Split Thread: Legislation to restrict access to abortion and contraception

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Cows are not moral agents. Humans are moral agents. Moral agency isn't arbitrary.

Why not? Why can't it be arbitrary. If the racist want to make decisions purely on skin color and that is what is important to him... and you want to make decisions based on moral agency and that is important to you... why is one arbitrary and the other not? Obviously neither of us agree with a racist, but at the end of the day it is still their system. If the racist says..."if we kill all white people in the world we will have a less crowded place. Blacks will gain more resources. And will be less likely to suffer from racism".. That is their system. We don't agree with it, we would fight against it. But at the end of the day, skin color is what they value.... like you moral agency.

This planet does NOT need white skin, black skin or moral agency. Though I agree with your system more then I would agree with the racists. I can't see why there system is wrong if I judge it by using your standard. Which is dismiss anything that I find arbitrary. To value moral agency above all else is as arbitrary as valuing skin color. The argument is which system is creates a better world.... for us..... people.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

Why not?

Do you understand what arbitrary is? Here is how I am using the word "arbitrary".

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster

based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.

• If I treat you differently than another person because I don't like you then that is arbitrary.
• If I treat you differently because of the color of your skin then that is by definition "arbitrary".
• If I don't like you but treat you, ethically, the same as people I do like then that is NOT arbitrary.
• A judge in a court room cannot make decisions based on personal whim. The judge cannot be arbitrary.

Quote:

Why can't it be arbitrary. If the racist want to make decisions purely on skin color and that is what is important to him... and you want to make decisions based on moral agency and that is important to you...

The equivalency is false. There is nothing about skin color that fosters morality. Moral agency fosters morality. If I don't treat others who are moral agents the way I don't want to be treated then I will more likely not be treated that way. Society is likely to be better. The lives of others are likely to be better. A racist cannot say the same.

Quote:

why is one arbitrary and the other not?

Why would it be arbitrary for a judge to presume black people guilty and white people innocent? Why would it not be arbitrary for a judge to treat people equally the same regardless of skin color? To be fair isn't to be arbitrary.

Quote:

This planet does NOT need white skin, black skin or moral agency.

One more time. A.) I'm not a nihilist. B.) I do not consider the needs of the planet to inform my moral decisions (that's fatuous).

Quote:

Though I agree with your system more then I would agree with the racists. I can't see why there system is wrong if I judge it by using your standard. Which is dismiss anything that I find arbitrary. To value moral agency above all else is as arbitrary as valuing skin color. The argument is which system is creates a better world.... for us..... people.

Can you understand why it would be arbitrary for a judge to presume you guilty based on the color of your skin?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Can you understand why it would be arbitrary for a judge to presume you guilty based on the color of your skin?

Can you understand if a judge threw a man in prison if a man killed his son for meat, because his son was mentally handicapped?

Can you understand... "well your honor, I know he was happy and not suffering..... but he was as dumb as a cow"... and I don't consider taxonomic classifications when I'm choosing food..... just intelligence... so, I shot him and ate him"....... .wouldn't be a great defense? More importantly..... shouldn't be a good defense?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

Quote:

Can you understand why it would be arbitrary for a judge to presume you guilty based on the color of your skin?

Can you understand if a judge threw a man in prison if a man killed his son for meat, because his son was mentally handicapped?

Can you understand... "well your honor, I know he was happy and not suffering..... but he was as dumb as a cow"... and I don't consider taxonomic classifications when I'm choosing food..... just intelligence... so, I shot him and ate him"....... .wouldn't be a great defense? More importantly..... shouldn't be a good defense?

Before we shift the discussion I need you to answer the question. I promise I will answer you but I need to know, do you understand what I mean when I say "arbitrary"?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Before we shift the discussion I need you to answer the question. I promise I will answer you but I need to know, do you understand what I mean when I say "arbitrary"?

Yeah I do.... Your criticisms are correct........ I feel a bit like the radio host who has only a passing interest in 9/11 truth, trying to debate Richard Gage.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

Yeah I do.... Your criticisms are correct........ I feel a bit like the radio host who has only a passing interest in 9/11 truth, trying to debate Richard Gage.

Okay. Thanks.

Your question is a good one and directly confronts my basis for moral decisions. Let me make a few points. A.) We distinguish between people in persistent vegetative states and those who are not. The point being that being alive and human isn't the sole criteria for the right to life. B.) Loki's paradox. It would be difficult to find a hard line delimiter for when a person no longer has moral capabilities. In this instance taxonomic groupings can be a good guide. The set of cows that are moral agents is zero. The set of humans that are not moral agents is unknown. C.) I have an instinctive moral revulsion to killing humans. Without a *compelling interest for killing and eating a human being I would move to protect the mentally handicapped if for no other reason than it causes me distress. D.) I'm happy to entertain the argument that I am inconsistent and that cows should have the same protections as mentally disabled humans. (but it's not as simple as it might seem). That's another discussion.

