You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 12:05:32 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech  (Read 10088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LongN4

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2010, 01:22:27 PM »
She's got passion gotta respect her for that even if I don't agree with everything that she says.

Offline Rider of WindTopic starter

  • Dance with me, make me sway.
  • Dame
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: Here and there roundabouts.
  • Gender: Female
  • I'll tell you what I lost. I lost my mind.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2010, 01:32:56 PM »
She's got passion gotta respect her for that even if I don't agree with everything that she says.
+1   I found her to be a great speaker. Which is half of what impressed me.

------------------------------
  Additionally, as her argument does bring in religion quite stridently, I wanted to make a comment or two about that.

  I think I'm quite safe in saying that many of those who are anti-abortion and consider themselves 'devout' servants of their chosen religion don't give two hoo-has about embryonic development. As fascinating and relevant as it is. The main issue as seen there is, does it have a soul? An innocent soul, worthy of life. Which is not completely answerable by any person that has any training in logic, speech, debate, sciences, etc. Many sects of Catholicism and other religions certainly claim that they have the answer. 

  When in the development of a fetus, does it gain a soul? This is assuming of course that the concept of soul is even worth talking about. But I can assure you, to most Christians it is.

This article was very staunchly against: http://home.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/abortion.htm

And then the contrast of this article just makes things interesting: http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2010, 01:48:59 PM »
The brain however is a different story. There isn't even enough working brain matter for higher processes to be even theoretically possible until week 26 to 28 varying between people.
The prebrain has developed from the neural plate and subdivided itself into pros-, mes-, and telencephalon by week six. Also, I have always despised that fallacy that thinking the amount of brain matter is important. And Salamander explains why:

Quite true. The key issue here isn't so much the number of neurons as their connectivity. You can have as many neurons as you like, but if they aren't wired together, then you don't get cognition. The connections between neurons are called synapses, and the process by which they join up with each other to form a functioning network is called synaptogenesis. Its been a few years since I studied this stuff, and I can't remember exactly when the main phase of synaptogenesis starts, but its pretty late- something like the 25th week. Before then, the fetus is just a mass of cells, with no cognitive capacity at all.
Neural connections are what matter. Spinal nerve connections begin to form in the mid-late second trimester. Sensory first (which we determine from fetal light and sound reactions) and motor later, when voluntary movement begins. There is an initial neuron bloom which is then pared back by neurotrophic growth factors (a site-specific factor excreted in limiting quantities that directs neuronal growth to certain systems).

However claiming that no higher functions or cognitive ability exists is a problematic statement. While we can easily test for nerve activity, cognition is a bit more nebulous quality and difficult to test for.

And modern neurological studies suggest that consciousness and sentience don't begin until after birth.
Produce them. Citing vague studies is meaningless.


Additionally, to try to wrap this back around to abortion, what is your purpose in trying to determine this? Are y'all pro-abortion before peripheral nervous system development? and against it after? How does this affect your thoughts on the morality of the action?


  I think I'm quite safe in saying that many of those who are anti-abortion and consider themselves 'devout' servants of their chosen religion don't give two hoo-has about embryonic development. As fascinating and relevant as it is. The main issue as seen there is, does it have a soul? An innocent soul, worthy of life. Which is not completely answerable by any person that has any training in logic, speech, debate, sciences, etc. Many sects of Catholicism and other religions certainly claim that they have the answer. 

  When in the development of a fetus, does it gain a soul? This is assuming of course that the concept of soul is even worth talking about. But I can assure you, to most Christians it is.
Soul is a meaningless quality for any kind of practical abortion discussion. Any one person's beliefs about the existence or non-existence of the soul should have no ability to impose restrictions on another persons actions. And as it is a belief (unless there is some demonstration of soul) it remains a waste of time in abortion discussions. Law and policy cannot be based on noumenal objects.

As Trieste said, if you aren't comfortable with abortion, then don't get one. Don't mistake your religious beliefs, conscience, or opinions for anyone else's.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 01:51:49 PM by DarklingAlice »

Offline Rider of WindTopic starter

  • Dance with me, make me sway.
  • Dame
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: Here and there roundabouts.
  • Gender: Female
  • I'll tell you what I lost. I lost my mind.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2010, 02:02:34 PM »
  I placed this in this specific forum to discuss the political and the religious aspects that arise from her speech. Religion is a concept, a very complex and varied one that I think warrants a bit of attention. And yes, that is my personal opinion, I'm not assuming that it is shared by all.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2010, 02:34:11 PM »
The problem I have with that is: whose religion? Religious beliefs are, as you say, varied. There are many differing religious beliefs on the nature and disposition of the soul. And there is no evidence for any of it. Which is not to say any of it is not true. The nature of the noumenal is just that. There is no phenomenon, no component of experience.

