Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 19:50:09 GMT
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). Then on that point you and I disagree. My belief is that if a medical procedure is being done to my body, I am the one who is the final arbiter of what is done. Not doctors, not lawyers, not politicians, not god if there is one. My body, my choice.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 19:51:16 GMT
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. I was looking for some foundation other than 'this is just my opinion' , something like oh when the foetus is still contained in the parent then, this differs in my mind to when they are born because . . . ' I am trying to understand what drives your opinion that this is the correct demarcation line.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 19:52:36 GMT
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. I was looking for some foundation other than 'this is just my opinion' That's just the thing, though-- there is no foundation for ANY moral stance other than "this is just my opinion." That's what morals are.
Someone can start out with something that's not the foundation. For example, they could say that they oppose abortion after 24 weeks. And then you ask why, and they say, "Well, that's when personhood starts" or whatever. If you ask them, "Why shouldn't we allow abortion once personhood obtains?" They may or may not be able to give you something that's foundational for them for that. It depends on whther "We shouldn't allow abortion once personhood obtains" is foundational for them. In either event, it won't take more than a few steps to get to anyone's foundation--it never does, and once you get to it, the only "why" to be had is that that's how they feel about it. At root, it's just about someone feeling some way or another about behavioral options. That's all that morality is.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 19:55:57 GMT
I was looking for some foundation other than 'this is just my opinion' That's just the thing, though-- there is no foundation for ANY moral stance other than "this is just my opinion." That's what morals are.Lets just say for a moment that I agree with that. I am trying to find out what informed your opinion, there has to be some basis right? Or did you just pull a demarcation line out of a hat? oop you edited: but you just explained that it is all just opinion, however I find it hard to understand that you can have an opinion that you have not based on something that you feel is concrete.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 19:57:24 GMT
That's just the thing, though-- there is no foundation for ANY moral stance other than "this is just my opinion." That's what morals are.Lets just say for a moment that I agree with that. I am trying to find out what informed your opinion, there has to be some basis right? Or did you just pull a demarcation line out of a hat? The basis for any moral opinion that anyone in the world has is that that's how they feel about the behavioral options. There's nothing else available. That's what morality is. That's the whole gist of the fact that morality is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 4, 2018 19:58:53 GMT
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. Legally, of course, we know it does. Intrinsically in your opinion is what I was after. So, if an infant doesn't have an intrinsic right to life, do you think the law should be changed so that a mother who kills her infant should not be charged with any crime? That does seem to logically follow.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 19:59:48 GMT
Lets just say for a moment that I agree with that. I am trying to find out what informed your opinion, there has to be some basis right? Or did you just pull a demarcation line out of a hat? The basis for any moral opinion that anyone in the world has is that that's how they feel about the behavioral options. There's nothing else available. That's what morality is. Yes I understand that stance, you are telling me how you feel, you feel that the demarcation line is containorship. I get that, what I am wondering is how you came to that feeling, what is it that supports that opinion for you, or did you just pull it out of hat. let me rephrase: I understand your opinion is that the demarcation line is birth, what is it that has helped you come to and continue to have that opinion?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 4, 2018 20:01:11 GMT
Not an intrinsic one, in my opinion. But legally, it does. Legally, of course, we know it does. Intrinsically in your opinion is what I was after. So, if an infant doesn't have an intrinsic right to life, do you think the law should be changed so that a mother who kills her infant should not be charged with any crime? That does seem to logically follow.
Correct. EDIT: On second thought, maybe after birth, the father should have a say in this. But if the parents both agree that the infant should be disposed of, then in my opinion it should be legal for them to go through with it.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 4, 2018 20:03:04 GMT
Legally, of course, we know it does. Intrinsically in your opinion is what I was after. So, if an infant doesn't have an intrinsic right to life, do you think the law should be changed so that a mother who kills her infant should not be charged with any crime? That does seem to logically follow.
Correct. What about a random stranger?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 4, 2018 20:03:41 GMT
Legally, of course, we know it does. Intrinsically in your opinion is what I was after. So, if an infant doesn't have an intrinsic right to life, do you think the law should be changed so that a mother who kills her infant should not be charged with any crime? That does seem to logically follow.
