New book reveals foundational flaws of Roe v. Wade
Such promises as reduced maternal mortality, divorce and spousal abuse, and the disappearance of “back-alley” abortionists have not materialized.
… [P]rior to the court’s ruling, leading medical associations had been warned about abortion’s many and serious risks. But the Supreme Court, in its 7-2 decisions, simply ignored them. Instead the justices relied, for example, on a flawed 1961 report supposedly attesting to the safety of abortion that was repeated so often it became a mantra. The court swallowed it wholesale….
[T]he Roe justices relied on assurances that abortion did not carry significant long-term risks. But in just two examples of the risk, Forsythe notes, “More than 130 published studies find an increased risk of preterm birth and more than 100 studies suggest an increased risk of negative impact on mental health.”
Not the least of the dire consequences has been 40 years of political turmoil. The Roe and Doe rulings removed a contentious issue from the legislative arena, where the public’s voice is heard, and placed it firmly in the hands of nine unelected, unaccountable personages.
~ Dennis Byrne, Chicago Tribune Opinion, commenting on Clarke Forsythe’s (pictured) new book, Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade, September 23
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The Roe and Doe rulings removed a contentious issue from the legislative arena, where the public’s voice is heard, and placed it firmly in the hands of nine unelected, unaccountable personages
BINGO
Exactly!!!
One day, I stumbled across this great website, with content by “Mary Meehan.” This includes her assessment of the influences upon Blackmun, who wrote the Roe majority opinion.
http://www.meehanreports.com/blackmun.html
This webpage is old, and it could disappear any day, as some old content does. Hurry – it is a great article.
In the liberal world, where we are strongly against the death penalty (except when web-commenting on conservative people), the case of Troy Davis has been a cause celebre.
Troy Davis was state-executed (a form of democide: politically acceptable killing, as is abortion in certain circumstances) two years ago. Many (liberals) believe that he was not guilty of the murder for which he received the death penalty. Many believe there is significant room for doubt. His case was recognized around the world as either anti-death penalty, or as evidence of institutionalized racism, or both.
This happened, coincidentally, the same day as a white supremacist was state-executed in Texas, but you did not hear any of us liberals demonstrating over that case.
Recently, our favorite show, Democracy Now, re-visited the Troy Davis case.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/20/i_am_troy_davis_supporters_family
They played some interview with one of Troy Davis’ sisters, Martina, who was fighting on his behalf for years. She died of breast cancer soon after her brother’s state execution.
In the interview, she said something very profound. If only all of us, liberal and conservative, could agree on this:
“Why kill when there is doubt?”
You can hear this at the website, if you replay that episode.
How does this relate to the Supreme Court decision? We have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Any of these can be taken away, in certain specific situations. For example, in death penalty states, there is the trial, the standard of some burden of evidence, and automatic appeals process before losing your right to life, as Troy Davis lost his.
Often, pro-choice people forget that the “pro-life” term is straight from the Declaration of Independence. Its ethos covers the liberal objection to state death penalty as well as to abortion.
The Supreme Court ought to have erred on the side of this recognized right in Roe v Wade.
Especially, since, as Troy Davis’ sister says, when there is “doubt.”
Asking a pro-choice advocate when life begins takes you down the rabbit hole. Most have no way of coping with this. There are many dialectics in these JS comment sections where a pro-choice advocate changes the topics astutely.
Feel free to quote a fellow traveler to the pro-choice advocates. Many will know of the Troy Davis case. Tell these people you agree with Troy Davis’ sister” “why kill when there is doubt?”
On the pro-life side, most of us believe life begins at conception. Certainly before the baby’s presence can be detected by pregnancy test. However, on the pro-choice side, they have doubt about when life begins. Or “personhood.” Or “sentience.” Or whatever concept they use. They have doubt: they almost never will declare the point after which abortion is no longer OK.
Even Obama admits this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3F7ZkoIeNM
This is ridiculous. They know it. Do not let them change the topic. Quote Martina Davis-Correia.
Yes, TheLastDemocrat! I am not familiar with this story specifically (thanks for sharing), but I have always found this line of reasoning to be so compelling. According to many pro-abortion individuals “no one really knows when life begins.” You’d think the lives of human beings would warrant the benefit of the doubt.
Often, pro-choice people forget that the “pro-life” term is straight from the Declaration of Independence. Its ethos covers the liberal objection to state death penalty as well as to abortion. – oh yes, how do you figure that?
The problem is that there is simply no way of knowing what the rates of maternal mortality, marriage, divorce, domestic abuse etc. etc. etc. might be if Roe hadn’t gone the way it had.
These factors have also been impacted by the extent and dynamics of social and technological change which no-one could have foreseen.
The “problem” as I see it is millions and millions of dead human beings and wounded mothers.
