Abortion

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Ruthless logic, a solution derived by the necessity of compromise is not absolute. A solution of that sort does not equate to a black and white view on the subject, but rather chooses to remain dismissive in regards to the grey area by necessity and is thus subject to change upon review. 'Abortion shall be constrained' is a possible compromise between two groups each with an opposite, black and white view pertaining of either 'no abortion' or unrestrained 'abortion'. Once more, to come to a conclusion in regards to a problem which must be resolved is more relfective upon the times and the people than the value of the solution, which is made explicit by its actual impact. I shall issue this single coveat to those who believe in an absolute morality/solution, you shall find that no matter the solution proposed there will be at least one consequnece which you had not anticipated, which may or may not be acceptable upon review.

Ruthless logic, your indulgence in sophistry and self validation, as well as your generally presumptious, dismissive attitude disgusts me.
Although your use of logic may be to ruthless ends, its propositions still remain grossly inconsistent. I think we both know what that equates to:emotional validation of assumed truths. I defy you to correct me.

Okay, If you must insist. You said “to come to a conclusion in regards to a problem which must be resolved is more reflective upon the times and the people than the value of the solution, which is made explicit by its actual impact” A classic nonsensical claim reflective of your poor reasoning skills, because you try to separate the solution of consensus and the subjective measurement of success that you conveniently create by your own self-serving statement.

On the topic of the consideration process (grey shading), it is cognitively consistent that any process that involves the evolutionary procedure of further refinement of any Public Policy Mandate (i.e. Abortion laws) cannot circumvent the CURRENT legal constraints which can only be viewed (black or white) with the detail of described LAW, until the new legal parameters are adopted. The term black or white is clearly reflective of the inherent rigidity of enforced LAW, while the term of grey shading is clearly reflective of the non-legal binding consideration process. Any attempt to provide an alternate process that is based in reality would be patently INSANE.

Lastly, you said “I think we both know what that equates to: emotional validation of assumed truths”. Please provide one SINGLE measurable example that reflects the process of validation WITHOUT the ensuing empirically measurable component of emotion, regardless if it encompasses the detailing of personal morality, or describing the constraints of mathematical axioms. It would be exponentially more productive if you could consider the implications of your statements and claims, before the subsequent vetting process discredits them. I must say, based on the quality of the other posts that I responded to, your composition is clearly the least articulate.

[Justin]

I must say, based on the quality of the other posts that I responded to, your composition is clearly the least articulate.

Up until this sentence this thread was turning back toward a productive conversation. Why continue to point out the spec in another's eye?... could there not be a log in our own?

If someone is not as articulate as you think they should be, that's to be expected as we have all arrived here from different experiences and educational backgrounds. Being articulate is a nice thing and certainly many of us do our best but that's not something you insult someone about. It's not necessary to be insulting at all because in reality, when we insult someone else we really only insult ourselves. This is a result of EGO. It also prevents people from responding to threads because they may not be as articulate as some of us expect them to be and naturally have a fear of being insulted.

Needless to say, let's get back on topic and leave the personal insults at the entrance of this forum. Thank you for listening and let's discuss, ponder and philosophize without insult or injury.

... Back to Abortion, and thank you all for cleaning up this thread a bit.

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

Okay, If you must insist. You said “to come to a conclusion in regards to a problem which must be resolved is more reflective upon the times and the people than the value of the solution, which is made explicit by its actual impact” A classic nonsensical claim reflective of your poor reasoning skills, because you try to separate the solution of consensus and the subjective measurement of success that you conveniently create by your own self-serving statement.

Perhaps I should elucidate my point a bit more to avoid further misinterpretations. The conclusions made upon the empirically valid impact of the implemented law shall shape its future depending on the view of the majority at the time when it is deemed fit to alter it. The people who shall change the law will either a)Be the same population, and as such decided that the impact was more negative than positive, or b)A different population with different emphasis on different values; otherwise the law would not need changing. Of course it is all subjective, that is implicit in context! There is no inferred measurement of success in my statement, that was a projection of yours, Im not sure what this says of your reasoning skills by your mode of measure. My statement was indeed not a self serving one as your sinde remarks are. I simply presented my view on the subject that was being discussed and made a few remarks about your unessisary commentary in redard to the other posters.

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

On the topic of the consideration process (grey shading), it is cognitively consistent that any process that involves the evolutionary procedure of further refinement of any Public Policy Mandate (i.e. Abortion laws) cannot circumvent the CURRENT legal constraints which can only be viewed (black or white) with the detail of described LAW, until the new legal parameters are adopted. The term black or white is clearly reflective of the inherent rigidity of enforced LAW, while the term of grey shading is clearly reflective of the non-legal binding consideration process. Any attempt to provide an alternate process that is based in reality would be patently INSANE.

