The Abortion Controversy & A Solution

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 08:35 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;99816 wrote:
What I dont like about abortion is two fold:

1) Removal of a viable baby far into the pregnancy by pulling it out and dismembering the Baby. This is muder and I dont care what the law has to say about it

2) Aborting a fetus that is the result of consensual sex, this baby has a right to life

Trauma due to rape is something else but many people that exist due to rape weep with gratitude to the mothers that did the brave thing and allowed them to live


I understand you do not like abortion. But that is a different question from its morality or its legality.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 02:05 pm
@deepthot,
In an ideological debate where the only real bases of argument are of faith and semantics there cannot be compromise. Both side of this debate are free to define life as whatever they want and have the conviction that their definition is right. Furthermore neither has any empirical evidence that the other's definition is wrong, after all any organism that is "living" is also dying.
 
Leonard
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 06:18 pm
@deepthot,
Well in some cases when abortion is the only choice to save the woman's life, it sounds fine. Anyway, if the mother dies the fetus will also die.
-Save one life or save none, pro-lifers. It's your call.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 08:56 pm
@deepthot,
Agreed, this is always a matter of weighing morals. In the case of the common pro-choice argument, it's that a woman's right to self-determination and dominion over her body is more important than a fetus' independent right to be born and raised.

I'm not sure the gap between perspectives can truly be bridged. But so long as there are multiple commonly-held morals involved, the law is going to be a pragmatic instrument and not a moral instrument.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 06:54 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;99907 wrote:
In an ideological debate where the only real bases of argument are of faith and semantics there cannot be compromise. Both side of this debate are free to define life as whatever they want and have the conviction that their definition is right. Furthermore neither has any empirical evidence that the other's definition is wrong, after all any organism that is "living" is also dying.


Definitions aren't wrong; they are either reasonable or acceptable -- or their opposites.

No one is claiming that a fetus is not alive. The resolution hinges upon whether a fetus is a person -- by some good definition of the concept "person." What would make it a good definition is if it is imbedded in some theory or system which shows its relations to other relevant terms of the system.

Faith ought to be based upon reason. ...at least philosophers ought to agree to this. When I step into an elevator, or into a totally dark room, I am operating on faith that the floor will be there and it will hold up. That faith is based on experience and probability theory.

I have faith that there can be a compromise. I offered one, in fact, in the o.p. of this thread. YES WE CAN.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 07:07 pm
@deepthot,
deepthot;100414 wrote:
Definitions aren't wrong; they are either reasonable or acceptable -- or their opposites.

.


The definition of "dog" as a feline creature who purrs and mews, and loves milk, and sometimes climbs trees, and has little kittens as progeny, is wrong.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 07:53 pm
@deepthot,
deepthot;100414 wrote:
Definitions aren't wrong; they are either reasonable or acceptable -- or their opposites.

No one is claiming that a fetus is not alive. The resolution hinges upon whether a fetus is a person -- by some good definition of the concept "person." What would make it a good definition is if it is imbedded in some theory or system which shows its relations to other relevant terms of the system.


Alive and A life are two entirely different things, Definitions cannot be wrong they are categorical descriptions of a thing, action, phenomenon, whatever. those descriptions naturally envelope ideology, perception, arbitrary categorical placement, and a plethora of other factors cultural and biological. The point being made was that a definition held with conviction is not nor can it be rational, in that the conviction tends to negate any real doubt. Thereby making any argument against it pointless.

deepthot;100414 wrote:


Faith ought to be based upon reason. ...at least philosophers ought to agree to this. When I step into an elevator, or into a totally dark room, I am operating on faith that the floor will be there and it will hold up. That faith is based on experience and probability theory.


I have faith that there can be a compromise. I offered one, in fact, in the o.p. of this thread. YES WE CAN. [/QUOTE]

"Faith Ought" to anything is a practical oxymoron. Faith is, and reality it is always based on reason. Just because the reasoning may not jive with your reasoning doesn't make it any less reasonable. Faith by its nature (and definition) also has the luxury to defy commonly accepted modes of reasoning. To say it ought to be based on ('reason' i.e. western logical tradition, empiricalist tradition etc...) is saying that it ought not to be based on its own traditional defenition (Akin to but not limited to. "hope for things believed but not seen')

deepthot;100414 wrote:

I have faith that there can be a compromise. I offered one, in fact, in the o.p. of this thread. YES WE CAN.