We are reaping what we have sown.
“reality” – when was the last time you took your meds? (eyeroll).
Reality says:
The problem is that there is simply no way of knowing what the rates of maternal mortality, marriage, divorce, domestic abuse etc. etc. etc. might be if Roe hadn’t gone the way it had.
Wow — This is like saying that we don’t know how many tragedies were avoided by lynching all those Negroes. Who’s to say that indiscriminate killings aren’t a good thing? ”They looked like they might be going to do something bad someday.”
It is my considered opinion that women’s health and dignity has degraded over the last 40 years due to contraception and abortion. The breast cancer epidemic and the poverty of abandoned mothers are the two most obvious measures.
We do know the rates of maternal mortality and such before Roe. It was quite a bit less than the 54 million children and some 400 women murdered by abortion since Roe. We can adjust somewhat for the medical advances since Roe and see that maternal health is not aided by abortion. We know that contraception and abortion have increased the rate of fathers who abandon their paternal duties, causing single-mothers to be the largest demographic of poverty.
By all of the utilitarian measures, abortion has been a failure for women.
All we know is that many women (and nearly all of their boyfriends) experience a passing desire to kill their children. Ought we to indulge that desire, or ought we to protect the innocent lives from those who would harm them?
LastDemocrat points out the insanity: Any liberal (who insists that we ought not to murder those convicts who are found guilty of terrible crimes) should be even more insistent that we protect the lives of innocent children in the womb. And if there is any doubt about when life begins or whether the convict is truly guilty, then we should diligently err on the side of preserving innocent life.
I totally agree Carla and The Last Democrat with your post. The problem is we know we have over 58 million dead, mutilated human beings discarded as “medical waste”.
I just remembered I have a friend who has a similar argument as Troy Davis’ sister. He had some “pro-choicers” insist to him ”we don’t really know if the unborn is ”a life”, we have no real way to make sure and we don’t know if the unborn are “living” inside the womb”. To which he answered “OK, since you don’t know whether it is a “life” or whether it is “living” while it still is in the womb just leave it alone, and see what happens. If “it” is a living thing “it” will continue to grow and in in few months let’s just see if a living baby shows up. If it’s not “living” it will not continue to grow and “it” will just magically go away or disappear. No harm, no foul. You don’t have ”kill” anything that wasn’t living in the first place” The pro-choicers just stood there in amazement with nothing to say. I laughed so hard it hurt when he told me this. I think I heard someone here post “If it’s not a baby you are not pregnant”.
Thanks Del for your right-on translation of “reality’s” claim. It was certainly much more professional than my summation although I doubt he will absorb any of it.
I wrote:
Often, pro-choice people forget that the “pro-life” term is straight from the Declaration of Independence. Its ethos covers the liberal objection to state death penalty as well as to abortion.
‘reality’ wrote:
– oh yes, how do you figure that? –
I was trying to be brief/no too long-winded.
But here it goes.
There are two reasons for not having a death penalty. My liberal, college-educated friends usually have not figured this out at the point where I bring this up.
First: death penalty is not OK because it is not OK ethically or morally to kill.
Second: there is too much error in how the death penalty is carried out in the real world, so although the death penalty is Ok in theory, we are not at a point where it is OK since it is fraught with error, and error is not OK when it comes to matters of life or death.
So, eventually, we liberals will have to adopt the ‘it is fraught with problems’ reason and give up on the ‘killing is not OK’ reason. If killing was not OK, we would have cared about that racist killer who was put to death in Texas the same day as Troy Davis, and cared just as much as we care about Troy Davis, with his travesty-of-justice experience. Plus, we will be forced to admit there is doubt among us liberals about when life begins.
Pick one and stick with it.
Wow, there obviously needs to be a slavery/racism version of Godwin’s Law. What a ludicrous statement. We could apply the same statement to a religious war of our choice.
It is my considered opinion that women’s health and dignity has degraded over the last 40 years due to contraception and abortion. – and it is my considered opinion that nothing of the sort is the case. The diminuition of patriarchy and increase in equality have been of benefit to womens health and dignity.
The breast cancer epidemic and the poverty of abandoned mothers are the two most obvious measures. – the breast cancer claim is fallacious. This is another situation where changes in diet, the environment etc. are more likely to be contributing factors. The poverty is gop policy work.
We do know the rates of maternal mortality and such before Roe. It was quite a bit less than the 54 million children and some 400 women murdered by abortion since Roe - Terminated fetuses count as ‘maternal mortality’? Women ‘murdered’? I’d like to see the data that maternal mortality was lower before Roe.
We can adjust somewhat for the medical advances since Roe and see that maternal health is not aided by abortion. We know that contraception and abortion have increased the rate of fathers who abandon their paternal duties, causing single-mothers to be the largest demographic of poverty. – what a tortured amalgam of missmatched assumptions and opinion.