* Justice professor Michael Sandel lays out a real historical example where a human was killed and eaten and the perpetrators were put on trial. The case was not cut and dry. This real world legal case illustrates the problems inherent in ethics. You can see Sandel providing the background and the subsequent discussion on the issues here. I recommend watching the entire course. It's free and really informative.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

* Justice professor Michael Sandel lays out a real historical example where a human was killed and eaten and the perpetrators were put on trial. The case was not cut and dry. This real world legal case illustrates the problems inherent in ethics. You can see Sandel providing the background and the subsequent discussion on the issues here. I recommend watching the entire course. It's free and really informative.

Watched the whole thing. Interesting. I wouldn't call the case cut and dry, but for me it's a pretty easy decision. Guilty...... punishment, 1 month in jail. I do love hearing about this stuff.


In my example... I didn't put the handicapped child on a boat, lost at sea. I didn't make his life miserable. I gave him the mental capabilities of a cow and gave the the father the same morals you seem to display on this thread. Taxonomic classifications are basically the same as arguing skin or hair. So by that logic, pick either the cow or the child for food. Both are of equal moral value.

Now. I haven't been here for 10 years like you have.... But I don't think I'll reach some great enlightenment where eating handicapped kids seems like only a question of taste.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

Watched the whole thing. Interesting. I wouldn't call the case cut and dry, but for me it's a pretty easy decision. Guilty...... punishment, 1 month in jail.

Why? And without special pleading and circular reasoning.

Quote:

In my example... I didn't put the handicapped child on a boat, lost at sea. I didn't make his life miserable. I gave him the mental capabilities of a cow and gave the the father the same morals you seem to display on this thread. Taxonomic classifications are basically the same as arguing skin or hair. So by that logic, pick either the cow or the child for food. Both are of equal moral value.

You are ignoring almost all of my argument. It's difficult to have a discussion if you are going to just pick and choose which premises you will even consider.

The premises you ignored are as follows.

1. The taxonomic consideration is only pertinent as it relates to "Loki's Paradox" and the avoidance of painstakingly killing a human being who is a moral agent. The set of cows who are moral agents is zero. The set of humans who are not moral agents is unknown. The taxonomic consideration isn't in a vacuum. It is qualified and not "just because".
2. I have a moral revulsion to killing living breathing feeling human beings. If there is no compelling interest then I would protect all humans.(the example of the shipwreck survivors is to illustrates an instance where I could find a compelling interest. What you think about it is not pertinent to my argument.
3. I'm not per se opposed to granting equal protection to both handicapped individuals and cows.

See, you didn't address my points at all. You just regurgitated your talking points. Skin color does not begin to equal any of those premises as none of them are "just because". So, what's the point of our discussion if you won't consider and address my premises?

Quote:

Now. I haven't been here for 10 years like you have.... But I don't think I'll reach some great enlightenment where eating handicapped kids seems like only a question of taste.

This is a bizarre straw man of my position. What's the point of discussing the issues with me if you are going to make my position into something it's not? Please to address the argument and avoid the straw men. Fair enough?

1. I have a moral revulsion to killing and eating human beings.
2. I know of no compelling reason or conflict (beyond possibly some extreme exceptions) to justify killing and eating human beings.
3. I'm willing to entertain the possibility of granting cows and the mentally handicapped the same protections.
4. Moral agency fosters morality. Racism doesn't.

"Yeah but racists are just as arbitrary" is nonsensical and not arguing in good faith. Please to improve your game?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Why? And without special pleading and circular reasoning.

Well they did murder a guy and eat him. But I can understand why they did it. I think one of the guys said he didn't support the act (but maybe the other two said he did, I forget). But most of us would do something like that... doesn't make it right though... So I would say they are guilty... but I can't blame them too much, so they are only getting a month.

Originally Posted by RandFan

[*]I'm not per se opposed to granting equal protection to both handicapped individuals and cows.

Going way back... and paraphrasing your position. Your argument for being allowed to abort a fetus is basically... they're dumb like cows, so we can kill them. That's why their pain doesn't matter. I disagreed. I think because they are human, does matter.... So I may not be able to explain exactly why that matters... but to me it does. It matters. If that leaves my position with a circular argument... or special pleading... or violating so and so's paradox... then I guess that's something I have to live with. That's ok with me. When I'm doing math and I have to use PI in an equation, I stop at 3.14... I have to, because the value never stops... I'll accept the fact that I got a pretty good answer and won't arrive at a perfect one.

Originally Posted by RandFan

1. I have a moral revulsion to killing and eating human beings.
2. I know of no compelling reason or conflict (beyond possibly some extreme exceptions) to justify killing and eating human beings.
3. I'm willing to entertain the possibility of granting cows and the mentally handicapped the same protections.

I didn't say you would eat human beings... but cannibals do. You do though eat cows (I assume). If taxonomic classification is of no consequence, why can't the cannibal harvest mentally challenged kids, older people with advanced dementia or Alzheimer's and even an 8 month old fetus as you do cows? The fact that they operate on the same mental level doesn't mean much to me.... I'm protecting the humans, they're pain and suffering is of more importance to me. I don't believe sperm go through pain and suffering. I don't believe zygotes go through pain and suffering. I believe the fetus experiences pain and suffering on some level, at some point. It is only their humanity do I consider their pain and suffering above the cows.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

Well they did murder a guy and eat him. But I can understand why they did it. I think one of the guys said he didn't support the act (but maybe the other two said he did, I forget). But most of us would do something like that... doesn't make it right though... So I would say they are guilty... but I can't blame them too much, so they are only getting a month.