I have my religious beliefs, you have yours, and Gianna has hers. So what gives religion its relevance to this discussion? We can go around a circle and present our religious views, but what do our individual, personal views on something that is not an object of experience have to do with those of any other person? And what do they have to do with the actions of any other person? e.g. I can say that the Bible says this, or that the catechism of the Catholic church says that, and you can respond by saying that the Quran says this or that, or reciting a passage from the Gita, and it will all be true that these books say these things. But unless we are trying to assert that one of these books is somehow right, then we are just listing facts.

In short: What purpose does a religious discussion of abortion have unless we are proselytizing (as Gianna is in her speech)? And if we are proselytizing, what gives us the right to do so?

Offline Scott

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2010, 02:46:49 PM »
She convinced me... I will never have an abortion.

But I support a woman's right to choose. 

Offline Noelle

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2010, 06:18:09 PM »
I really couldn't get past the whole "I'm a special snowflake who loves baby Jesus and deserves your attention and different treatment" attitude in this. It's great that she found strength in her own story and has gone on to overcome and even use her disabilities to her advantage, it's truly admirable that she hasn't let this bring her down, but the "I'm a princess" attitude is really off-putting. She fell into the most stereotypical holes: The evil, twisted, mad abortion doctor who loves scrambling fertilized eggs; the damaged mother who comes back into her life later that she feels both pity and a smug sense of superiority over.

I see her point and I see what she's trying to say -- it's not hard to imagine that you'd be grateful for the fact that you weren't aborted, but all of it is buried under emotional blackmail and vague references to the power of Christ. How am I supposed to sympathize with and join her cause if I'm not religious? The uber-dramatic claim of people "becoming uncomfortable hearing the name Jesus" made me roll my eyes, too. This isn't the Exorcist -- hearing holy names doesn't burn my demonic flesh or make my tongue tie itself into a knot. I just want you to keep your religion out of my politics. Resorting to emotions is the exact last thing we need to do because then we ignore reality for what "feels right" to us. The human perception is greatly flawed. If this speech prevents more women from having an abortion, that's really great, I'd be really glad to hear it, but banning the practice is just counter-productive.

Online Vekseid

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2010, 09:24:39 PM »
Then don't get one.

I know you're not coming out in support of either side, necessarily, but I think that this is a good example of "If your conscience bothers you, then listen to it. However, do not mistake it for someone else's conscience." Things like getting one's tubes tied are perfectly legal, but are not done helter skelter. Carrying marijuana has been decriminalized in my state; does that mean that everyone will do it just because they can? Hardly. Keeping abortions legal does not encourage anyone who wasn't thinking of one already to go out and get one; it simply allows those considering their options to listen to their own conscience, and make their decision based on their own feelings and situation, not based on some misguided excuse for ethical standards.

When was I addressing the legality of it? Even when I was vehemently opposed to abortion I never wanted to make it illegal, knowing the statistics from the nation most similar to our past - Brazil - where it is illegal. It's not a question of law. Responsible jurisprudence means making laws that will be respected and followed, regardless of which side one takes in the debate.

I'm a 'body is a vessel of the mind' person - if an awareness did not choose its current state it cannot be held responsible for it, and should not be judged for it. Mentally, a child is not significantly different just before or after birth (and cultures practicing infanticide sometimes reflect this concept). There is a point at which it develops awareness, and a human child isn't even fully developed at birth.

I'm not convinced that the act of birth is a good dividing line - an infant is still incredibly dependent on others for care.

Offline LIAR

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2010, 10:52:08 PM »
I didn't find her argument all that strong or appealing. I think it's fantastic that she's found strength despite her hardships in life, but... all her talk about being Gods girl/princess made the whole speech annoying.