By all of the utilitarian measures, abortion has been a failure for women. – oh yes, what are these ‘utilitarian measures’? Oh, and I disagree that abortion has been a failure for women. They fight for the right to retain choice.
Any liberal (who insists that we ought not to murder those convicts who are found guilty of terrible crimes) should be even more insistent that we protect the lives of innocent children in the womb. – you just don’t get it do you. Those facing execution are existent persons. Some have been executed who are innocent. Gestating fetuses aren’t persons.
Yes, lovely little dissertation on the death penalty TLD. Now tell me, how does the Delaration of Independence apply to abortion?
“reality” – when was the last time you took your meds? (eyeroll). – I gave them to the needy, how are you getting along with them?
Thanks Del for your right-on translation of “reality’s” claim. – ‘translation’ might be relatively applicable. ‘right-on’, not so much.
“Oh, and I disagree that abortion has been a failure for women. They fight for the right to retain choice.”
Some women do, that’s true. But polls in the US (and some other countries) consistently put men as being more pro-legal abortion than women. If you add that to the fact that women in general are more liberal than men, it’s even more interesting that abortions really the only “liberal” ideal that women dislike more than men do.
“Those facing execution are existent persons. Some have been executed who are innocent. Gestating fetuses aren’t persons.”
Well, we shouldn’t oppose the death penalty on basis of “innocence”, we should oppose it because there’s no need for a civil society with the ability to protect citizens to execute people instead of simply putting them away for an extended amount of time. And there are other reasons to oppose the death penalty, few of them rely on how innocent the person is (in my opinion “innocence” is a weak argument, because I wouldn’t be pro-death penalty even if I knew the person was guilty).
But anyway, you can say fetuses don’t deserve the same consideration that convicts do because of external characteristics but that doesn’t make it true.
But Jack, what-is-true is a relative term … as is ‘what is best’ [an expression often used by PC-Doug] … never mind that this best decision may have been coerced or filled with depression/anxiety and made about a ‘human’ [before becoming a legal-person at birth – Reality’s claim]. This is so weird because we’re talking HUMAN rights and not person rights. The only ‘right’ in consideration is continuing life.
Before abortion a human is alive. After an abortion a human is dead (sometimes 2 are dead)! Does a HUMAN (alive) have a right to continue to live? … it can be phrased: Does a HUMAN (of-any-age or any-intellectual-endowment) have the ‘right’ not to be killed?
Perhaps this is what irks PC the most: often with civil rights legislation someone cannot harm another (former target). The vitriol is still there [… it’s human natue?], so lets pick on someone who can’t fight back … eh, Reality? I sure hope such cowardice is not contageous … I guess cowardice is relative, eh?
You can talk human rights John, I also support human rights. I just think that those of women are a little more paramount than those of a gestating fetus. And I see many instances of human rights being impinged upon due to the beliefs of others.
I don’t know if cowardice is contagious, I’ll leave that to the experts. But yes, I suppose cowardice is relative. Some might say it’s less cowardly to stand as and for oneself than to play the get out of jail free card delivered by an artificially constructed apparatus. Depends how you relate to things I guess.
It’s not about whose rights take precedence, but which rights take precedence. The right to live supercedes the right to not be pregnant.
A woman’s right to live supercedes that of a gestating fetus.
If everyone has the right to life, and that prevents them from being killed, then why do we have war or the death penalty?
Does a right to life allow a person to use someone’s body? We cannot force someone to donate any part of their body- blood, organs, bone marrow – even to save a life. The government could force people to donate organs, and they would be saving thousands of lives doing so.
“reality” – A woman’s right to live supercedes that of a gestating fetus.
I think you are only referring to the unfortunate incidents of ectopic pregnancies but unlike you, I can predict advances in our ability to save 100 percent of these pregnancies as well. We have already seen some successes in saving some of these.
In any other complications during pregnancy, our society has advanced in life-saving technology and medicine in general that has taken care of that dilemma.
Doctors should do everything they can to save an ectopic pregnancy and the woman..
How can abortion reduce divorce or spousal abuse? These has nothing to do with abortion, and spousal abuse is from a hard heart (Jesus sais divorce is too). Having abortion available won’t soften someone’s heart, so it won’t decrease these things.
I can see how someone can buy the lie that it decreases back alley butchers (although Gosnell proves it doesn’t), but these other things? I don’t think so.
Hey “reality” I have not yet received any meds from you. Are you saying that you share your psychotropics with “the needy?” You know its illegal to give your prescription psychotropics to someone else, right. Should I alert the authorities?