Thanks. So not as cut and dry, right? Guilt or innocent might be binary but degree of wrong is a bit more problematic for you. Okay.

Quote:

Going way back... and paraphrasing your position. Your argument for being allowed to abort a fetus is basically... they're dumb like cows, so we can kill them.

No. Ethics is about resolving moral dilemma. In the case of abortion we have competing interests. The needs of the mother vs our perceptions of fetuses and whether or not the fetus is deserving of rights. Since fetuses don't have the ability to suffer and do not appreciate their existence the needs of the mother should trump our desires to protect future offspring. Please note that time and again I have used the term "compelling interest". In the case of abortion there are a number of compelling interests including that of the mother and the society that must bear the responsibility of children born as a result of unwanted pregnancies.

Quote:

That's why their pain doesn't matter. I disagreed. I think because they are human, does matter.... So I may not be able to explain exactly why that matters... but to me it does. It matters. If that leaves my position with a circular argument... or special pleading... or violating so and so's paradox... then I guess that's something I have to live with. That's ok with me. When I'm doing math and I have to use PI in an equation, I stop at 3.14... I have to, because the value never stops... I'll accept the fact that I got a pretty good answer and won't arrive at a perfect one.

You never explained why being human is significant. You only assert it. The math example does nothing to elucidate your position but only appears to be ad hoc rationalization.

Quote:

I didn't say you would eat human beings... but cannibals do. You do though eat cows (I assume). If taxonomic classification is of no consequence, why can't the cannibal harvest mentally challenged kids, older people with advanced dementia or Alzheimer's and even an 8 month old fetus as you do cows? The fact that they operate on the same mental level doesn't mean much to me....

Which is just a bias. The pain of a black person doesn't mean anything to a racist. Re: Cannibals. Moral progress, in the words of Dan Dennett, is about persuasion through reason. Thousands of years of moral and social progress have given us a pretty good idea why cannibalism is a bad thing. We could appeal to them (cannibals) the way we appeal to the Iranians to stop killing gays and lesbians. We could use the law where applicable. There is a reason why cannibalism is not prevalent. Did you ever wonder why societies have outlawed it and why there are not more cannibals in the world?

RE: Taxonomy. I never said that. I said YOUR use of taxonomy was special pleading.

AND vegans are now trying to persuade society to stop eating cows. Perhaps they are right. I do eat beef but I could be persuaded not to because my morals are not arbitrary. BTW: I have an argument for eating beef but, one more time, that's another discussion. I understand that my views could be wrong. I could be simply ad hoc rationalizing my behavior. I at least rely on logically valid argument. I do not need to special plead, question beg or use circular logic.

Quote:

I'm protecting the humans, they're pain and suffering is of more importance to me. I don't believe sperm go through pain and suffering. I don't believe zygotes go through pain and suffering. I believe the fetus experiences pain and suffering on some level, at some point. It is only their humanity do I consider their pain and suffering above the cows.

And this is arbitrary. It is special pleading. If aliens came to earth should they care about your pain and suffering? If you could communicate with them before they roasted you over a fire is there any argument you could muster for them to spare you your life or would you simply shrug your shoulders knowing that you are different species and speciesm is, in your opinion, more rational than respecting moral agents of different species?

While I've largely enjoyed the discussion I think we are quickly reaching an impasse. Again, your post pretty much ignores all of my premises. You just re-explains your position which I find entirely lacking. I find your explanations, at best, to be inconsistent. By your logic if we find intelligent life in our universe we can kill 'em and eat 'em.

I'm not sure what good it will do for us to continue as you ignore the premises and simply repeat your demonstrably and, as you in part conceded to, fallacious *points.

*Special pleading is fallacy.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thanks. So not as cut and dry, right? Guilt or innocent might be binary but degree of wrong is a bit more problematic for you. Okay.

I don't know where you got the impression I thought otherwise. Or did you?

Originally Posted by RandFan

In the case of abortion we have competing interests. The needs of the mother vs our perceptions of fetuses and whether or not the fetus is deserving of rights..Since fetuses don't have the ability to suffer and do not appreciate their existence the needs of the mother should trump our desires to protect future offspring.

If there is an Impasse it will be right there. I simply disagree and think you are wrong. Earlier you posted a link of how wrong I was about the infant's capabilities. 1 second before an infant is an infant..... it's a fetus. What magically occurs during that second where it suddenly gains the ability to suffer? This isn't meant to relate to abortion, but only your claim that a fetus does not have the ability to suffer. I disagree.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Please note that time and again I have used the term "compelling interest". In the case of abortion there are a number of compelling interests including that of the mother and the society that must bear the responsibility of children born as a result of unwanted pregnancies.