An ocean of empirical and historical data suggesting otherwise would also suggest that the reasoning behind your faith may be suspect. It looks to me like a thing hoped for but not seen.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 05:14 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100416 wrote:
The definition of "dog" as a feline creature who purrs and mews, and loves milk, and sometimes climbs trees, and has little kittens as progeny, is wrong.


You are finding that definition unreasonable and unacceptable (to you.) After that you find it to be "wrong." That is how you are using the word "wrong."

That context of the present discussion is whether something is morally wrong.

---------- Post added 10-30-2009 at 06:43 PM ----------

Aedes;99990 wrote:
Agreed, this is always a matter of weighing morals. In the case of the common pro-choice argument, it's that a woman's right to self-determination and dominion over her body is more important than a fetus' independent right to be born and raised. (emphasis added)



Greetings, Aedes

Would you please be so kind as to inform me when and how exactly a fetus acquired rights of any kind???!

And what is the process involved in gaining a human right? In the United Nations Charter of Human Rights I do not see any mention of a fetus.

Rightfully so. We have enough trouble affirming and enforcing the rights mentioned there - such as the right to a roof over your head - ask the people in refugee camps if they have a decent residence - for those already born, let alone entitling a new cohort, a new group of creatures.

Let us have a child-centered policy in The United States today! Then we will have a concerted campaign to eliminate most all child abuse, including incest. [although some here may incest upon having the "right" to do it with the under-aged]. (pun intended.)

Let us focus on reducing drastically psychological abuse in the family; name-calling, put-downs, etc. Let us show we care about those persons who have been born by cleaning up our act: enhancing their lives.


That will be true wealth -- in contrast to the paper-shuffling that goes on in the securities trading industry -- which brings no true wealth into the world. Yes, it makes us richer in money sometimes, but the real wealth is fellowship, loving relations toward each other, even toward doctors who help out pregnant women by performing abortions. Even toward jihadists, and/or fundamentalist Wahabis or other descendants of Abraham whether Crosstians, Hebrews, other Muslims ...or any other extremists or tribalists. We who live in the 21st century ought to be kind to those who still live in the 11th century - as far as mentality is concerned.{And read Dr. Gene Sharp on the untold story of the power of nonviolent direct action; not only the use of it by Martin L. King, but by the Danish, French, Polish, and Swedish Underground.}

In re the wars we are waging today: You don't win hearts and minds by pointing a gun at them.

...but I digress.

This is a thread on the topic of Abortion. I apologize for permitting my thoughts to wander.

Cordially,

deepthot
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 08:15 pm
@deepthot,
deepthot;100719 wrote:
Would you please be so kind as to inform me when and how exactly a fetus acquired rights of any kind???!
Rights are legal. They're not metaphysical. If you kill a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you can be charged with two homicides. A fetus has the legal right to prenatal health care.

There isn't a single unifying set of governing laws in the world, there are multiple legal systems. Under certain legal systems in certain circumstances a fetus has rights, even though a fetus is never (to my knowledge) a citizen.

deepthot;100719 wrote:
And what is the process involved in gaining a human right? In the United Nations Charter of Human Rights I do not see any mention of a fetus.
You're being sarcastic. Human rights bodies concern themselves with crimes against humanity and war crimes. If there were a situation in which women were forced en masse to have abortions, I can guarantee you the International Criminal Court would regard this as a violation of human rights.

deepthot;100719 wrote:
We who live in the 21st century ought to be kind to those who still live in the 11th century
I agree.

You're sort of preaching to the choir at me...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 11:22 pm
@deepthot,
deepthot;100719 wrote:
You are finding that definition unreasonable and unacceptable (to you.) After that you find it to be "wrong." That is how you are using the word "wrong."

That context of the present discussion is whether something is morally wrong.

---------- Post added 10-30-2009 at 06:43 PM ----------






But not at all. The definition is wrong because it is not in the dictionary. To define "dog' as a cat is just as wrong as to add up 2+2 and get 11.

Definitions are neither morally wrong, nor morally right. They are, however,true or false. And that is what you denied they were, didn't you. Well, I am saying that they are true or false, since they report how people who are speakers of the language, use the word in question, and the report may be true or false just as any report may be.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 01:29 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100773 wrote:
...The definition is wrong because it is not in the dictionary....