I think you are only referring to the unfortunate incidents of ectopic pregnancies – well no actually.
but unlike you, I can predict advances in our ability to save 100 percent of these pregnancies as well. – you can? Really? Crystal ball or what?
What psychotropics Thomas R.? Who mentioned psychotropics? Why is that your first assumption when I ask about yours? I didn’t offer meds to you, I was asking how you were getting along with yours. What I do possess is a vast array of pain tackling meds, none of which are effective for myself. So I share them when I know that folk badly need some temporary assistance. You are free to alert the authorities if you wish.
“What I do possess is a vast array of pain tackling meds, none of which are effective for myself. So I share them when I know that folk badly need some temporary assistance. You are free to alert the authorities if you wish.”
Lol. “Uh, yeah, I totally have a, um, bad back and I so need some Percocet man. I’m in pain, I swear.”
Not saying your friends do that, but pain pills are really a risky thing to share, take it from me. And they have issues with addiction even when prescribed and used properly, so you really should be under a doctor’s care.
Nope, not good enough Jack. You ain’t getting any.
I know the specific ailments each med is targeted at and how they do their job. Only a couple of them are addictive, and that’s with prolonged use. None are particularly life threatening unless taken in doses beyond the amounts I possess. I only give them to close friends and family when the diagnosis is quite clear. No-one seems keen on the pain-killers which come in suppository form for some reason. That packet’s never been opened.
“reality” you are no Sherlock. Given the medical advances it is only a matter of time when an ectopic pregnancy transfer will be possible. Advances in medicine have already disqualified the Roe vs. Wade assumptions but you are still crying wolf. Did your frontal lobe cease to function in 1973?
Lol I’m sure most addicts wouldn’t turn up their nose at suppositories if they were the only way to get a fix.
Well hopefully you are really careful, people tend to treat prescription drugs rather carelessly, I cringe every time I see people give Vicodin or benzos to each other like it’s candy.
“reality” you are no Sherlock. – what, and you are? Talk about tickets!
Advances in medicine have already disqualified the Roe vs. Wade assumptions – oh really, how do you figure that? Can women have non-pregnancy-pregnancies or something?
but you are still crying wolf. – you are amusing you know.
Did your frontal lobe cease to function in 1973? – no, when will yours fire up?
It’s not a regular thing Jack. Once or twice a year at the most.
You do have a vast vocabulary “reality” – I am just so sorry it is used to promote pro-death issues.
But life goes on…..
I think Reality seems also like a pretty nice person, aside from the cheerleading for baby murdering.
It is not that the abortion-breast cancer claim is fallacious, it is that it is taboo in our “modern” medical research world. The ABC hypothesis emerged from genuine data. The NCI had a stacked-deck, cherry-picking review in which the final opinion was known. Since NCI’s 2001 political pronouncement that abortion does not lead to breast cancer, positive studies continue to be published.
Mostly, these are beyond U.S./Canada/Australia, the PC strongholds of Sanger and Stopes.
You probably cannot get a BC risk paper published if you include abortion as a factor in our Pc world.
I just stumbled across a paper on another topic that let the same old elevated risk of 1.5 get published. Investigators were trying to figure out why urban Filipino women were getting BC at higher rates than rural. Guess why. They review a handful of factors. Then, as an afterthought, mention the incomplete-pregnancy issue: miscarriages and abortion…
Gibson et al 2010 “Risk factors for breast cancer among Filipino women in Manila.” “There was a non-significant increase in risk (OR 1.5, 0.8–3.0) with any preterm pregnancies (abortions or miscarriages) versus none, but this question was only answered by half the participants.”
There is that persnickety 50% elevated risk figure yet again. Here, it failed to reach statistical significance because of small numbers – but in a meta-analysis, these consistent findings would rise to be statistically significant
I have tucked away in a file a dozen of these studies since the 2001 NCI pronouncement: Iran, Turkey, China, Pakistan, etc.
We educated intellectual elites can monitor the research publications in the Sanger/Snopes world, but not all of the world. And the data are pouring in, following our population-control efforts across the globe carried out beginning with postWWII Japan.
The “the ABC theory is a myth” belief is just a myth, and cannot account for the observations made as far back as the 1970s, and the recent decade of observations.
What does the Declaration of Independence have to do with abortion? It notes that we all have a right to life. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
A 4-week-old fetus is growing, has its own DNA, and has a genus and a species. It is a homo sapiens.
In middle school, they taught us that like begets like. they also told us that the old thinking was that life could arise from some miasma, but more inciteful scientific work showed that life only comes from life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory
We don’t believe life arises from a pile of rotting stuff anymore. A 4-week old blob of flesh does not suddenly get animated to be alive one day, and neither does a 20-week old blob of flesh.