I understand that. I always take that into account.

Originally Posted by RandFan

You never explained why being human is significant. You only assert it.

Well... then I only assert it. As I said. I'm happy to live with something I can't express.

Originally Posted by RandFan

There is a reason why cannibalism is not prevalent. Did you ever wonder why societies have outlawed it and why there are not more cannibals in the world?

Because they asserted that people should not eat people. I agree.

Originally Posted by RandFan

And this is arbitrary. It is special pleading. If aliens came to earth should they care about your pain and suffering? If you could communicate with them before they roasted you over a fire is there any argument you could muster for them to spare you your life or would you simply shrug your shoulders knowing that you are different species and speciesm is, in your opinion, more rational than respecting moral agents of different species?

I would certainly understand and expect another species to be more protective of their own. I would certainly expect them to eat me, before sacrificing their infants because I'm smarter.... though I'm sure I'd throw any argument out there if I wanted to survive.... In fact, any argument I made would have one goal.. survival..... if I calculated being logically inconsistent would allow me to survive... that's where I'm going.

Originally Posted by RandFan

While I've largely enjoyed the discussion I think we are quickly reaching an impasse. Again, your post pretty much ignores all of my premises. You just re-explains your position which I find entirely lacking. I find your explanations, at best, to be inconsistent. By your logic if we find intelligent life in our universe we can kill 'em and eat 'em.

I don't think I implied that at all. I never said intelligence or mental capabilities should not be part of the equation. It is. But so is humanity. Why? I'm human. If that is the definition of speciesism... then I'm a speciest. If you are against that... then I'm for it. And rather then me assert I'm simply correct.... here, read the counter arguments against speciesim ... I'm sure they crossed all their T's and dotted all their I's in the fallacy department.... If you find one that meets all your criteria... or at least more then mine does... good, you can insert it anywhere I special plead.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

If there is an Impasse it will be right there. I simply disagree and think you are wrong. Earlier you posted a link of how wrong I was about the infant's capabilities. 1 second before an infant is an infant..... it's a fetus.

We've already dealt with Loki's paradox. There is not a moment 1 second before a fetus becomes an infant. There is no moment in which day is 1 second before night. What is important is that a 16 wee fetus lacks the mental machinery to suffer and appreciate their existence. Yes, you can reject the science but them so can creationists when the reject evolution.

Quote:

Because they asserted that people should not eat people.

No. They assessed the social costs and via inference concluded it was bad. There is a big difference between asserting something and reasoning something. By your logic the we got to the moon was by asserting the best course of action. We don't assert what food we ought to eat for good health. We reason it.

Quote:

In fact, any argument I made would have one goal.. survival..... if I calculated being logically inconsistent would allow me to survive... that's where I'm going.

Do you think a logically valid argument might be better than an irrational one?

Quote:

I don't think I implied that at all.

Yeah, I think you did. But that's fine. Let's move on.

Quote:

I never said intelligence or mental capabilities should not be part of the equation. It is. But so is humanity. Why? I'm human. If that is the definition of speciesism... then I'm a speciest. If you are against that... then I'm for it. And rather then me assert I'm simply correct.... here, read the counter arguments against speciesim ... I'm sure they crossed all their T's and dotted all their I's in the fallacy department.... If you find one that meets all your criteria... or at least more then mine does... good, you can insert it anywhere I special plead.

As far as I can tell, with the exception of non-reproductive human cells (example skin cells), sperm, ovum, zygote and blastocyst, you have stressed taxonomy over all other considerations. So, I'm willing to concede that you would not put a zygote or blastocyst over the interests of a pregnant mother so in that sense taxonomy doesn't render living cells human. But, it seems to me, in your mind once the fetus reaches some point of having any level of brain activity, regardless of what the science shows us about that activity, all other considerations are thrown out. If that is wrong then please to give me an example.

So, let me ask you a question, in the event we were visited by aliens, don't you think moral agency would be more important than taxonomy as far as considerations of how we should treat them?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

We've already dealt with Loki's paradox. There is not a moment 1 second before a fetus becomes an infant. There is no moment in which day is 1 second before night.

Sure there is. What is the medically accepted definition of birth. When does it begin? When does it end? When the cord is cut? When it's full body is out of the birth canal? I'm not sure..... But your pointing that out doesn't negate my point. If it is hard to find one second before birth, then it is not hard to define a day before birth... in which the entity is a fetus. So I will ask again. What magically happens to the fetus during that 1 day, where it gains all the special powers you've talked about when defending the infant, but has none of when speaking of the fetus?

Originally Posted by RandFan

What is important is that a 16 wee fetus lacks the mental machinery to suffer and appreciate their existence. Yes, you can reject the science but them so can creationists when the reject evolution.

It might be you that is rejecting science. I never said I firmly believe a 16 week old fetus deserves legal protection. Only that I am not as sure as I was before.... and I base that on what I read they are capable of. I'm not sure if they feel no pain... I will take your word for it, that it has been established that they do not. And if you are right, then fine.... I will bump my position ahead.