I believe that my suggestion was entirely ideologically within legal parameters, it pertaining to the typical situations which change the legal parameters, e.g. majority rule, and what shifts majority opinion. The law is the law of course and I at no point was advocating any for m of civil disobedience nor was I advocating any implementation of laws by states undermining the constitutional law (which is no longer nearly as valid as it once was, being reduced to shades of grey by the fairly recent adoption of interpretational tendencies by the supreame court judges) I simply observed that the law does not equate to the view of the people who compromised to allow for it,but rather it is a settlement by both sides, black and white as it were, form an acceptable moral grey. It is always this way, law is compromise. That is all I said. All the rest was you.

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

Lastly, you said “I think we both know what that equates to: emotional validation of assumed truths”. Please provide one SINGLE measurable example that reflects the process of validation WITHOUT the ensuing empirically measurable component of emotion, regardless if it encompasses the detailing of personal morality, or describing the constraints of mathematical axioms. It would be exponentially more productive if you could consider the implications of your statements and claims, before the subsequent vetting process discredits them. I must say, based on the quality of the other posts that I responded to, your composition is clearly the least articulate.

All truths are assumed, however, not emotionally validated, this statement was more directed at your undue attacks which are not pertinent to the discussion for they would be self evident if your argument was sufficently valid. Your reducto ad absurdum tactic is an intersting choice, however, it invariably takes my statement out of context and imbeds a slew of assumptions into it. You should learn that pedanticism is not a substitute for substance in an argument, you can do nothing but waste time by bringing in irrelevent facts which only tie in to the argument via your imbedded presumptions. I suppose you need everything spelled out very carefully in order to avoid confusion.

Now, if you have anymore questions about my evaluation of the pertinent arguments, I will answer them. I think that philosophy of law is a valid object for consideration since it is most definitely applicable to this issue. I will be nothing but civil if your intents are sincere. Does anyone have anything to add as far as the philosophy of law which might pertain to this topic? What might come of certain legal compromises such as various restrictions?

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Justin

Up until this sentence this thread was turning back toward a productive conversation. Why continue to point out the spec in another's eye?... could there not be a log in our own?

If someone is not as articulate as you think they should be, that's to be expected as we have all arrived here from different experiences and educational backgrounds. Being articulate is a nice thing and certainly many of us do our best but that's not something you insult someone about. It's not necessary to be insulting at all because in reality, when we insult someone else we really only insult ourselves. This is a result of EGO. It also prevents people from responding to threads because they may not be as articulate as some of us expect them to be and naturally have a fear of being insulted.

Needless to say, let's get back on topic and leave the personal insults at the entrance of this forum. Thank you for listening and let's discuss, ponder and philosophize without insult or injury.

... Back to Abortion, and thank you all for cleaning up this thread a bit.

A valid assertion consisting of reasonable implications. Also, point taken!

[Mr. Fight the Power]

It is very unfortunate that there are psychological and biological complications for women who have abortions.

You won't hear many say this, but I feel abortion to be an excellent solution. In my opinion, there can hardly be a greater sin than letting a human being that is unwanted become conscious of their plight.

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by Peter

At a local philosophy discussion group which I attend, we got round to discussing the ethics of abortion (a hot topic, I know!)

I said that I was dissatisfied with my own ideas on this topic. I am clear that at the beginning of the pregnancy, all or virtually all the rights are with the mother. Equally, by the later stages, the preponderance of rights lie with the foetus. My problem is that I can find no clear point at which the foetus becomes a child with attendant rights. No such sharp transition exists, just as there is no single point at which a child becomes an adult. Both are developmental processes, not step processes. So when the law fixes an age at which the foetus "becomes" a child, or the child "becomes" an adult, we all know these are necessary fictions.

One consideration that would be relevant in determining the cut-off point for abortion is the stage at which the foetus becomes sensitive to any pain incurred during the abortion process. But when does pain-sensitivity start? Looking at different websites I see that estimates vary widely, from 15 weeks to 28 weeks - and guess what - these estimates are closely correlated with the ideological stances of the writers. Those who have a liberal attitude to abortion place the onset of pain-sensitivity late in gestation, anti-abortionists insist that it begins early.

Is there any hope of some neutral authoritative information on this crucial question?

Peter

...The real question is..

1.Should you have the right to destroy your creation?

A.Or should another that has not created your creation make that choice for you...

B. At what point do you no longer have the right to destroy your creation.


(God has the right to destroy it's own creation, for has not such a god given it's creation that has been made from thy's own image the power to destroy there own creation's?)

So for my information to remain neutral authoritative information I must not tell you the answer to (B).

[No0ne]

Yet for my to portray another point of view of (B)...

Yet you could just simply say, "being" is the act of perceiving the perception of "being"

Hence to "be" you must perceive your self to "be" Can a 6.week old fetus?
Hence I feel pain, but I cannot perceive that pain, therefore there is no pain... For the same is if I cannot perceive my self existing, so can a fetus perceive it's self existing as a fetus? If it cannot, then it dose not exist, it only would exist in the way we perceive it existing...


When a fetus or child can do these thing's, that's when you no longer have the right to destroy your own creation. (number 4&5 are the most important!)