That is pre-scientific thinking, and shows the anti-science dogmatism of the Marxists masquerading as “democrats” and “liberals” to gain political power.
It is true that a 4-week-old fetus does not look like an adult human. A caterpillar does not look like a butterfly, and a tadpole does not look like a frog. They are all living things, with their genus and species, arising from the same genus and species.
We recognize that a living organism could have as few as -gasp- one cell, and still be considered alive.
It is unscientific to believe a fetus cannot be alive, yet, because it has not yet developed enough. At 4 weeks, it has out-lived the life span of the common housefly. So, not having been around long enough cannot be an argument against a fetus being a living thing.
Pretending a “fetus” is not alive is simply un-scientific.
However, “Reality” routinely side-steps this issue on these comment trails with red herrings about the patriarchy and other manufactured, tired arguments.
Bernard Nathanson reported that he and Lawrence Lader sat around thinking up the rhetoric to get abortion to be acceptable. Google their names, together, and start reading. Manufactured rhetoric.
I’m on the fence LifeJoy. Does “cheerleading for baby murdering” make a person nice?
Perhaps, Reality, you might also prove your claim that “gestating fetuses aren’t persons”? You do seem to react vociferously when others (by your standards) make unsupported claims…
Do give decent footnotes, too, by the way; the effort builds character. :)
This whole discussion is ‘strange’ … we have broken into 2 camps, one trying to convince the other.
Let’s try something totally different: a) that abortion is a form of suicide. b) there are recorded instances of physically ‘healthy’ societies where suicide is unknown. … so is abortion one symptom of a societal malaise? If so, everyone here is affected. It may just take a generation before the offspring of newer PL will become so physically traumatized by caring for others who-do-not-care, that they too will become PC – and wish to ‘abort-to-solve–their-issues..
I can’t see past it either, Thomas R.
In fact, I generally have a hard time socializing with people who see the world so fundamentally differently than I do that killing can be called choice. It makes my relationship with my in-laws all the more challenging, to put it positively. I will continue to struggle to love everyone anyways.
John: abortion is not suicide because the unborn does not take his/her life. My understanding of abortion is that it is therefore a homicide.
hi Thomas R.,
Reality and many in the PC-world feel that there is such a strong bonding of a parent (usually mom) there is an emotional fusing … such that (like marriage, ‘two become (as) one’. In such a circumstance a woman’s choice prevails. So by killing her ‘other’, she ends her own life (and often drowns herself in self-pity and excessive booze). In a sense she dies too!
All this might seem odd-to-you, because we only see things-one-way … and conformity and/or confrontation rule! There IS more to life … death. Death(suicide) teaches one who will listen a bit!
I get you now John. Being one in body may make it a suicide. I would caution you not to jump there, however, simply because I am concerned that this may not be a good tactic to help a post-abortive woman. If you start playing the blaming game by telling this post – abortive woman that she just committed suicide, you may lose her to more booze and more trauma and more abortions even.
I am not sure that this highly abstract approach can be utilized at first with pro – abortionists and post-abortive women. You can see on this blog that pro-abortionists are very concrete in their reasoning. I think you also realize that a post – abortive woman needs very concrete support and not something she may get lost in trying to comprehend.
Thomas R,, I’m sure glad you ge-my-drift. I get what you mean by PC-rationale, but it is perhaps a more American approach that involves both PC & PL?? http://www.jilltaylor.com
Oh I did forget Thomas R. This is the maim road of compassion, The other pities ‘the unfortunate soul’,but remains separate from the anguish, “Com”, as in ‘com-pasison’ means ‘together’ … ‘walking-hand-jn-hand’, if you will.
The ABC hypothesis emerged from genuine data. – the thing about science TLD, is that it advances. It corrects itself. It discovers more. Knowledge is increased. So while the ABC hypothesis may have indeed emerged from genuine data, it has long been rectified and refuted.
The Declaration of Indepndence does not refer to the pre-born. Initially it was intended for white, male, land-owners. Then it was broadened. One of its elements was derived from Adams’ – “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.’ – None of the creators of the Declaration had the pre-born in mind when drafting it. Gestating fetuses aren’t persons.
There is one thing you are right about, Reality. I can’t stand it when people pretend that the Declaration and Constitution originally applied to everyone. It really, obviously didn’t. We would have no need for further amendments GIVING certain rights to segments of society that were ignored by the original founders.
“Gestating fetuses aren’t persons.”
And around and around we go. Stating something doesn’t make it true. Black people weren’t legally persons in the US for a time, in some countries and eras women, or non-landowning males weren’t either. Disabled people were considered less than human in some eras too. Obviously, none of that was correct. It’s not exactly out of the realm of possibility that you and your ilk are wrong about the unborn as well, and will be looked on with the same embarrassment that we look back on the racists sentiments of slave owners. (Not trying to insult you, but I realize you think OUR side will be the one that will be looked down on in the future. But looking at history, it’s ALWAYS the ones who tried to dehumanize other humans who eventually were put in the past).
