instance where we agree with the majority as justification for bad behaviour directed against those we disapprove of. Uncomfortable for the minority, certainly. But it is not serious if it is not law. Your own example shows this. Do you not agree that the change in the laws against homosexuality have improved their situation? That laws which have been passed to protect them against direct discrimination have made a positive impact? Law cannot change the self righteous and cannot make things perfect: but the religious right accept that their disapproval is much less significant if they do not have the backing of the law: that is why they work so hard to get their bigotry enshrined in statute. Agreed. And if they manage to sway enough minds and gain enough political power they can manage to get the law changed if not the moral view.

I sometimes wonder if you read what I say. I hope this is cleared up now. But for the avoidance of doubt: that people wish to enshrine their morals in the law is evidence of the crucial difference between morality and law. Morals are individual: law is group action. They are not identical and you cannot conflate them. I do read them and it may be that I do not fully understand or misinterpret what it is you are trying to say. For that I can only appologise. I do disagree with a few things you say but that is the great diversity of humanity that makes living interesting. I agree that morals are individual. I think that you agree that when several individuals share the same morals beliefs, thier actions can be driven as a group based on those beliefs. And sometimes those actions can be against some groups who do not share those moral beliefs. I believe thatour history is well peppered with many instances of that behaiviour.

I do agree that morals and laws are different. But I think that you agree that there are some laws that are based on some moral beliefs.

If there is nothing more to clarify between us, I would like to thank you for a very interesting discussion. I have learned a great deal from our discourse and I hope that I have at the very least given you some small measure of entertainment if not any sort of illumination. It has been my pleasure.

uruk

12th March 2009, 06:31 PM

Please don't tell me you forgot..... I was talking about the female half of humanity voting their own rights away. Well there are women who are pro-lifers that seem willing to do so.They qare willing to give up something for what they believe.

[qutoe]And there might someday come a day where we need giant bunny painted pink mirrors in lunar orbit. Its unlikely but there may be some condition that may call for it.[/quote] Facetiousness aside, I am sorry that I am not as certain about the future that you appear to be.

Athough the effect is very different. A longing vs being overburdened. It not just an issue of longing. Family land and farms are dissapearing in China because the single child that is allowed to a family would rather leave to the city than take over the family farm. There is a reason that people in certain cultures like to have large families that have nothing to do with longing and more to do with the survival of the family and other pragmatic reasons.

Its very relevant, the previous comparison couldn't be compared because the situation is just so different. When talking about danger, one should take care to factor in time exposure and surrounding conditions. The comparison is still valid dispite the differences. You asked for a situation where the rights of the individual were suspended inspite of the risk to the individual. So does the driving statistics. The situation is actually worse for the soldier and the statistics are greater for driving because soldier is under greater threat than the mother who is giving birth and people drive more often than give birth. An indivual woman drives more often that she gives birth. She has a greater chance of dieing in a car accident than dieing while giving birth to a child.

All of these are quite unlikely, and even then banning abortion won't do a thing. All those thing have the possibility of severly reducing human population. Some of them have happend in the past and some have experts shouting from the mountain tops of the probabilities of the others so the possibility exists. Why do you think that these are all issues that are on the minds of these experts? The CDC is greatly concered about the outbreak of a super virus or a massive epidemic. Read thier literature.
And as for endagered species, we treat each egg and embryo as if it was as precious as gold. Don't you think that if our numbers were so severly reduced that we may treat ours as such?

If they were self-aware, they would likely value the person above mere flesh.
Possibly, but if there number were so few they would place a higher value on those mear lumps of cells as biologists do to the "lump of cells" of and endangered species.

You're actually kinda wrong about that, that thought is usually imposed by an small interest group. When such a group loses power the anti-abortion stance goes away very quickly. You actually have it the other way around. By the 1820s and 1860's most states had laws against abortion. There were even feminists of that era who argued against abortion. Susan B Anthony was one of them. It was acutally small groups of activists that pushed to have the laws changed.

