|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 19:18:36 GMT
The demarcation criterion for my abortion stance is whether one individual is wholly contained inside of another or not. If one individual is wholly contained inside another, I advocate leaving decisions of life or death up to the "container" individual. Once part of an individual is not contained inside of another, then I'd say they no longer have that option. So you would advocate abortion right up until birth? Advocate allowing it right up until birth, yes.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 4, 2018 19:27:07 GMT
So you would advocate abortion right up until birth? Advocate allowing it right up until birth, yes. At that point why not just induce labor?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 19:27:19 GMT
So you would advocate abortion right up until birth? Advocate allowing it right up until birth, yes. What is the difference between those two states, I mean why that demarcation?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 19:28:35 GMT
Advocate allowing it right up until birth, yes. At that point why not just induce labor? It's up to the mother. It's her decision to make. If she wants to induce labor, that's fine, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 19:29:40 GMT
Advocate allowing it right up until birth, yes. What is the difference between those two states, I mean why that demarcation? The difference is obviously containment. The reason for that demarcation is because it's my foundational disposition for whether I feel abortion is okay or not. Other people have other foundational dispositions. That's mine.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 4, 2018 19:29:55 GMT
gadreel No. I think his whole point was that the woman was a day away from giving birth to her baby and the last thing that should be going through her head at that stage is abortion. It's called evidence. Sometimes images no matter how graphic are absolutely necessary to demonstrate the argument. You mean the abortion doctor who is currently in prison for murdering 3 infants who were born alive? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 4, 2018 19:29:58 GMT
That most babies would survive being born at 24 weeks is one that comes to mind. "According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive."en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viabilityI would imagine the 50% refers to the 24 week babies and 70% to the 24 week babies.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 4, 2018 19:31:46 GMT
"According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive."en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability I would imagine the 50% refers to the 24 week babies and 70% to the 24 week babies. That's not what it says though.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 19:31:55 GMT
What is the difference between those two states, I mean why that demarcation? The difference is obviously containment. The reason for that demarcation is because it's my foundational disposition for whether I feel abortion is okay or not. Other people have other foundational dispositions. That's mine. I meant how do you come to this being the point that you consider abortion is ok or not, for what reason is this the demarcation line?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 4, 2018 19:34:31 GMT
I would imagine the 50% refers to the 24 week babies and 70% to the 24 week babies. That's not what it says though. It certainly wouldn't be the same for both weeks. At that point every day gives a better chance.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 19:35:21 GMT
gadreel No. I think his whole point was that the woman was a day away from giving birth to her baby and the last thing that should be going through her mind at that stage is abortion. It's called evidence. Sometimes images no matter graphic are absolutely necessary to demonstrate the argument. You mean the abortion doctor who is currently in prison for murdering 3 infants who were born alive? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell Which is not what was going through her mind except according to him, I read her as using this time to make a statement in which she supported other woman beginning the journey that she had been on. Except that late-term abortion was what he shoe-horned in. I would hope not, as he used the term 'most prolific serial killer' and attributed hundreds of deaths to this person, if it is this Kermit person then Ben is demonstrably lying.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 19:37:06 GMT
The difference is obviously containment. The reason for that demarcation is because it's my foundational disposition for whether I feel abortion is okay or not. Other people have other foundational dispositions. That's mine. I meant how do you come to this being the point that you consider abortion is ok or not, for what reason is this the demarcation line? I understand that you meant that, and that's exactly what I answered. What you're maybe not getting is this: Moral stances, ALL moral stances, are ultimately built on foundations that are simply how an individual feels about some option or another. They're not analyzable beyond that, beyond whatever the foundational feeling is in a particular case. They're simply dispositions that someone has because of how their brain happens to be (how it happens to be structured and how it happens to function, unique to the individual in question). And usually we can get to the foundational feeling in just a step or two, if someone doesn't just start with it. Well, that is my foundational feeling in this case: it's kosher when one individual is wholly contained inside of another. That's the core of the stance, the base of it. My stance has nothing to do with personhood or anything like that. It has to do with containment. That's what my feelings are about foundationally in this case. Someone else's feelings might be foundationally about personhood or whatever. Different people feel different ways.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 4, 2018 19:37:21 GMT
Thanks. I don't really feel like watching an 8 minute video, linked by the OP who is too lazy to post a synopsis. Personhood does not begin at conception. It doesn't even begin at birth in my opinion. It begins when the being has a sense of self, and a sense of time, and plans and/or expectations for the future. Would you say some of the most cognitively disabled never reach personhood? I consider it a possibility. But I'm not a neuroscientist.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 4, 2018 19:37:24 GMT
Pro-choicers watch the video and try to understand why your stance is a morally bankrupt one. "Pro-choicers watch the video" I would but his voice is nails on chalk board.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 4, 2018 19:38:18 GMT
Personhood does not begin at conception. It doesn't even begin at birth in my opinion. It begins when the being has a sense of self, and a sense of time, and plans and/or expectations for the future. During this "pre-personhood" period after birth, does the infant have a right to life? Not an intrinsic one, in my opinion. But legally, it does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 19:39:41 GMT
The demarcation criterion for my abortion stance is whether one individual is wholly contained inside of another or not. If one individual is wholly contained inside another, I advocate leaving decisions of life or death up to the "container" individual. Once part of an individual is not contained inside of another, then I'd say they no longer have that option. Similar view here. "When life begins" is a rather pointless argument, IMO - the answer is "it began several billion years ago, and since then every single life in existence has emerged from other life as a gradual process. There is no such thing as a "moment" when any particular life that exists today began." Same thing for personhood, which arguably begins a fair while after birth. Any such point is a legal fiction. But so what? My support for a woman's right to abort doesn't depend on either "when life begins" or "when personhood begins". In fact I will differ with you a little, because to me it's not a matter of being inside or not. Rather, it's dependence. I don't think anyone or anything has the right to suborn your body for their purposes against your will. An unwanted fetus/baby/whatever does that. But for an example, there's a shortage of kidneys for transplant. People die because of it. If a person is facing death, and only your kidney can save their life, are you morally and legally required to give them the kidney? Of course not. Your right to bodily integrity and control remains intact, and if they die because of your choice that's really not on you.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 4, 2018 19:39:58 GMT
Personhood does not begin at conception. It doesn't even begin at birth in my opinion. It begins when the being has a sense of self, and a sense of time, and plans and/or expectations for the future. Absolute rubbish. Nothing but your baseless opinion. But still as valid as yours, or Ben Shapiro's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 19:40:33 GMT
Advocate allowing it right up until birth, yes. At that point why not just induce labor? That's an argument you put to the woman whose body is the one the procedure will be done to. And then she makes the decision.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 4, 2018 19:43:47 GMT
At that point why not just induce labor? That's an argument you put to the woman whose body is the one the procedure will be done to. And then she makes the decision. I support the right to end the pregnancy at any point. I think the how it is done is a different issue. If it is viable and no developmental disabilities there is no reason not to do it in a way that will result in a live birth (unless that is more dangerous for the mother).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 19:47:20 GMT
No. I think his whole point was that the woman was a day away from giving birth to her baby and the last thing that should be going through her head at that stage is abortion. So he wants to be the arbiter of when people are allowed to think about things now? Wow. Impressive ego he has himself.
|
|