Offline Lycan Queen

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #34 on: October 05, 2010, 08:45:49 PM »
Okay, I will view the video when I'm on better internets, but here are my reasoning:

1) Pro-choice and abstinence only: I'm sorry, but if you have this stance, your arguement is invalid at this point. You cannot say that a woman cannot get an abortion, and then refuse the them preventative education. There's already problems with STDs and overpopulation, along with the fact that the abstinence only stance is a very unhealthy stance on sex. Especially saying that you can't masturbate.

2) Health. As long as the system is as it is, with the growing gap between the middle, lower, and upper class, and education being as it is, such that it would be worse to ban abortion than to allow it. Women would go do it anyway, and they would with "doctors" who aren't qualified with tools that are not clean. More mothers and doctors would be at risk. And if an abortion is murder, then does miscarriage count as murder, too?

We have enough people suffering now. There are too many children now that are in bad homes or no homes. I've had friends who suffered terribly under foster care.

To me, don't talk to me about bringing more children into the world until every child living now has a loving family and enough to survive comfortably. It isn't fair to the children who will be born to not fix the other problems first.

Regardless of the ethics of getting an abortion, banning it would cause far more problems than it would fix.

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #35 on: October 06, 2010, 07:36:54 AM »
Lycan,

I don't generally disagree with you. I would only ask you and others, are there any lines to be drawn? How in the world do we ever come to a conclusion that a late term, saline abortion is an acceptable option? They only way I can see it if its done on an emergency basis where the mother's life is in immediate danger.

So where I am, there is a very clear and distinct line between first term abortions, and the rather brutal means necessary to execute a late term abortion.

I don't like to see any official entity tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, but I've got to think there has to be a line somewhere, no?

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #36 on: October 06, 2010, 09:44:13 AM »
I don't like to see any official entity tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, but I've got to think there has to be a line somewhere, no?

Frankly, not a legal one. Official (as in legal) entities have no business making medical designations of 'necessary' and 'unnecessary'. Again, if you do not think that late-term abortions are ethical, then don't get one. Living tissue is not 'alive' tissue and as was pointed out earlier, humans are not necessarily fully developed even at birth. It's been posited by evolutionary biologists that we actually give birth before we really 'should', because our craniums would be too big to fit through the birth canal otherwise. Have you ever changed a baby's diaper and thought "Holy GOD, kid, I only gave you formula! What did you do to it to make it this vile?!"...? If you have, you're witnessing firsthand the benefits of being born without a fully developed digestive system.  ;D

Your ethics should affect your decision, abso-friggin-lutely. However, your ethics should not affect my decision.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #37 on: October 06, 2010, 09:53:26 AM »
So where I am, there is a very clear and distinct line between first term abortions, and the rather brutal means necessary to execute a late term abortion.

For clarification's sake: If late term abortion were not brutal you would be behind them? Or is that just an ancillary appeal to emotion?

Offline mystictiger

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #38 on: October 06, 2010, 03:28:31 PM »
Frankly, not a legal one. Official (as in legal) entities have no business making medical designations of 'necessary' and 'unnecessary'.

They absolutely do. In any country that regulates medical practice (i.e. all of them), or in which any entity constituted or mandated by law to provide healthcare (e.g. National Health Services, Insurers) have to prioritise. Why the distinction?

Performaing unneccesary procedures on a patient in certain circumstances is gross professional misconduct. Also, jurisdiction-wide triage priorities are essential.

Quote
Your ethics should affect your decision, abso-friggin-lutely. However, your ethics should not affect my decision.

The premise of this statement is that rights can be exercised in isolation. This is a false dichotomy. Your rights to decide will always be circumscribed by the society in which you operate. My ethics may say that carnal knowledge of children is acceptable, much as the ancient Greeks did. My society, however, regards this a grave crime.

This is one of the 'features' of democratic law making; where the views of the majority prevail of the views of the minority, the majority does have a 'right' to impose their view on the others. You don't like it? Move jurisdiction.

Personally, I'm terrified of this tyranny of the majority. If it could be exercised in the UK at the moment, being a Muslim or being homosexual would probably be made capital crimes.

Quote
For clarification's sake: If late term abortion were not brutal you would be behind them? Or is that just an ancillary appeal to emotion?

How does that aid in clarification? The supposition of non-brutal late-stage abortions is definitionally impossible. To my mind, it's about as useful as saying "If slavery were moral, then I wouldn't oppose slavery". Also, I think there's something wrong if you don't have strongly held emotional engagement with an issue like this.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #39 on: October 06, 2010, 07:24:28 PM »
How does that aid in clarification?

