- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Planned Parenthood keeps saying 3% of their income is from abortions
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:42 pm to Strophie
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:42 pm to Strophie
quote:
Okay, so it's an issue of semantics then.
Call it whatever you want. The whole point is comparing X to Y in terms of value. You can label X as "fertilized life" or "embryonic life" or "an egg" or "life potential" or whatever you want. In a literal sense, I'm talking about an female egg that has been inseminated. How far along in the gestation period that egg is malleable when it comes to the thought experiment and how far you want to take it.
Look, I appreciate (sincerely!) your position that a fertilized egg is a human being. I do! But coming to that opinion is the entire point of the thought experiment. And when I ponder the thought experiment, I don't reach the same conclusion, insofar as equating it to a toddler (to continue this whole thing..). I just don't.
I get you don't. My position is objective and yours is arbitrary. Mine is based on fact and yours is based on how you feel.
Where your thought experiment fails is that it only means something to someone making a subjective opinion. If we dont let philosophical gobeldy asian get in the way of logic your experiment is pointless.
1
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:50 pm to Strophie
quote:The problem with your analogy to me is that it doesn't actually make a point that you think it's making.
Strophie
Sure. I think almost everyone would admit they'd prioritize the 5 year old over the 100 embryos. But again, priority doesn't negate the value of the other.
But, it goes beyond that. Speaking for myself, I'd probably also prioritize the 5 year old over a 1 month old. I don't think I'd be alone in that. But, oddly, I would also probably prioritize the 5 year old over a 15 year old. Again, not because of some objective measure. I just probably would.
So, here's my thought experiment that converted me from being pro-choice.
I'm a fan of staring many discussions from the point at which everyone agrees.
So, we pretty much all agree with whack job exception that killing a 1 month old baby is murder. I've always found it odd that people discuss abortion from conception where there is much argument. I prefer to work backwards.
Many people want to discuss the point at which you shouldn't be allowed to kill it. 12 weeks. 18 week. Viability. Etc etc.
That's all vague shite to me. I want someone to tell me, working back from the 1 month old we ALL agree shouldn't be killed, when does it convert to something we can kill? I ask because I don't think most people would be good killing it the day before delivery either. So, my response is, "ok, what about 2 days? 3? 5? 10? etc etc.
I want to know the miracle point that creates the "it's ok now" cutoff.
I don't think anyone can answer that.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:51 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
I get you don't. My position is objective and yours is arbitrary. Mine is based on fact and yours is based on how you feel.
That's strongly worded. You seem entirely sure of your statement, which is fine I guess. I just have never seen evidence presented that made me as confident, one way or the other. I think "life" is a sliding scale that the zygote travels along, and it's not, qualitatively, a human at the earliest stages.
quote:
Where your thought experiment fails is that it only means something to someone making a subjective opinion. If we dont let philosophical gobeldy asian get in the way of logic your experiment is pointless.
So you would save the 100 embryos?
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:53 pm to Strophie
quote:
That's strongly worded. You seem entirely sure of your statement, which is fine I guess. I just have never seen evidence presented that made me as confident, one way or the other. I think "life" is a sliding scale that the zygote travels along, and it's not, qualitatively, a human at the earliest stages.
So perhaps we should err on the side of life?
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:02 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Sure. I think almost everyone would admit they'd prioritize the 5 year old over the 100 embryos. But again, priority doesn't negate the value of the other.
Granted.
quote:
But, it goes beyond that. Speaking for myself, I'd probably also prioritize the 5 year old over a 1 month old. I don't think I'd be alone in that. But, oddly, I would also probably prioritize the 5 year old over a 15 year old. Again, not because of some objective measure. I just probably would.
That's a valid point. Given your scenario, I'm not sure who I would pick between the 5 year old and 1 month old. Or at least, it would give me pause. I guess my personal thinking makes that a huge distinction, though, because in my original scenario, I'd save the 5 year old without an iota of hesitation or guilt. Which I can't say at all for the "5 yr old vs 1 month old" scenario.
quote:
I want someone to tell me, working back from the 1 month old we ALL agree shouldn't be killed, when does it convert to something we can kill? I ask because I don't think most people would be good killing it the day before delivery either. So, my response is, "ok, what about 2 days? 3? 5? 10? etc etc.
I fully agree. One million percent. But herein lies the crux of the issue to me: when does "life" begin? I agree with you that logically you can't go from saying "Murdering a one month old is morally bad" to "Murdering a baby that's due to be delivered tomorrow is morally okay." And I get that continuing to slide that scale back by small increments would lead one to have to pick a "point" at which they suddenly decided that abortion was morally defensible. Where I get hung up is that it continues to be a slippery slope the other direction.