Paladin, it is not my issue if you haven’t been here to peruse the information I have previously provided which demonstrates this point – including ‘footnotes’.
‘character building’ – interesting. Character is something which defines a person. Fetuses don’t have it.
To summarise some of the elements pertinent to what I have previously provided :
fetuses don’t have thought processes, they don’t have emotions, yearnings or desires, they don’t possess the neurological capacity to even feel pain before 24 weeks at the earliest, they have no sense of self and they don’t possess cognition.
Reality and many in the PC-world feel that there is such a strong bonding of a parent (usually mom) there is an emotional fusing – do we? How do you draw that conclusion. Do you?
like marriage, ‘two become (as) one’ – two people cannot become one.
I don’t promote ‘pro-death’ issues Thomas R. If anything that is the propensity of the anti-choicer. I promote a better life for all persons.
“fetuses don’t have thought processes, they don’t have emotions, yearnings or desires, they don’t possess the neurological capacity to even feel pain before 24 weeks at the earliest, they have no sense of self and they don’t possess cognition.”
People on the autism spectrum and with other brain issues, or personality disorders like ASPD, or mental disorders like schizoaffective can have trouble with feeling emotions like “normal” people.
Newborns don’t really feel “yearnings” or “desires”, or have a sense of self or cognition for several months at the earliest. Comatose adults could also fall into this category.
Some people have a genetic condition called CIP which causes them to not feel or register the sensation of pain for their entire lives.
Everything you can state that fetuses don’t possess that makes them “not a person”, other humans that I know you would legally protect also lack those abilities. Honestly location is the biggest difference between a very late term fetus and a newborn. But I know we’ve gone over this before and I just end up getting mad at you lol, so this is probably a useless comment.
And don’t be silly Reality, you are obviously less pro-life than me. You eat poor innocent animals! Not ALL “anti-choicers” are pro-war, or pro-death penalty, or against universal healthcare, or anti-social programs for poor people, or any of the other things you believe promote less quality of life for humans. I think sometimes you have an image of what you think an “anti-choicer” believes in your head and you ignore evidence to the contrary (I understand a lot of pro-life people do that about pro-choicers, but it’s still not okay).
Yes Jack, some folk do suffer the losses or conditions you mention – but not all of them. That’s the difference.
I recently saw a program about people who don’t feel pain. Quite a diverse degree and range of elements are involved.
‘the propensity of the anti-choicer’ does not mean all anti-choicers or all to the same extent Jack.
“Yes Jack, some folk do suffer the losses or conditions you mention – but not all of them. That’s the difference.”
Yes they do. All newborns possess less cognitive capacity, no sense of self, etc etc. And all comatose people lack the ability to function in any meaningful way while they are comatose. And anyway, my point is that all these people are still people, by virtue of being human, regardless of any lack of function or ability.
And I know what you mean about “propensity”, but you do tend to tar with a rather wide brush. Which is weird, because you talk to a diverse range of people on this very website! Some people are the typical “anti-choicer” you complain about, but far more have much different opinions. I really do attempt to see pro-choicers as individuals, I don’t think it’s okay to take one opinion about one topic and generalize to much, though I do fail at this sometimes.
And plus it’s ridiculous to remove “personhood” from fetuses because their lack of functions or whatever, because it’s temporary! Unlike with coma patients, who have no guarantee of ever regaining function, the vast majority of fetuses, allowed to develop naturally and healthily, will become fully functional when they develop further. How can you label someone not a person for being at the exact stage of development they are supposed to be? It’s just nonsensical to me, never going to make sense.
this is refreshing. “Reality” has given the criteria for life. To be a living organism you must meet these criteria:
the potential organism must: have “thought processes,” must “have emotions, yearnings or desires,” must “possess the neurological capacity to even feel pain,” must have a “sense of self” and must “possess cognition.”
The overwhelming majority of examples of what we otherwise would identify as living organisms are no longer living organisms. Insects are far more numerous than humans, yet I never hear E.O. Wilson, or Stephen J. Gould, declare that any insect had any of these life-defining qualities.
This view is yet another view of “Reality” that is quite un-scientific.
Unless, of course, as mentioned above, anyone wants to come around with some references to support this list as a valid, recognized definition of when some blob of cells is alive.
Reality isn’t trying do define “life” when he talks about this stuff, TheLastDemocrat. He’s defining “person”. He thinks if living human beings do not possess the qualities that he stated, that they cannot be considered “persons” and thus are not entitled to the civil rights that the rest of us are. I don’t agree with him, but he’s not trying to say fetuses are not alive. He’s saying that they lack the criteria to be considered persons. He’s always admitted that fetuses are alive and are human.