I am attempting to determine what, specifically, Zamdrist objects to re: late term abortion. Thus clarifying the substance of his argument.

The supposition of non-brutal late-stage abortions is definitionally impossible. To my mind, it's about as useful as saying "If slavery were moral, then I wouldn't oppose slavery".

Then I would recommend a better imagination, or a better dictionary.

Also, I think there's something wrong if you don't have strongly held emotional engagement with an issue like this.

Why? Emotion is a hallmark of sentimentality and serves no purpose in the realm of morality. Your emotional response to an issue like this serves not one whit in ethical questions concerning the issue.

Offline Noelle

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #40 on: October 06, 2010, 07:35:21 PM »
The problem with emotional engagement is that emotions can be very unreliable and emotions often don't take into account A) reason and factual evidence, and b) what's actually best for the people at large. Frankly, half the problem I see in this debate is that people often run solely on emotion, which is where we get the grossly inaccurate "baby-killer" image and emotionally-blackmailing advertisements against abortion. Notice that this isn't nearly as emotionally distressing as this. You can guess which image pro-life organizations use more despite the fact that the picture shown is well past the stage that typical women abort. The overwhelming majority do it in the first trimester, which is also when most people are more comfortable with the idea of abortion happening. You'll notice that the most commonly reported excuse for having it later was just making monetary and administrative arrangements to have it done, not any latent, evil desire to make the process 'more brutal'.

But those are facts. Many people don't like facts because they can seem impersonal -- but I would rather see a decision made based on things that actually are rather than based on how things appear to be to someone's individual perception colored by unchecked emotion.

The problem with arguing abortion is that there is no clear-cut majority that society can turn to for the norm on the subject; Actually, pro-choice support has just barely lead the country for the last 15 years, though interestingly last year, the roles reversed. There's a good chance we will be locked in debate this way for at least another decade, though I predict it will go on much longer.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2010, 07:57:41 PM »
It occurs to me that there has been a good amount of discussion on why abortion should be legal and blah blah blah.

I would like to reverse it. Why should we make abortion illegal? Why should we go through the process of revoking Roe v. Wade? Why should we deny this medical procedure to those who would like to have it? I find the 'unnecessary procedures' argument to be lacking, as cosmetic surgeries are not anywhere close to being made illegal and they are medically unnecessary.

I'm asking this question because as far as I can tell, there is no real objective reason that it should be illegal. Every single position has been based on morality and opinion of 'when life begins'. If you're not going to accept my definition of 'when life begins', I would like to know why I should accept yours. Just throwing that out there. :)

Offline RubySlippers

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2010, 09:57:14 PM »
Trieste ok here is my best reason to making the Life Begins at conception, well two reasons.:

1. A human mother with a human father, or rather her egg and one sperm always makes a human being upon birth. A child with a genetic disorder is still a human child. A mutant or evolutionary advanced human is still a human being. Not a dog or a cat or a chicken - human. So regardless of what you call the fetus it will be a human being. This for me overrides any other arguement that its not a human since it has (insert anything from heartbeat to brain waves to movement) all don't matter - the genetic potential does.

2. Since we cannot be sure when life begins to then be respectful to the unborn human in the mother it must then be considered a human being at birth and given the same right to life as the mother barring a danger to the existing lifes physical health considering all available medical options. And I mean even taking the child from the mother as a very early preemie and other options to give the child any chance at life as one even when the chance of survival is low.

I feel the same way about the Death Penalty if you cannot be 100% sure the person is guilty then there is no right to execute anyone, life in prison will suffice.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2010, 10:12:29 PM »
I understand the position that "life begins at conception". My question was:

You say that life begins at conception, and I say that life doesn't begin until the child is able to breathe with his own lungs, etc. If you are unwilling to accept my definition of where life begins, why should I be willing to accept yours enough for it to be law? What makes your stance more valid than mine?