You move all the way back to the instant of conception, but then for me it has to keep going. Are individual sperm and eggs "life" in the same way? I get that some people say no, because Life, with a capital L, doesn't emerge until the two combine, but the information required to spark it is encoded in the individual sperm an egg, and as such I don't get that distinction.
I do think there's a point where a zygote, or embryo, becomes a human. I just don't think that point is immediately at conception.
quote:
I don't think anyone can answer that.
Exactly. And I think most pro-life supporters are adamant that they know the answer. And I think most pro-choice people are adamant they know it too. But their answers are different.
As an aside, thanks for remaining generally cordial! I'm not in anyway intending to personally insult anybody here. I just enjoy discussing interesting topics.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:07 pm to Strophie
quote:My basic point is that at least right now, it's unanswerable.
Exactly. And I think most pro-life supporters are adamant that they know the answer. And I think most pro-choice people are adamant they know it too. But their answers are different.
But, we do KNOW that there is a point where it shouldn't be killed.
Seems to me that since we can't answer when it's OK, then that solves the issue. If we all agree "no" at a given point and no one can say objectively when the miraculous moment working backwards that it became OK, then they're admitting they can't actually tell you when it's OK.
To me, that ended the conversation and it's what makes me pro-life today(although I guess I'm kinda pro-life lite)
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:09 pm to Strophie
quote:You're welcome.
As an aside, thanks for remaining generally cordial! I'm not in anyway intending to personally insult anybody here. I just enjoy discussing interesting topics.
It's been an interesting discussion.
Although, it deviates from the basic question in the OP.
There just really is no justification for taxpayer funding of PP
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:12 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Although, it deviates from the basic question in the OP.
I suppose we are way off track.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:13 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
My basic point is that at least right now, it's unanswerable.
But, we do KNOW that there is a point where it shouldn't be killed.
Seems to me that since we can't answer when it's OK, then that solves the issue.
Hmm. Interesting. So you're essentially saying to hedge downward on timescales. I've never considered it that way, I suppose.
I'll have to think about that. Valid point though.
*edit* I should append here that I've typically tied the emergence of consciousness to the point at which life becomes valid human life. And as far as everything I've investigated, I think the consensus is at least that that doesn't exist for quite awhile post-conception. Hence my generally comfort with early term abortions.
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:16 pm to Strophie
quote:
Hmm. Interesting. So you're essentially saying to hedge downward on timescales. I've never considered it that way, I suppose. I'll have to think about that. Valid point though.
Thanks. Yes. Like I said, I'm a fan of playing the "grant each side it's position" game.
OK. We have two assumed truths using that approach.
Day 1, not a baby.
Popped out, Can't kill it, it's baby.
So, we actually have answered the primary question. That question is, "is this entity something that at some point, we would consider it murder to kill it"? Answer. Yep. EVERYONE agrees on that.
To me, once you have that answer, then the next question is, "OK, when CAN we kill it".
I submit, that the places the burden on the person wanting to do the killing. Since we BOTH agree on a point where it CAN'T be killed. Then THEY have to be able to OBJECTIVELY point to the miraculous point working backwards at which it CAN.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:18 pm to Strophie
quote:
edit* I should append here that I've typically tied the emergence of consciousness to the point at which life becomes valid human life. And as far as everything I've investigated, I think the consensus is at least that that doesn't exist for quite awhile post-conception. Hence my generally comfort with early term abortions.
I once read an article in a reputable Psychology publication that essentially made the argument that we shouldn't charge women who kill their babies with murder if the baby was under 1 because prior to that, the baby has no "sense of self".
I was like. Yeah. frick that.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:23 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I once read an article in a reputable Psychology publication that essentially made the argument that we shouldn't charge women who kill their babies with murder if the baby was under 1 because prior to that, the baby has no "sense of self".
I was like. Yeah. frick that.
That's my concern, as well, since there is variation in consciousness even after birth. We experience a form of unconsciousness every time we sleep. Alzheimer's and other forms of degenerative brain diseases can severely alter the level of real consciousness (perception or awareness) that people have to the point where someone may not know who they are, where they are, what day it is, etc., yet they are still alive. I think consciousness is a very slippery rock to stand on in this debate.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:25 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Women and their roles in society have changed immensely since WWII. Obviously these changes will be accompanied by growing pains. You don't think there's a shite ton of men with traditional sexual habits who are uncomfortable living in a world where women everywhere frick everyone except and make more money than their fat bald no-game-for-miles asses?
We don't live in Archie Bunker land these days. Where are all these men keeping women buried under their feet? I never see it.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:28 pm to ShortyRob
Really interested to click back on this thread and see a cordial discussion of when life begins. I think personhood is obviously a much more complex issue to pin down, but it is one that we definitely need to talk about instead of pretending it's a simple matter of opinion. I believe there is a right and wrong answer we have to come to as a society.