*to define, not do define. One of these days I’ll learn how to type.
As I said before Jack, it’s the summation. Fetuses lack all the elements, folk who have suffered a trauma do not. Unless they are dead, or ‘sustained’ by life support.
perhaps we should stop burying the dead then? Coma patients have been born, possessed the essential ingredients of personhhod and then suffered an event.
You appear to have completely and utterly missed the point TLD.
I always find it ironic and fascinating when one argues that humans should be killed for convenience sake and then follows it up by stating that we’re the ones who have missed the point.
Whatever floats your boat MaryRose. But there’s no denying that in this particular instance, in regard to what is being discussed, TLD missed the point, big time. How about you?
TLD chose to address one aspect of the debate while you chose to address another. Quite frankly, I feel that human life is always deserving of our protection. I see what your attempted point is, but I find it to be a rationalization of what you want to believe is right. Creating false criteria for personhood is a common rationalization in past movements against human rights, and it clearly continues today. I continue to hope & pray for those, like yourself, who choose delusion over compassion and self-sacrifice.
We weren’t discussing the convenience of abortion. I had been explaining why gestating fetuses don’t possess personhood. Then TLD went on his journey about life, organisms and insects. I then stated that he had obviously missed the point by thinking or claiming that I had defined what constitutes a living organism.
How you choose to spend your time is up to you. I have great compassion and have acted with self-sacrifice in my life.
:) Jack, there seems to be very little need of me, here; you’re swatting away Reality’s mistaken statements masterfully!
Reality: Jack has already highlighted many of the problems with your argument. If I may summarise your argument, it seems to go as follows:
1) A fetus does not “have thought processes”, feel, yearn, desire, feel pain, have a sense of self, and/or experience cognition [I’d add that cognition is a thought process, yes?].
2) All persons have at least some of the above (re: your reply to Jack that “a fetus lacks all the elements, whereas trauma-sufferers do not).
3) Therefore, a fetus is not a person.
Your reply to Jack was–forgive me–rather logically scattered:
a) In reply to Jack’s (true) point that unconscious/traumatised infants, children and adults often lack those traits (so far as any objective observer can tell), you go off on the odd comment that “some folk do suffer the losses or conditions you mention – but not all of them” and “that’s the difference”. (??) Surely you see that, according to your own statement, those “folk who do suffer” such losses/conditions WOULD be “non-persons”, in your eyes? That’s Jack’s whole point; you’ve categorised many people as non-persons, simply in your zeal to preserve the legal freedom to keep the killing of unborn children legal (and excusable, in your mind). That simply won’t do; you need to choose one (the fetus is a person) or the other (all disabled people who show–even temporarily–none of the traits you mention are “non-persons”, at least temporarily). Odd world, that would be: those who fall into dreamless sleep cease to be persons until they either wake or start dreaming!
b) You don’t explain why your requirements are necessary. Why is it not enough that a human fetus is alive and thriving, with the expected capacity (with eventual expected realisation) to enjoy some or all of your stated criteria, in order to enjoy “personhood”? It seems that you started with the desire to justify abortion, and you (or your sources, more likely) cobbled together this rather lame and fallacy-ridden argument, as an attempt at after-the-fact rationalisation.
Reality wrote:
How you choose to spend your time is up to you. I have great compassion and have acted with self-sacrifice in my life.
Come, now! Surely you see that this is not only self-serving rhetoric, but that it proves nothing, even if it’s true? What good does it do–what credit is it to you–for you to treat a select group of people with compassion and self-sacrifice, while completely denying those good things to others? You might as well congratulate yourself for giving a large tip and a smile to your waitress (which is a laudable thing to do, by the way) while returning home and punching your mother in the teeth!
‘The phrase “two become one’ is one of Jesus’ most famous words. And one hotly contented by Reality. Which is correct?
Traditionally (and by Jesus’ own words, this sentiment has applied to the marriage-bond. Perceiving this from the inside, these words seem absolutely foolish especially to very different personalities. IF viewed as an essential unit, (from outside) the personality traits seem complimentary and fit/mesh/mold together as obvious belonging – like a hammer and nail scenario. [This hammer-nail relationship can be used to build a house as well as pound nails into flesh, so that it sticks-to-a-cross.]
What is odd though, is that Jesus uses the words becoming one’ as the essential description of how God loves … ‘The Father (Abba) and I are one’. He also claims this as our (human) trait.