Offline Jude

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #44 on: October 06, 2010, 10:22:59 PM »
1. A human mother with a human father, or rather her egg and one sperm always makes a human being upon birth. A child with a genetic disorder is still a human child. A mutant or evolutionary advanced human is still a human being. Not a dog or a cat or a chicken - human. So regardless of what you call the fetus it will be a human being. This for me overrides any other arguement that its not a human since it has (insert anything from heartbeat to brain waves to movement) all don't matter - the genetic potential does.
Your argument seems to be:  "the fact that the fetus will become a human being means it deserves the rights of a human being."  The problem with that is, it will only become a human being if the mother suffers through nine months of pregnancy to facilitate its maturation within her womb.  You're setting an arbitrary point at which the potential for life becomes important -- your view it's conception, why not preconception?  Why aren't egg cells and semen given the same reverence since they have the potential to form the basis of a human life as well.

It seems as if you're arguing that because, for example, semen cannot form a child on its own then it shouldn't be given the same reverence.  That seems reasonable until you realize that a fetus cannot become a child on its own either.  Returning to my earlier point, it has to be nourished by a mother in her womb at her expense for nine months in order to receive all of the chemicals it needs to become a child.  A fetus is simply further down the line than semen is, more complete to be certain, but not complete.  That human being is being constructed while in her womb from materials it is taking from the mother.

Saying genetic material is the defining material that gives moral weight strikes me as completely arbitrary, a designation made simply for the sake of justifying a position in opposition to abortion.  Genetic material is not special; it too is just physical material arranged in a particular way.
2. Since we cannot be sure when life begins to then be respectful to the unborn human in the mother it must then be considered a human being at birth and given the same right to life as the mother barring a danger to the existing lifes physical health considering all available medical options. And I mean even taking the child from the mother as a very early preemie and other options to give the child any chance at life as one even when the chance of survival is low.

I feel the same way about the Death Penalty if you cannot be 100% sure the person is guilty then there is no right to execute anyone, life in prison will suffice.
We know when biological life begins, but certainly that isn't "human life."  The question is, when does human life begin?  The two do not begin concurrently, but all of the things we associate with human life (mainly thought) are fundamentally impossible for a fetus because it doesn't have the mental faculties to do such for reasons discussed throughout the thread.

Offline Zeitgeist

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2010, 07:29:42 AM »
It occurs to me that there has been a good amount of discussion on why abortion should be legal and blah blah blah.

I would like to reverse it. Why should we make abortion illegal? Why should we go through the process of revoking Roe v. Wade? Why should we deny this medical procedure to those who would like to have it? I find the 'unnecessary procedures' argument to be lacking, as cosmetic surgeries are not anywhere close to being made illegal and they are medically unnecessary.

I'm asking this question because as far as I can tell, there is no real objective reason that it should be illegal. Every single position has been based on morality and opinion of 'when life begins'. If you're not going to accept my definition of 'when life begins', I would like to know why I should accept yours. Just throwing that out there. :)

Is it really fair that we must look at the situation completely objectively and without emotion? I'd argue we are not automatons devoid of emotion. And honestly no one has a definitive answer on when life truly begins, where the line is. In fact, that's just it. It is a mystery by design, and each person defines it differently. For some it begins immediately at conception, for others it is at the third trimester, and others its only after the baby leaves the woman's womb. That we all define it differently is of course the conundrum.

I have my own feelings concerning this, and they are surely at odds with others here. Though emotionally driven it may be, I try to think of my son, and if his future girlfriend became unexpectedly pregnant. That would be my granddaughter or grandson in that young woman's womb. And while it surely wouldn't be my say, I could never counsel her/them to terminate the pregnancy because the timing or situation wasn't ideal. Rather I would offer my support, and do everything I could to help, be it financial or being 'grandpa' and babysitting, helping out wherever I could and made sense.

No, I can't remove my feelings and emotion from the issue and look at it solely objectively. It's life or the potential of life and such it isn't conducive to an emotionless examination.

At the same time, making the process illegal isn't a practical solution either. It's fraught with all sorts of problems. For me at least, I could only condone it early in the first trimester, after than and the closer you get to physical birth I become more and more uneasy with the idea.

Offline mystictiger

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #46 on: October 07, 2010, 08:06:18 AM »
Quote
Then I would recommend a better imagination, or a better dictionary.

The previous author already defined brutality as a necessary component of late-stage abortions to his world-view. I would recommend a course in basic reading or perhaps being more tolerant to the world-views of others ;)

One cannot frame an argument for tolerance of one's own views based on the intolerance of the views of others.