Originally Posted by RandFan

Do you think a logically valid argument might be better than an irrational one?

Well that would depend on the situation. Do I have Islamist holding a sword to my head? I'm dealing with people who are illogical. My argument to survive is the one that gives me the best chance to survive.

Originally Posted by RandFan

As far as I can tell, with the exception of non-reproductive human cells (example skin cells), sperm, ovum, zygote and blastocyst, you have stressed taxonomy over all other considerations. So, I'm willing to concede that you would not put a zygote or blastocyst over the interests of a pregnant mother so in that sense taxonomy doesn't render living cells human. But, it seems to me, in your mind once the fetus reaches some point of having any level of brain activity, regardless of what the science shows us about that activity, all other considerations are thrown out. If that is wrong then please to give me an example.

No. Not any level. I originally said 20 weeks or 22 weeks. All assume you are correct about 16 weeks.....In fact lets make it 30 weeks, to avoid a lot of going back and forth what a fetus can and can't do. What happens during that second before 29 and 30 weeks? Nothing. But at some point you have to set a date somewhere.

And no. All other considerations are not thrown out. But to simplify it a lot, if a women wants to kill her 30 week old fetus, she better have a good reason to do so. There are good reasons. I don't know how helpful it would be to start listing things off like terminal disease, life of the mother ect......

Originally Posted by RandFan

So, let me ask you a question, in the event we were visited by aliens, don't you think moral agency would be more important than taxonomy as far as considerations of how we should treat them?

Well Aliens really are a whole other category. How we treat them depends on a lot of factors. Taxonomy may be the most important. You're talking about beings that evolved somewhere else entirely. They may be carrying disease that we have never come in contact with..... That could potentially decimate the entire human species and many more species.... In fact. That's kind of what happened to Native North Americans. In their case, being racist, would have been beneficial.

But on the other side of that and where taxonomy comes into play again, would be in efforts to save the Alien. It's an Alien, it's extremely rare. I'd be completely in favor of channeling resources towards it's protection away from humans, towards them. Likewise, I am in favor of all sorts of different programs that benefit animals, that I am sure drain resources from programs that may help save humans.... I'm for studying how we can improve the lives of farm animals, their suffering means something to me. Those studies and of course executing any recommendations from those studies, cost money. Resources are finite. Some of that money will come from funds that may have otherwise went to road safety and children's hospitals.... They then have less resources, which could potentially cost lives. I am ok with that.

[AlBell]

Vis-a-vis earth taxonomy the subject of aliens is so far off-topic it amazes me it's been allowed by mods to continue.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

Sure there is. What is the medically accepted definition of birth. When does it begin? When does it end? When the cord is cut? When it's full body is out of the birth canal? I'm not sure..... But your pointing that out doesn't negate my point. If it is hard to find one second before birth, then it is not hard to define a day before birth... in which the entity is a fetus. So I will ask again. What magically happens to the fetus during that 1 day, where it gains all the special powers you've talked about when defending the infant, but has none of when speaking of the fetus?

I suspect we are not communicating. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my position and I've no idea why you are asking it. How about this, you tell me what second or what day you believe the "magic" occurs because A.) I don't believe there is any magic and B.) Loki's paradox. Development is a continuum and the changes are imperceptible on a moment to moment, day to day basis.

Quote:

It might be you that is rejecting science. I never said I firmly believe a 16 week old fetus deserves legal protection. Only that I am not as sure as I was before.... and I base that on what I read they are capable of. I'm not sure if they feel no pain... I will take your word for it, that it has been established that they do not. And if you are right, then fine.... I will bump my position ahead.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Well that would depend on the situation. Do I have Islamist holding a sword to my head? I'm dealing with people who are illogical. My argument to survive is the one that gives me the best chance to survive.

I did use the qualifier "might" in my question to you. Yes, assuming the alien is a rational agent.

Quote:

No. Not any level. I originally said 20 weeks or 22 weeks. All assume you are correct about 16 weeks.....In fact lets make it 30 weeks, to avoid a lot of going back and forth what a fetus can and can't do. What happens during that second before 29 and 30 weeks? Nothing. But at some point you have to set a date somewhere. And no. All other considerations are not thrown out. But to simplify it a lot, if a women wants to kill her 30 week old fetus, she better have a good reason to do so. There are good reasons. I don't know how helpful it would be to start listing things off like terminal disease, life of the mother ect.

This is pretty much what my position is. I've argued at length that once the fetus is viable it should have legal protection with exceptions for the health of mother and fetus.

Quote:

Well Aliens really are a whole other category. How we treat them depends on a lot of factors. Taxonomy may be the most important. You're talking about beings that evolved somewhere else entirely. They may be carrying disease that we have never come in contact with..... That could potentially decimate the entire human species and many more species.... In fact. That's kind of what happened to Native North Americans. In their case, being racist, would have been beneficial.

I understand your argument and don't disagree. Of course there will be exceptions to anything.