1. You must perceive light for there to be light.
2. You must perceive sound for there to be sound.
3. You must perceive pain for there to be pain.
4. You must perceive you exist before you exist.
5. You must perceive time for there to be time.

If a child or fetus cannot do these function's, it is not a human...

But at the time a fetus or child can do these thing's it becomes a human..(mainly 4&5 due to the fact they come first before the rest.. due to the fact that the other's cannot exist until 4&5 exist)

Those trait's are the soul(foundation) of a human...

Or it could be deemed as a soulless(foundation-less) flesh awaiting it's soul(foundation)...

(all tho it's hard to tell when a fetus or child has become able to do these function's...So the answer to B is still cloudy..)

(This is the non-neutral side, that supports correctly done abortion's)

[No0ne]

The anti-abortion people I will not support or speak of there action's, Ive deemed them as hateful and disrespectful of the free will choice that god has given to it's creation's.

And it breaks my number one rule... Do onto other's as want done onto one's self... Since if they where that person that was getting an abortion, they would do the same as that person, due to the fact that they would not be themselves they would be the other, and if they where the other, they would not want such restriction's of abortion to be placed upon them... So therefore they should not support such recriction's... They should just stay neutral and let people make there free will choice...

Also I find it very distasteful on many levels how they conduct them self's to support there point of view of the matter...

[Zetetic11235]

Originally Posted by No0ne

Yet for my to portray another point of view of (B)...
)

[quote=No0ne;19712]
When a fetus or child can do these thing's, that's when you no longer have the right to destroy your own creation. (number 4&5 are the most important!)

Originally Posted by No0ne

1. You must perceive light for there to be light.)

False. I am blind and I live in a cave away from the sun, thus there is no light, I cannot see it and I cannot feel its burn. I do understand the concept when compared to sound though and I can operate objects which use it to change things which I cannot percieve. Thus I cannot percieve light, but I can use it to ends which I also cannot percieve, however it might be percieved externally, by others, thus I am not human as I do not percieve as humans do.

Originally Posted by No0ne

2. You must perceive sound for there to be sound.)

False. You must have ears to percieve sound. A hypothetical: I am deaf, thus there is no sound, but there are vibrations through matter, which constitute sound. Think about it.

Originally Posted by No0ne

3. You must perceive pain for there to be pain.)

True, pain is perceptual. But anything with a central nervous system can feel pain.

Originally Posted by No0ne

4. You must perceive you exist before you exist.)

False. That is a fallacy, an object must exist before it can function. Think about it.

Originally Posted by No0ne

5. You must perceive time for there to be time.

Perhapse, time is a human convention, however, is it unique to humans? Can you prove it?

Originally Posted by No0ne

If a child or fetus cannot do these function's, it is not a human...

False, imbedded presumption:there is a trait among those listed that no other animal/ creature could have. Safer to stick with genetics and then to circumstance. Look at the reasons for the abortion, decide then. To enable such a method, simply place parameters on legality and alter by vote as needed. To facilitate, decentralize the legality to the state level. Groups will gather to each state which suits them. They will be bound by few constitutional laws and federal power will be limited. There is my answer.

Originally Posted by No0ne

But at the time a fetus or child can do these thing's it becomes a human..(mainly 4&5 due to the fact they come first before the rest.. due to the fact that the other's cannot exist until 4&5 exist)

Well, 4 is false and 5 is iffy.

Originally Posted by No0ne

Those trait's are the soul(foundation) of a human... )

What?! why? Actually connect your disparate assumptions to come to your conclusion.

Originally Posted by No0ne

Or it could be deemed as a soulless(foundation-less) flesh awaiting it's soul(foundation)...)

Eh...real life issues are not a place for metaphysics, which is a dead field anyway. Such a consideration is pandering to blatantly unlikely hypotheticals out of ignorant fear or convienience. History is riddled with the attrocities committed by those under the sway of metaphysical hypotheticals.

Originally Posted by No0ne

(all tho it's hard to tell when a fetus or child has become able to do these function's...So the answer to B is still cloudy..)

(This is the non-neutral side, that supports correctly done abortion's)

Im aware that you took a hypothetical stance with this post, but maybe my analysis might be of use.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by No0ne

...The real question is..

1.Should you have the right to destroy your creation?

A.Or should another that has not created your creation make that choice for you...

B. At what point do you no longer have the right to destroy your creation.

Over the last several hours I created about 750 mL of urine, which upon a certain pelvic urge I promptly voided and flushed down the toilet.

What gave me the right to destroy my creation?

Yes, I know that babies and urine are not morally identical.

But your argument is hinging upon a certain understanding of the word creation, which is indeed a very loaded word.

So is my urine a mere biological function, but a baby is a creation? If so, you're being arbitrary, because creating a baby is also a biological function. Is my urine not a creation because it was an unconscious production of my kidneys, completely out of my conscious control? Well, so can be the production of a fertilized egg in some extreme circumstances.

So for my information to remain neutral authoritative information I must not tell you the answer to (B).

Depends if we're talking about babies, poop, pee, or puke, doesn't it.