Emotion is a hallmark of sentimentality and serves no purpose in the realm of morality. Your emotional response to an issue like this serves not one whit in ethical questions concerning the issue.

Aristotle's ethical premise of Eudaimonia was based squarely on the premise of happieness. That ethics consists of our experiences in life and our responses to them. We should aim for 'kalos' (I believe it's beauty, harmony, or 'pleasant' or something like that). Both Aristotle and Plato tread 'thumos' or the cause to anger as a vital, positive, and necessary part of their ethical structures. Admittedly, Aristotle doesn't regard this as being properly an 'emotion', and sees virtue in following the rational. Hedonism, for instance, was the maximisation of pleasure as an ethical standpoint.

The typical undergraduate philosophy class response is "emotion is the enemy of rationality". Look further and you'll see it is impossible to act as a purely rational actor. It is, however, the emotional content of an ethical system that lead to some of its triumphs. Emotions serve two purposes; two evaluate a given ethical standpoint, and to allow the influencing of others through joint subjective truths.

In terms of modern theoretical approach, I quite favour consequentialism - that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes, the traditional 'ends justify the means' approach. What are the ends? They could be anything. Even... *gasp*... happiness!

Any notion of a rule-making system based on the prevention of suffering is tied to an empathetic regard to the subject. You can frame an entire justification for human rights on the principle of preventing suffering.

I can't understand the appeal of critical theoretical approaches to morality and ethics, as some authors suggest that reality itself is in doubt, and that rationalism is therefore irrelevent, leaving us only with emotion.

My view on this is that my emotions and 'gut reactions' to issues are generally more persuasive to me than the cold 'truth' of logic. Give me data or give me death.

Your broad and sweeping generalisations are unbeckoming. Your concept of ethics has no room for the emotions. That does not mean that ethics as a whole cannot.

Quote
I'm asking this question because as far as I can tell, there is no real objective reason that it should be illegal. Every single position has been based on morality and opinion of 'when life begins'. If you're not going to accept my definition of 'when life begins', I would like to know why I should accept yours. Just throwing that out there. :)

Because Roe's appeal was moot. She had already given birth at the time it occured. Given that this effectively changed the law, the change should be undone by a virtue of being counter to the general principles of the rule of law ;)

-

Edit: My grave concern in the whole abortion debate in the US is that it's law made by judges. Yes, they're interpreting the constitution, but that's a dark art that could go either way. I think it should be replaced with 'proper' law, made be elected representatives, just as the US constitution envisages.

My personal bias on this? I think it's a deeply complex question and not one that you can draw broad sweeping statements about. It therefore doesn't lend itself well to the language of a 'right'. Yes, I'm happy on my fence here.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 08:20:29 AM by mystictiger »

Offline Noelle

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #47 on: October 07, 2010, 02:20:18 PM »
If the morality of an action is judged by its outcome, then by that reasoning, if I'm unhappy with my pregnancy and I'm panicking and worrying because it will cause me financial hardship, and if I'm not willing to quit drinking and smoking while I'm pregnant thus causing the baby to suffer as well, then the obvious happier solution is to abort it. If someone else's emotions are violently opposed to the thought of my abortion because they think I'm ejecting fully-grown dead babies out of my womb due to someone else's emotional misinformation (as I gave example of in my previous post), there's no way I want their emotions involved if not only are their conceptions not tied to truth, but that statistics are saying you will have a happier, healthier, more equal society by allowing abortion to continue.

Nobody is suggesting you act as an automatic, unemotional entity. Everyone's emotions color their thinking to some extent, but the point is to keep your emotions in check by way of hard facts. I absolutely do not want someone who is willing to disregard evidence because it doesn't line up with their emotions to be making laws. Emotions are more persuasive, and that's the danger of them. If someone out their is willing to manipulate your emotions to blackmail you into seeing their point, that's precisely why you need to keep your emotions balanced by resorting to checking out the 'cold facts' to see if what they're saying has any basis.

Offline DarklingAlice

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #48 on: October 07, 2010, 02:48:59 PM »
The previous author already defined brutality as a necessary component of late-stage abortions to his world-view. I would recommend a course in basic reading or perhaps being more tolerant to the world-views of others ;)

One cannot frame an argument for tolerance of one's own views based on the intolerance of the views of others.