Quote:

But on the other side of that and where taxonomy comes into play again, would be in efforts to save the Alien. It's an Alien, it's extremely rare. I'd be completely in favor of channeling resources towards it's protection away from humans, towards them. Likewise, I am in favor of all sorts of different programs that benefit animals, that I am sure drain resources from programs that may help save humans.... I'm for studying how we can improve the lives of farm animals, their suffering means something to me. Those studies and of course executing any recommendations from those studies, cost money. Resources are finite. Some of that money will come from funds that may have otherwise went to road safety and children's hospitals.... They then have less resources, which could potentially cost lives. I am ok with that.

I don't want to quibble over funding. I think the funding argument specious but I'm not interested in that right now.

Thanks.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Vis-a-vis earth taxonomy the subject of aliens is so far off-topic it amazes me it's been allowed by mods to continue.

?

Uh, no. It's actually a commonly used hypothetical in ethics courses. It illustrates the problems of speciesm. People don't stop and think that it's not simply being human that makes us want to protect other humans. It's the qualities of being human. Suffering. Self awareness. Etc.. Thing is, there is nothing uniquely intrinsic to humans that give us these qualities.

What intelligent alien life can tell us about morality

[AlBell]

Although this is definitely off-topic, I'm not at all worried about our ethics. I'm worried about the aliens ethics vis-a-vis speciesism.

More highly technology advanced Top predator meets earth top predator, humans, here.

[gnome]

Regarding choosing a moment just before a "fetus" becomes an "infant", being that it is a continuum, it isn't necessary to define a hard line--it is only necessary to select a line comfortably back from it that there is little doubt at THAT point that there is not enough brain activity to experience suffering.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by gnome

Regarding choosing a moment just before a "fetus" becomes an "infant", being that it is a continuum, it isn't necessary to define a hard line--it is only necessary to select a line comfortably back from it that there is little doubt at THAT point that there is not enough brain activity to experience suffering.

I agree.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AlBell

Although this is definitely off-topic, I'm not at all worried about our ethics. I'm worried about the aliens ethics vis-a-vis speciesism.

More highly technology advanced Top predator meets earth top predator, humans, here.

I've not a clue what on earth you are talking about. What do you mean "definitely off-topic"? What's off-topic?

A.) If the aliens knew that we were a species that valued the qualities of suffering and self awareness, possessed of empathy and the golden rule, then they would know that we were not an arrogant and presumptuous species. We would have the moral high ground for them to consider.

B.) If the aliens knew that we only valued humans in an arrogant and presumptive fashion then they would likely have less sympathy for us and I sure as hell couldn't blame them.

[xjx388]

The answer to the abortion debate is not cut and dried simply because morals are not cut and dried. There are no absolute morals. Neither side has the absolute moral truth on any issue.

The problem is that all arguments I've heard can be countered. For example, the "viability," argument. Let's say we determine that a fetus is officially viable at 24 weeks. Awesome. But I could counter argue that even a baby born at term isn't really "viable." Leave it alone on a table and see how viable it is. The baby would require someone to give it food and shelter until he or she can reach self-sufficiency. On the other side of the spectrum, a zygote is a viable human if allowed to mature into one. This process is fundamentally no different from the process that happens from birth to self-sufficiency.

No one has a hold on the absolute moral truth. Therefore, society should err on the side of protection of life.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by xjx388

The answer to the abortion debate is not cut and dried simply because morals are not cut and dried. There are no absolute morals. Neither side has the absolute moral truth on any issue.

The problem is that all arguments I've heard can be countered. For example, the "viability," argument. Let's say we determine that a fetus is officially viable at 24 weeks. Awesome. But I could counter argue that even a baby born at term isn't really "viable." Leave it alone on a table and see how viable it is. The baby would require someone to give it food and shelter until he or she can reach self-sufficiency. On the other side of the spectrum, a zygote is a viable human if allowed to mature into one. This process is fundamentally no different from the process that happens from birth to self-sufficiency.

No one has a hold on the absolute moral truth. Therefore, society should err on the side of protection of life.

You so miss the point. Ethics/justice/moral reasoning, are not about finding absolute moral truth. In this context they are about resolving moral dilemma.

A baby doesn't need to be killed to resolve any moral dilemma. In the case of a baby, if the mother doesn't want the baby then those who think that killing a baby is wrong can pass laws to protect it and step in to provide the resources to save it. In the case of a zygote, if it is viable and those who think it should be saved can take the zygote from the mother and provide for it. Currently that is not possible so in that case the needs and interests of a thinking feeling human being trump that of a mass of cells that cannot think or feel.

No one claims a hold on absolute moral truth. That's a straw man. What we claim is the means to best resolve moral dilemma. If the sperm/ovum/blastocyst/zygote/fetus can live outside of the womb and some group thinks it worthy of protection and they can take it form the mother and provide for it then I say let them.

Simple. No need to demand that everyone agree as to what is absolute moral truth. Just that we have a means to resolve the dilemma.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by RandFan

You so miss the point. Ethics/justice/moral reasoning, are not about finding absolute moral truth. In this context they are about resolving moral dilemma.