As far as when life begins, it's either at fertilization or implementation. There's very little room to say much otherwise. From a purely biological standpoint, it's hard to argue that fertilization isn't the beginning of a distinct individual human life.
But personhood is certainly the tough one to figure out. Full disclosure: I'm for protecting life from conception.
As far as when life begins, it's either at fertilization or implementation. There's very little room to say much otherwise. From a purely biological standpoint, it's hard to argue that fertilization isn't the beginning of a distinct individual human life.
But personhood is certainly the tough one to figure out. Full disclosure: I'm for protecting life from conception.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:33 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I once read an article in a reputable Psychology publication that essentially made the argument that we shouldn't charge women who kill their babies with murder if the baby was under 1 because prior to that, the baby has no "sense of self".
I was like. Yeah. frick that.
Yeah. I've heard that argument as well and it made me physically uncomfortable to think that the man espousing it actually felt that way.
If I remember correctly, it referenced that famous mirror experiment, where a dot is placed on the forehead. And the idea was that only self-aware animals were able to notice the dot and try and touch it on their head. Since babies up to X months (I don't remember what it was) didn't do that, they had no sense of self, and ergo weren't actually human.
I uh, don't agree with that. That's for sure.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:33 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Viability is black and white.
Viability. Etc etc.
That's all vague shite to me.
If you chose the "work backwards" approach, simply use 22wks EGA (>4mos premature) as your "birthday" starting point, then use your formula.
So how old would this boy (who was born at 22wks) need be as a fetus to still disallow his abortion?
One week (i.e., 23wks EGA)?, 1 1/2months (28 wks EGA)?, 2 months old (30 wks EGA)? . . .
Posted on 2/2/17 at 6:01 pm to NC_Tigah
The viability argument is an interesting one, as it uses outside circumstances and external factors to determine whether or not it is legitimate to end the life of what is biologically a living human being. Medical advances have changed and will likely continue to change what point the fetus/embryo/zygote is considered viable, and yet,that does not change the intrinsic value of a human life.
Granted, the inevitable pushing back of the viability line earlier and earlier actually makes the belief somewhat effective in the effort to scale back abortions. Still, I would disagree with that line of thought.
One thing I've given a lot of thought to is the argument of whether you should save 100 embryos or one 5-year old or one-month-old or however-old child before and also whether doctors should work to save the lives of the many many zygotes that aren't able to implant.
I came to the conclusion that it is not our role as society necessarily to attempt to thwart nature and save every life to the detriment of humanity as a whole. Certainly saving every zygote and giving them all a chance to develop into adults would really change how we work as a society. Taking a human life is where I believe we have to draw the line.
And between 100 embryos and one child, I think that the child is arguably just as important depending on if he would suffer pain that the embryos would not feel and if his loss would actually hurt more people than the embryos would. I certainly think 100 miscarriages would be as bad as the death of a child.
Granted, the inevitable pushing back of the viability line earlier and earlier actually makes the belief somewhat effective in the effort to scale back abortions. Still, I would disagree with that line of thought.
One thing I've given a lot of thought to is the argument of whether you should save 100 embryos or one 5-year old or one-month-old or however-old child before and also whether doctors should work to save the lives of the many many zygotes that aren't able to implant.
I came to the conclusion that it is not our role as society necessarily to attempt to thwart nature and save every life to the detriment of humanity as a whole. Certainly saving every zygote and giving them all a chance to develop into adults would really change how we work as a society. Taking a human life is where I believe we have to draw the line.
And between 100 embryos and one child, I think that the child is arguably just as important depending on if he would suffer pain that the embryos would not feel and if his loss would actually hurt more people than the embryos would. I certainly think 100 miscarriages would be as bad as the death of a child.
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 2/2/17 at 6:13 pm to anc
Look, I don't agree with abortion. But if people decide to have one then that is just that much bad DNA not being passed on to the gene pool.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 6:17 pm to Strophie
quote:yep.
If I remember correctly, it referenced that famous mirror experiment, where a dot is placed on the forehead. And the idea was that only self-aware animals were able to notice the dot and try and touch it on their head. Since babies up to X months (I don't remember what it was) didn't do that, they had no sense of self, and ergo weren't actually human.
Just one of many reasons I'm no fan of psychologists
Posted on 2/2/17 at 6:30 pm to BlackAdam
quote:Here comes a shitty point:
Using your dumb logic
quote:You sure do have to come up with some wacky stuff to try and justify your lie that abortion is murder.
and replacing the embryo with the 80 year old you could argue I don't value old people therefore killing them is not murder.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News