Most threats cause a lack of resources. Most do. Some do not. The Aztecs died out due to epidemic. Thier fields went fallow because there was no one left strong enough to tend them. Same thing happend to some east coast indian tribes after the first encounter with Europeans. After the tribes died out, the subsequent colonists found large areas land already cleared out for farming that had used to be farmed by the now extinct tribe.
The resources were there, there was not enough people to use them.

Fiona

13th March 2009, 02:55 AM

AWPrime

13th March 2009, 01:32 PM

Well there are women who are pro-lifers that seem willing to do so.They qare willing to give up something for what they believe.Pro-lifers are a vocal minority. And in that group most of them are sanctimonious jerks, that will still have abortions in secret. The true believers are usually the brainwashed ones from fanatical groups.

It not just an issue of longing. Family land and farms are dissapearing in China because the single child that is allowed to a family would rather leave to the city than take over the family farm. There is a reason that people in certain cultures like to have large families that have nothing to do with longing and more to do with the survival of the family and other pragmatic reasons.Maybe you didn't know this but in rural areas of china, people are usually allowed to have more children. And entire families move to the cities because there is more work there.

The comparison is still valid dispite the differences.Only if you make them comparible, like I did.

You asked for a situation where the rights of the individual were suspended inspite of the risk to the individual. So does the driving statistics. The situation is actually worse for the soldier and the statistics are greater for driving because soldier is under greater threat than the mother who is giving birth and people drive more often than give birth. An indivual woman drives more often that she gives birth. She has a greater chance of dieing in a car accident than dieing while giving birth to a child.If she drive as often as she gave birth them her chances of dying in childbirth are higher then during driving a car. It can even be more dangerous then being a soldier.

All those thing have the possibility of severly reducing human population. Some of them have happend in the past and some have experts shouting from the mountain tops of the probabilities of the others so the possibility exists. Why do you think that these are all issues that are on the minds of these experts? The CDC is greatly concered about the outbreak of a super virus or a massive epidemic. Read thier literature.You need to know the differences between disasters and extinctions. Most societies will be broken by disasters but humanity will survive. Banning abortion doesn't make a difference here.

And as for endagered species, we treat each egg and embryo as if it was as precious as gold. Don't you think that if our numbers were so severly reduced that we may treat ours as such?If humanity has a population below 30000 persons. But then again something that could cause such an extreme reduction is likely to kill every human before nine months are up.

You actually have it the other way around. By the 1820s and 1860's most states had laws against abortion. There were even feminists of that era who argued against abortion. Susan B Anthony was one of them. It was acutally small groups of activists that pushed to have the laws changed.And yet America was one of the most religious countries around (guess who imposes and reinforces anti-abortion thinking).
And even today it is mostly the countries with strong religious authorities or groups that have anti-abortion laws. Its more about the survival of a meme then the human species.

Most do. Some do not. The Aztecs died out due to epidemic. Thier fields went fallow because there was no one left strong enough to tend them. Same thing happend to some east coast indian tribes after the first encounter with Europeans. After the tribes died out, the subsequent colonists found large areas land already cleared out for farming that had used to be farmed by the now extinct tribe.
The resources were there, there was not enough people to use them.Banning abortion couldn't help them now could it?

--In Short--

Your argument seems to revolve around the fact that there may some day be a huge need to ban abortion.

However banning abortion doesn't help in any of the named situations, in some it can even be detrimental to the survival of the human race/specific society.

Piero

13th March 2009, 04:18 PM

Uruk, I've been going through your posts and can make no sense of your argument from extinction. Even if there was a real danger of humanity going extinct, what has that got to do with abortion? Do you think women should be forced to provide replacement parts for the body politic? Why? I would understand your arguing against actions that could lead to mass extinction, but surely the extinction of the human race, if it ever happens, will not be brought about by pregnant women; so why should they be held responsible for preventing it?
Besides, why is preventing extinction such an overriding goal? If the human race ever reaches a point where it is thought acceptable to force women to have babies, then I don't think there are very many good reasons why that race should be worthy of survival.