Actually, that is the point. To morally reason, you need to have adopted some moral stance. Morals don't comport to logic, necessarily. Since there is no such thing as "objective morals," any moral judgement is subjective. Viability is subjective, value is subjective, etc.

Quote:

A baby doesn't need to be killed to resolve any moral dilemma. In the case of a baby, if the mother doesn't want the baby then those who think that killing a baby is wrong can pass laws to protect it and step in to provide the resources to save it. In the case of a zygote, if it is viable and those who think it should be saved can take the zygote from the mother and provide for it. Currently that is not possible so in that case the needs and interests of a thinking feeling human being trump that of a mass of cells that cannot think or feel.

What if one day, medical science progresses to the point where a zygote can be developed outside the womb. Would abortion be morally ok then? It's simply not any stronger a criteria than what Christians believe.

Quote:

No one claims a hold on absolute moral truth. That's a straw man. What we claim is the means to best resolve moral dilemma. If the sperm/ovum/blastocyst/zygote/fetus can live outside of the womb and some group thinks it worthy of protection and they can take it form the mother and provide for it then I say let them.

But at that point, should abortions be illegal?

Quote:

Simple. No need to demand that everyone agree as to what is absolute moral truth. Just that we have a means to resolve the dilemma.

The means to resolve moral dilemmas is to take a moral stance and judge which solution comports with your moral stance. Such moral stances are entirely subjective.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Actually, that is the point. To morally reason, you need to have adopted some moral stance. Morals don't comport to logic, necessarily. Since there is no such thing as "objective morals," any moral judgement is subjective. Viability is subjective, value is subjective, etc.

This does not obviate my point about moral dilemma. If we assume that values are subjective we can determine the best way to resolve the dilemma. Viability is the best way. It puts the needs of a thinking feeling human being over one that isn't. Since most people don't think sperm is sacred then we have a fairly good basis to make our decision. To think sperm not sacred but blastocyst sacred can only be resolved with special pleading. People value humans over other animals because of that which is intrinsic to being human. Feelings and self awareness. These are what we as a society prioritize. The mother has them. A zygote doesn't.

Quote:

What if one day, medical science progresses to the point where a zygote can be developed outside the womb. Would abortion be morally ok then? It's simply not any stronger a criteria than what Christians believe.

You've already conceded that there is no absolute moral truth so your question is nonsensical. The question is this, would outlawing abortion best resolve the dilemma? I think it could. Assuming society were willing to pick up the costs. So, next question. If and when technology can turn all sperm and ovum into humans (skin cells?). Should we ensure that all sperm and all ovum are protected? I think when it gets to that point the scales will fall from people's eyes and they will stop seeing human cells as sacred.

Quote:

But at that point, should abortions be illegal?

"Should"? It could. There are all other issues to deal with. I suppose by then we will get over our ideas that sperm ovum after conception are any different than sperm and ovum before.

Quote:

The means to resolve moral dilemmas is to take a moral stance and judge which solution comports with your moral stance.

No. This can only lead to dilemma. The moral stance of a pro-lifer and the moral stance of a pro-choicer are incompatible. We need to find a strategy to best resolve that dilemma that has nothing to with taking a moral stance. If I take a moral stance on abortion one way or the the other that won't resolve the dilemma. I've already told you how to resolve it. Repeating ad nauseam that moral values are subjective won't change anything as I agree and that doesn't negate my point.

[gnome]

There is a moral stance on which a pro-choice and pro-life person should be able to readily agree and cooperate--reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by gnome

There is a moral stance on which a pro-choice and pro-life person should be able to readily agree and cooperate--reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

In principle, yes.

In practice, many pro-lifers are also opposed to contraception, and many pro-choicers believe in encouraging open sexuality in young women. Which means that in practice, there's not much left for them to agree on.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

In principle, yes.

In practice, many pro-lifers are also opposed to contraception, and many pro-choicers believe in encouraging open sexuality in young women. Which means that in practice, there's not much left for them to agree on.

Source please?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Source please?

I think you should know what that means. People who would call themselves prochoice are generally more sexually liberal then people who call themselves prolife. I don't have any evidence.... for all I know prolifers are less sexually educated and that leads to more unwanted pregnancies.... not sure.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

I think you should know what that means. People who would call themselves prochoice are generally more sexually liberal then people who call themselves prolife. I don't have any evidence.... for all I know prolifers are less sexually educated and that leads to more unwanted pregnancies.... not sure.

This is the problem with simply relying on one's intuition. It often fails. Take for instance the idea of abstinence only education. States with ‘abstinence-only’ sex ed programs rank highest in teen pregnancies. Now, there could be many reasons for this having nothing to do with "abstinence only education" (though I think it plays a big role). In any event, these are not states where the culture and family values are "sexually liberal".

I consider myself "sexually liberal". I didn't encourage my daughter to be sexually open. I wanted my children to be informed and to make informed decisions. I wanted them to know the consequences both mentally and physically of sexual intimacy. This idea that sex positive people are all or mostly hedonistic and encourage the same of peers and adolescents is absolute nonsense. We know the dangers of STD's, unwanted pregnancies and the pain of broken families and broken promises. For many if not most of us the goal is a balance or personal liberty and personal responsibility. Sufficient information and access to birth control to make responsible decisions.