I trust you aren't claiming that some specific definition that cannot be found in any dictionary (yet) has to be wrong. I take it you are alluding here only to your proposed definition of a "dog." If so, okay.


kennethamy;100773 wrote:

Definitions are neither morally wrong, nor morally right. They are, however,true or false. And that is what you denied they were, didn't you.


No, my friend. I never said that. I did not deny truth (nor falsehood.) I agree with you that a definition can be true -- or at least ring true.

I did request a good definition of the concept "person"; and I now request of any and all readers a good definition of "life" and of "consciousness" (as distinct from "awareness."

Let us stay with the theme of abortion, since that is the topic of this thread.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 31 Oct, 2009 08:56 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;100778 wrote:
I trust you aren't claiming that some specific definition that cannot be found in any dictionary (yet) has to be wrong. I take it you are alluding here only to your proposed definition of a "dog." If so, okay.




No, my friend. I never said that. I did not deny truth (nor falsehood.) I agree with you that a definition can be true -- or at least ring true.

I did request a good definition of the concept "person"; and I now request of any and all readers a good definition of "life" and of "consciousness" (as distinct from "awareness."

Let us stay with the theme of abortion, since that is the topic of this thread.


Definitions in the dictionary don't only ring true. They are true (given the dictionary has not made an error). As I said, dictionary definitions are reports of how fluent speaker of the language use a term. And if the report is true the definition is true.

I am claiming that it there is a definition that does not report how a word is used by fluent speakers of the language, that it is false. That applies to non-existent definitions as well.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 02:53 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100816 wrote:
...I am claiming that it there is a definition that does not report how a word is used by fluent speakers of the language, that it is false.


So if a new definition of a term is proposed in Biology or in Algebraic Topology or in Computer Science, a definition employing a coined term, or a definition which interprets a common word by means of a formula in that theory, it is going to be FALSE according to you.

And when Galileo defined "rate of speed" by Distance units divided by Time units ...that was false, you say, since "fluent speakers of the language did not before then use the words that way." Wow !


Besides --- what has this got to do with abortion?? Are we off topic?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:33 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;100959 wrote:
So if a new definition of a term is proposed in Biology or in Algebraic Topology or in Computer Science, a definition employing a coined term, or a definition which interprets a common word by means of a formula in that theory, it is going to be FALSE according to you.

And when Galileo defined "rate of speed" by Distance units divided by Time units ...that was false, you say, since "fluent speakers of the language did not before then use the words that way." Wow !


Besides --- what has this got to do with abortion?? Are we off topic?


No, of course not. These are technical definitions. And they will eventually, if used, be reported in the dictionary. The dictionaries constantly come out with new meanings of old words. I am not talking of technical terms or neologisms.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 04:14 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;100992 wrote:
No, of course not. These are technical definitions. And they will eventually, if used, be reported in the dictionary. The dictionaries constantly come out with new meanings of old words. I am not talking of technical terms or neologisms.



Thank you for clearing that up, Ken.

You say you are "not talking of technical terms or neologisms." Well we should be, for that is what we need in this field to eventually put it on a sound footing: we need to imbed these moral concepts in a Relevance Logic. Or, to say it another way, we need consistently to interpret some symbolic logic formulas in terms of Ethics - thereby making Ethics into a stable body of cumulative knowledge to which people will turn when they have a moral dilemma to solve.

Medicine - a field that once depended on leeches and vapors - has been put upon a (relatively) sound basis by being imbedded in Biochemistry and Physiology. There is no reason we cannot do the same for Ethics. We can take the findings of Dr. Stephen Post, Dr. David Mefford, and Harvey Shoof and combine them with the work of those specific economists and anthropologists who believe they have a science; and feed all that knowledge to a logician such as Dr. Ted Richards, Univ. of Tennessee-Knoxville, someone who is already deeply interested in values and morality.

The results of such inter-disciplinary sharing will 'blow your mind.' - to use the vernacular. But someone has to do it; some current philosophy student would be the ideal person to coordinate the effort.

With advances in science, as I said earlier in this thread, the abortion controversy will fall away ...as fewer and fewer surgical abortions are actually performed. Then only those necessary to save a mother's life will be done, and those who are supposed to uphold life - since they call themselves "Right-to-Lifers" - may (albeit reluctantly) concede that the woman has a right to live. There will still be a few fanatics who will strive to murder the surgeons who provide the life-saving service but this is a criminal issue for the Justice System to handle.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/07/2022 at 04:26:34