Sun Countess

13th March 2009, 06:05 PM

Have you read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood? In a post-apocalyptic time, very few women are left with the ability to bear children, so they're enslaved by the upper class and forced to bear the men's children and give them to their wives to raise. Broodmares basically, copulating and breeding against their will. Not a nice picture really.

Honestly, no matter how dire things got, there would still be plenty of women willing to bear children to stave off extinction. How could it possibly be moral to trample over the rights of each individual woman to make those choices for herself?

Piero

14th March 2009, 07:35 AM

Fiona

14th March 2009, 01:21 PM

Great book, though!

Piero

14th March 2009, 09:49 PM

I'm sure it is. But reality is horrible enough, so I don't think I'll read it.

uruk

16th March 2009, 11:18 PM

Well thank you for your courtesy Uruk. Unfortunately, for me that whole exchange was necessary because the assumptions underpinning your point were not clear to at least one of us.

As I understand it you now accept that morality and law are not the same thing: and you agree that moral discourse is one factor among many which inform how we make our law. You agree that morals are a feature of the individual and not of the group. And you agree that it is possible to come to a moral conclusion at odds with the view of the political power.

You also seem to accept that the law can be changed when people recognise that what they are doing is at odds with their moral judgement: and that what is necessary for this to happen is for some to show that this is the case. I have always thought this. I am sorry if I implied otherwise. Perhaps I am not that clear when I form my sentances. But I have also notices in the many debates and discussion I've had is that people tend to wrongly attribute false arguments and views to the other side of the discussion. I'm sure it is mostly due to the nature of communication.

What you do not do is address what follows from this. You have accepted that might does not make right and yet your whole subsequent argument is founded on the fact that groups of people do horrible things to some of the population, some of the time, in some places. That is a fact. It is not right and you know it is not right. I do not understand why you are trying to establish that fact, which is not in dispute. On the basis of your own position now, it is utterly irrelevant. I have never claimed that "right makes right". What I've been saying is that "might" usually gets its way, right or wrong.

So what are you saying Uruk? I can only see a few possibilities:

1. You believe that law is backed by force and that "might is right", so we should never try to oppose that law. Put like that it is clearly wrong but that is a strong thread in our culture:at its most respectable it is predicated on the idea that Laura Norder is more important than individuals, and so the suffering and injustice experienced by some people is not important. I never said that we should never try to oppose law.
And in all societies there exists eliteisim. I am not saying that I agree with eliteisim. I am saying that it exists in practically all societies. In a elitists societies some people are viewed as being more important than others and thier rights are usually placed over those who are deemed less important. AWPrime argues that an adult is more important in society than the youth. The younger you are and less educated the the less you are worth.

That does seem to be what you are trying to say in some of your posts. It is a position I profoundly disagree with and I will lay my cards on the table: it can only be held by those who cannot imagine it is their rights which will be abridged in order to maintain the status quo, IMO. There are a few exceptions and you have said you are one of them: fair enough. But forgive me if I have some doubt I think we all realize that we have to give up some of our rights to exist in a society. It is the nature of human interaction. The rights we have to give up change from time to time depending the on the time, conditions and the views of the public.

That is not to say that Law and Order are not valuable: they are very valuable indeed. But they are not to be bought out of someone else's purse for two reasons: a) it is immoral: and b) it is ineffective. People will put up with a lot of injustice to live in peace; but they will not accept everything and where a a group self identifies and suffers serious disadvantage for the benefit of others, they will eventually object. They will first object peacefully and will show what is wrong with the situation if they can: and later they will object violently. To that extent your point about the fear of rebellion as a motivator for justice is correct: but it is not the most important thing. We should be able to avoid that outcome because we can recognise an immoral position when it is drawn to our attention and we can change it. You have just described reality. These things have happend in the past some are still continuing to this day. Sometimes we come to the realzation of the immorality, if not the "wrongness", of a law and change it before civil unrest occurs. Other times it has to be forced.

But you say that is not your position so what else can it be?