Please, if you are going to make claims about us, show us your data and skip the assumptions.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

This is the problem with simply relying on one's intuition. It often fails. Take for instance the idea of abstinence only education. States with ‘abstinence-only’ sex ed programs rank highest in teen pregnancies.

I would not expect an abstinence only sex education to have the best effect. Intuition is not perfect... some have it better then others... I think mine's pretty good.


I don't have the money to commission a survey.... and I'm sure I can't find one online. But if I could I would ask.... 1)Do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice? (forget the problems with labels for a moment.) Then I would ask.... 2) how many sexual partners have you had 3) Do you come from an environment (family, close peer group, ect) where an open sexuality is either encouraged or not shunned upon. My intuition tell me that the pro-choice group would have on average 1) more sexual partners and 2) Came from an environment that did not discourage this behavior, or even encouraged it.

But again. I don't have the money to commission a survey.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

I would not expect an abstinence only sex education to have the best effect. Intuition is not perfect... some have it better then others... I think mine's pretty good.

I don't have the money to commission a survey.... and I'm sure I can't find one online. But if I could I would ask.... 1)Do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice? (forget the problems with labels for a moment.) Then I would ask.... 2) how many sexual partners have you had 3) Do you come from an environment (family, close peer group, ect) where an open sexuality is either encouraged or not shunned upon. My intuition tell me that the pro-choice group would have on average 1) more sexual partners and 2) Came from an environment that did not discourage this behavior, or even encouraged it.

But again. I don't have the money to commission a survey.

My intuition tells me you are wrong. But not only that, the evidence speaks against you.

See, here is the problem, about 5-7 years ago (not exactly sure at the moment but I can look it up if it is important) I was a HUGE supporter of conservative sexual values. I firmly believed that loose morals/free love/hedonism were the reason for so many of our problems. I had strongly supported the policies of George H. W. Bush to stress family values and abstinence only education. When Dubya re-instigated his policies I was a strong supporter. It was only after coming to this forum and arguing for years in favor of these "family values" as they related to sexuality and sex education that I changed my mind. I did so because of the sociological data.

But why do you need a study? Seriously, you just dismissed the very fact that red states have higher unwanted pregnancies. What good are studies if you only accept the ones that you make up in your head?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

My intuition tells me you are wrong. But not only that, the evidence speaks against you.

Really? I think my intuition would be correct and yours would be wrong.

Originally Posted by RandFan

See, here is the problem, about 5-7 years ago (not exactly sure at the moment but I can look it up if it is important) I was a HUGE supporter of conservative sexual values. I firmly believed that loose morals/free love/hedonism were the reason for so many of our problems. I had strongly supported the policies of George H. W. Bush to stress family values and abstinence only education. When Dubya re-instigated his policies I was a strong supporter. It was only after coming to this forum and arguing for years in favor of these "family values" as they related to sexuality and sex education that I changed my mind. I did so because of the sociological data.

Do you get the impression that I argue for conservative sexual values?

Originally Posted by RandFan

But why do you need a study? Seriously, you just dismissed the very fact that red states have higher unwanted pregnancies. What good are studies if you only accept the ones that you make up in your head?

How does your study answer the questions I want answered. How do you know any of these unwanted pregnancies are from people that are prolife or prochoice? Actually, the unwanted pregnancy part of it tells me they are actually prochoice women... as I'm sure they got their data from abortion rates. How does knowing someone had an unwanted pregnancy answer who had more sexual partners?

[Dessi]

I don't think there's a way to spin or rationalize the statement that "pro-choicers encourage open sexuality among young women" in a way that actually means "pro-choicers encourage open sexuality among young women".

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

Really? I think my intuition would be correct and yours would be wrong.

Well of course you would. Why bother with evidence?

Quote:

Do you get the impression that I argue for conservative sexual values?

I got the impression that you are arguing that conservative sexual values leads to less sex.

Quote:

How does your study answer the questions I want answered. How do you know any of these unwanted pregnancies are from people that are prolife or prochoice? Actually, the unwanted pregnancy part of it tells me they are actually prochoice women... as I'm sure they got their data from abortion rates. How does knowing someone had an unwanted pregnancy answer who had more sexual partners?

Dude? Seriously? What on earth are you talking about? There are more pro-choice women in blue states. There are more liberal men and more liberal women in blue states. We can confidently say that liberal states are negatively correlated to increased unwanted pregnancy.

Please to tell me how a state with more liberal women and more pro-choice women have fewer unwanted pregnancies IF pro-choice and liberal means more sex?

[AvalonXQ]

I think the evidence is pretty strong that abstinence-only education doesn't work and kids need to be taught the use of proper contraception.

I also think one of the big reasons why this is a problem at all is that blue-state values have a large impact on youth culture, particularly in encouraging open sexuality among youth.

When the liberals spend all their time teaching my kids how fun it is to go for a ride, I'm sure as heck going to make sure they know how to wear a helmet.