Correct. Are you for real?!!?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 20:04:30 GMT
The basis for any moral opinion that anyone in the world has is that that's how they feel about the behavioral options. There's nothing else available. That's what morality is. Yes I understand that stance, you are telling me how you feel, you feel that the demarcation line is containorship. I get that, what I am wondering is how you came to that feeling, what is it that supports that opinion for you, or did you just pull it out of hat. let me rephrase: I understand your opinion is that the demarcation line is birth, what is it that has helped you come to and continue to have that opinion? I don't know why it's so difficult to understand what I'm saying. Let me demonstrate by exploring one of your moral stances. Do you feel that murder is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 4, 2018 20:05:47 GMT
What about a random stranger? Nope. Killing an infant should be punished at least as severely as killing a grown domestic animal / pet.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 4, 2018 20:09:08 GMT
What about a random stranger? The infant would belong to the mother, so a stranger is at least guilty of destruction of property plus whatever other laws we would pass to make it an even worse crime to kill someone else's infant.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 20:09:42 GMT
Yes I understand that stance, you are telling me how you feel, you feel that the demarcation line is containorship. I get that, what I am wondering is how you came to that feeling, what is it that supports that opinion for you, or did you just pull it out of hat. let me rephrase: I understand your opinion is that the demarcation line is birth, what is it that has helped you come to and continue to have that opinion? I don't know why it's so difficult to understand what I'm saying. Let me demonstrate by exploring one of your moral stances. Do you feel that murder is wrong? I can tell you why I find it difficult to understand without the 20 questions. The beliefs and opinions I hold are based on something, I think murder is wrong because it hurts someone for no reason (obviously the legal definition of murder), I hold the opinion that rape is wrong because is violates another human. Do you see what I am driving at, you are claiming that you hold this opinion, but I want to know WHY you hold that opinion, what is it that makes you say this and not that?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 20:11:44 GMT
I don't know why it's so difficult to understand what I'm saying. Let me demonstrate by exploring one of your moral stances. Do you feel that murder is wrong? I can tell you why I find it difficult to understand without the 20 questions. The beliefs and opinions I hold are based on something, I think murder is wrong because it hurts someone for no reason (obviously the legal definition of murder), I hold the opinion that rape is wrong because is violates another human. Do you see what I am driving at, you are claiming that you hold this opinion, but I want to know WHY you hold that opinion, what is it that makes you say this and not that? Right, so "I feel that murder is wrong" is not foundational for you. It's built on "I feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason." So, now we see if "I feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason" is foundational for you. Why do you feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 4, 2018 20:15:59 GMT
I can tell you why I find it difficult to understand without the 20 questions. The beliefs and opinions I hold are based on something, I think murder is wrong because it hurts someone for no reason (obviously the legal definition of murder), I hold the opinion that rape is wrong because is violates another human. Do you see what I am driving at, you are claiming that you hold this opinion, but I want to know WHY you hold that opinion, what is it that makes you say this and not that? Right, so "I feel that murder is wrong" is not foundational for you. It's built on "I feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason." So, now we see if "I feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason" is foundational for you. Why do you feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason? I am not looping through 20 questions to find you just saying you pulled the demarcation line out of a hat. I get the moral stance is an opinion, I wondered a little about the background of yours. I am coming to the understanding that I have found out as much as I will. Sorry for wasting your time.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 4, 2018 20:19:32 GMT
Right, so "I feel that murder is wrong" is not foundational for you. It's built on "I feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason." So, now we see if "I feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason" is foundational for you. Why do you feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason? I am not looping through 20 questions to find you just saying you pulled the demarcation line out of a hat. I get the moral stance is an opinion, I wondered a little about the background of yours. I am coming to the understanding that I have found out as much as I will. Sorry for wasting your time. So probably "I feel that it's wrong to hurt someone for no reason" is foundational for you, which means that it's a starting point for you; it's simply how you feel about the idea of hurting someone for no reason; it's not built on another moral stance you hold. We're always going to get to a foundational stance within a few steps. In this case, it appears that we got to a foundational stance in just one step, which isn't unusual. However, understand that you could just start by stating a foundational stance. If you do that, there's nowhere to go with respect to giving a more foundational stance. I started by stating a foundational stance.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 4, 2018 20:21:06 GMT
Legally, of course, we know it does. Intrinsically in your opinion is what I was after. So, if an infant doesn't have an intrinsic right to life, do you think the law should be changed so that a mother who kills her infant should not be charged with any crime? That does seem to logically follow.
Correct. EDIT: On second thought, maybe after birth, the father should have a say in this. But if the parents both agree that the infant should be disposed of, then in my opinion it should be legal for them to go through with it. Before anything else, kudos for not dodging the questions. I don't get to see that very often. I'd say that your criteria for personhood is as extreme as those "pro-lifers" who say that personhood begins at conception (before implantation). You're just extreme in the opposite direction. Since "personhood" is just a value judgment, it can never be established that anyone is correct in his view. My own placement for personhood is just somewhere in between those extremes, and I think society needs to work on arriving at a consensus answer that a large majority can agree to settle on. Then the abortion question will become much easier to work out.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 4, 2018 20:23:00 GMT
gadreel Do some research. Goznell is reported to have killed hundreds of infants born alive during abortion procedures. I know you're the board's most resident contrarian but the least you can do is get informed on a subject before commenting on it.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 4, 2018 20:24:36 GMT
Correct. EDIT: On second thought, maybe after birth, the father should have a say in this. But if the parents both agree that the infant should be disposed of, then in my opinion it should be legal for them to go through with it. Before anything else, kudos for not dodging the questions. I don't get to see that very often. I'd say that your criteria for personhood is as extreme as those "pro-lifers" who say that personhood begins at conception (before implantation). You're just extreme in the opposite direction. Since "personhood" is just a value judgment, it can never be established that anyone is correct in his view. My own placement for personhood is just somewhere in between those extremes, and I think society needs to work on arriving at a consensus answer that a large majority can agree to settle on. Then the abortion question will become much easier to work out.
In some societies the consensus is birth, in others it's viability outside of the womb. And in others abortion is completely illegal. I don't know if there ever will be a universal consensus.
|
|