2. Might is not right but unfortunately this is the way human beings are made and it is neither possible nor sensible to try to change the fact. This is also in line with some of your statements because you have said that rights are only those things granted by the political power or the group. So there are no rights at all. We exist at the whim of those with power and we have our being at their pleasure. Rights are granted. They have to be delineated in documents and admendments and court rulings. History has shown that rights are doled out by those in power. There are some that argue that rights are god given or inherent but the fact of the matter is that if other people do not recognize your rights and behaive accordingly, you effectively do not have them. In those situation you are left to fight for them.

Let me be clear here, I am not saying that I condone this or say that is how things should be or that we should just accept this situation or should never fight for any rights that we feel are wrongfully denied us. I am just saying that this is simply how things are.

This is also true in some places and at some times: most obviously in time of war. But despite what some like to have us believe, most people are not at war most of the time: we are very obviously a pretty peaceful species. And that is another unpopular view: but it is true :) I agree. It's usually just a few people who are responsible for most wars.

Except in the extreme and unusual situation of war and catastrophe of other kinds we do not accept that the powerful should have free rein. People organise themselves into societies with rules precisely in order to prevent that situation: we value the rule of law which applies to the powerful as well as the rest, and there is no society worth the name which does not constrain power in some ways. That is my belief, at least. I agree. But sometimes the law isn't applied evenly. In our country, the rich and famous sometimes get different treatment under the law. Eliteisim exists everywhere.

So I argue that the rule of law is both in line with our social nature as a species; and desirable: the rule may allow one individual or one small group a lot of power over others: but it will not allow completely arbitrary exercise of that power. Such a situation is unstable (though it happens from time to time, certainly) because we are a social species and this is how we are made. So we can readily oppress those who are excluded from power and who have not voice: but we cannot oppress the majority in their day to day lives for very long: it costs too much to govern without consensus. I agree. I wolud add that it is dangerous to govern without consensus.

I cannot think of any other ways in which you might be fortifying your argument but I will be interested to hear where I have gone wrong You are only wrong in the interpretation of some of my views. It may be due to my not clearly expressing my ideas.

My own position is this: morals are individual. But that does not mean that each individual's moral conclusion is as valid as anyone else's. Some moral conclusions are transmitted and unexamined: so they are not truly moral conclusions, though the holder may believe they are. All moral conclusions, like all other conclusions, are based on partial information. Like other views moral views can change when we learn more. That is the point of moral discourse. It would not be worthwhile if all positions were valid and immutable. Agreed.

But morality is unlike other realms of discourse in some ways. We cannot reach a definitive conclusion as we can with some other things: it is not that kind of thing. There are going to be people who reach different conclusions even when they have all the same facts as another and have really thought about the issue. We have a responsibility to try to widen our views to take account of all that is relevant: but we will not reach consensus, even so. I believe it is because morals are a human construct. Nothing is every cut and clear or black and white when humans are involved.

And this is why it is imperative to recognise that we have no justification for imposing our conclusions on another fully moral agent, except in the very limited circumstances I outlined upthread. And you have said you agree with this and do not wish to enshrine your view in law Yes. I was just trying to argue why I believed what I believed. I never once said that what I believed should be law.

So what is the point of your discussion with AWPrime? Are you trying to say that faced with extinction people would impose reproduction on women? Probably they would: they do it without any such threat so why not? It is still wrong. In a situation like facing extinction the imposition would be "wrong" for women but could be seen as "right" for the species. The argument would which one is more "right" or more "wrong".

I am wondering if the real basis of your position is existential anxiety? Sometimes in this debate that is the elephant in the room. It is seldom stated and so it is difficult to address since I do not wish to attribute that which may not be in play. I am asking you: is this the real unifying concept which ties together your position: because I cannot find consistency in any other terms you have raised and I wonder
I'm not sure that is my view. My comments on morals, law, rights is based on my observations of history. I am not passing any judgments in my comments.

I beleive that laws and morals are human constructs and are depended on those human beings. They only have any meaning if the people give them meaning.

Does this count as existential anxiety?