No, but one can dismantle and analyze one's own world view. Provided one isn't an unamaginative dogmatist and therefore renders oneself irrelevant  :P

I am also pretty sure Zamdrist doesn't need you to answer questions for him.

Aristotle's ethical premise of Eudaimonia was based squarely on the premise of happieness. That ethics consists of our experiences in life and our responses to them. We should aim for 'kalos' (I believe it's beauty, harmony, or 'pleasant' or something like that). Both Aristotle and Plato tread 'thumos' or the cause to anger as a vital, positive, and necessary part of their ethical structures. Admittedly, Aristotle doesn't regard this as being properly an 'emotion', and sees virtue in following the rational. Hedonism, for instance, was the maximisation of pleasure as an ethical standpoint.

The typical undergraduate philosophy class response is "emotion is the enemy of rationality". Look further and you'll see it is impossible to act as a purely rational actor. It is, however, the emotional content of an ethical system that lead to some of its triumphs. Emotions serve two purposes; two evaluate a given ethical standpoint, and to allow the influencing of others through joint subjective truths.

In terms of modern theoretical approach, I quite favour consequentialism - that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes, the traditional 'ends justify the means' approach. What are the ends? They could be anything. Even... *gasp*... happiness!

Any notion of a rule-making system based on the prevention of suffering is tied to an empathetic regard to the subject. You can frame an entire justification for human rights on the principle of preventing suffering.

I can't understand the appeal of critical theoretical approaches to morality and ethics, as some authors suggest that reality itself is in doubt, and that rationalism is therefore irrelevent, leaving us only with emotion.

My view on this is that my emotions and 'gut reactions' to issues are generally more persuasive to me than the cold 'truth' of logic. Give me data or give me death.

Your broad and sweeping generalisations are unbeckoming. Your concept of ethics has no room for the emotions. That does not mean that ethics as a whole cannot.

See, contrary to popular belief philosophy is not just a set of random, equally valid opinions. It is a a vibrant, developing, academic art. There is a reason the ancients are outmoded (regardless of how much respect I have for them...well...for Aristotle at least, only a few of the Platonic dialogues were really worth keeping around). Trying to apply Aristotelean ethics whole-cloth to modern concerns is about as useful as trying to draw biological conclusions from his conviction that semen was made of the same substance as stars; or to use his flawed mechanics in place of the modern revisions. Really if you want to stay relevant in these things then I suggest reading something written in the past 2000 years. Start with the 18th century, you might find it...Enlightening. Even Millsian/Utilitarian happiness is defined as the balance between pleasure and suffering rather than in the imprecise and impotent terms of emotions.

Regardless, this is not the place for a general discussion of ethics, so if you want to persist in your emotion theory I would ask that you take an example from Noelle and do so in specific relation to the abortion question, or PM me, rather than drag the whole thread even further off topic.

Offline mystictiger

Re: I'm Speechless...Abortion Speech
« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2010, 03:08:41 PM »
You have a habit of regarding people who disagree with you as off topic.

Happiness, by any stretch of defintion or interpretation is an emotion, as in suffering. They both relate to what one feels rather than exclusively what one things.

To deny the role of emotion is to preclude what it is that makes us human, as opposed to computers. I am firmly with Amartya Sen in that a purely rational choice is the choice of a rational fool. I would strongly urge you to consider the Bounded Rationality, as espoused by Herbert Simon.

This is 'on topic' because it relates to the question of ethics, and your denial that an ethic that includes emotion is valid. You have asserted, a priori, that any concept of ethics that conflicts with yours is invalid. Although you may claim that your concept is rationalist, your prejudice is automatically irrational based on your utterly subjective exclusion.

The belief that Abortion Is Wrong (why? Just because it is! I have a gut feeling) is of equal normative weight to any reasoned or logical belief. With concerns for the ontology and epistemology of both beliefs, they are both internally consistent. You do not regard them as convincing - it is therefore a fallacy to say that they are unconvincing. You do not have a monopoly on 'fact', let alone 'truth'.

The outcome as advocated by Trieste that 'You don't accept my premise therefore I won't accept yours' is unsatisfactory because it does not take us any further into the discussion of the matter.

All of these arguments are inherently subjective appeals to paradigms that are not accepted by both parties. We therefore do not in fact have a debate, we merely have a discussion about the comparative utility of ... exagerating for effect now... wombats and curise liners: which is better?