Are these seemingly odd words totally illogical? Here are a few things to think about: 1) Any flame will mold quite easily with another flame and I absolutely defy anyone to point out which tongue-of-energy belongs to either participant. 2) Do we as a human species relate differently than be compartmentalizing, individuation, prioritizing, competing, etc. This is one very small part (2 cm) of the human brain that is hard-wired in our language center. Too often this distinguishes us as our logic or as ‘human reason’ and sometimes ‘common sense’. Please think very carefully about what Jill Bolte-Taylor says about quite another way of perceiving and embracing our universe http://www.jilltaylor.com 3)v We live our lives in almost total delusion about exactly what constitutes ‘real’. We pinch our physical bodies and assume this tactile feedback of concreteness is ‘proof-of-existence’. However, we are almost totally devoid of ‘anything’ except well divided space … (like 99.8% space, empty zip/nada). Are beliefs as illusive? What is true? By defining me do I limit me?
By claiming that we cannot ‘become one’ mean that I live in forced isolation?
Reality,
When you advocate the brutal deaths of millions of humans every year, you do not act in a self-sacrificial manner.
No matter how many times you get up and walk the dog when you don’t feel like it. ;)
“I don’t promote ‘pro-death’ issues Thomas R. If anything that is the propensity of the anti-choicer. I promote a better life for all persons. ”
You can start by promoting better sexual responsibility but that is probably too inconvenient for a pro-abortionist like you “reality.”
John McDonnell I am sorry but you lost me Sir.
MaryRose is correct “reality.” You have never advocated for personal responsibility on these pages but always provide circular-logic that starts and ends with the woman’s convenience. Face it that this is all that matters to you. How is that promoting a better life for all persons?
Hi Thomas R. – at times I too get lost in my words, so welcome to the club! lol
It is a most strange phenomenon – just when I get most-lucid-to-me is precisely where I tend-to-lose folks. You definitely are not the first (I would drive some university profs crazy!). [And will likely not be the last!]
I get what you are saying on an abstract level John. Post-abortive women need concrete directions to overcome though. Once firmly on the gound than this transition to your level of analysis may be possible.
hi Thomas’
Years ago I read about a very effective therapy for trauma victims like rape. It was even much more effective than word-reasoning. It consisted of looking at a line of green lights that slowly flickered ‘off’, then ‘on’, so to give the impression the light was travelling the four feet over and over. The success of this strange therapy was astonishing, especially since conventional intervention in any trauma was often unsuccessful.
I do not know whether such a ‘treatment’ was ever tried for post-abortive sequelae, but it may be worth a try.
So Paladin, am I to ask how you have come to incorrectly address what I said, or why you have done so?
those “folk who do suffer” such losses/conditions WOULD be “non-persons”, in your eyes? – no, as I stated “some folk do suffer the losses or conditions you mention – but not all of them” – they only suffer the loss of one or some of the required attributes.
You don’t explain why your requirements are necessary. – they denote personhood.
Why is it not enough that a human fetus is alive and thriving, – my liver is alive and thriving. So is a cow.
It seems that you started with the desire to justify abortion, and you (or your sources, more likely) cobbled together this rather lame and fallacy-ridden argument, as an attempt at after-the-fact rationalisation. – you are incorrect. Abortion is supported in a myriad of ways. This particular aspect is addressed because some anti-choicers confer attributes on fetuses which they simply do not possess. Nor is it lame or fallacy-ridden. The facts speak for themselves.
Come, now! Surely you see that this is not only self-serving rhetoric, but that it proves nothing, even if it’s true? – MaryRose claimed that I choose delusion over compassion and self-sacrifice. MaryRose is wrong and I said so. Whether she is prepared to accept that or not is not my bother.
What good does it do–what credit is it to you–for you to treat a select group of people with compassion and self-sacrifice, while completely denying those good things to others? – ‘people’ is the operative word.
You might as well congratulate yourself for giving a large tip and a smile to your waitress (which is a laudable thing to do, by the way) while returning home and punching your mother in the teeth! – my mother is a person. And I never punch anyone.
I don’t care how many nails you might hammer in John, two people cannot become one.
You compare people to flames?!? Do flames think? Do they have personalities? Do they have genders?
We pinch our physical bodies and assume this tactile feedback of concreteness is ‘proof-of-existence’. However, we are almost totally devoid of ‘anything’ except well divided space … (like 99.8% space, empty zip/nada). - don’t forget about the stuff which divides those spaces. That is what is tactile.
Are beliefs as illusive? – even more so.
What is true? – what we accept as true at a point in time.
By defining me do I limit me? – I would hope not. Defining onself provides a sound base from which to develop, grow and hopefully, improve.
By claiming that we cannot ‘become one’ mean that I live in forced isolation? – how would you come to that conclusion? Are you isolated from everyone apart from your spouse? (based on your claim of two becoming one) – Does this mean you cannot be married (for want of a better term) and become one with god?
When you advocate the brutal deaths of millions of humans every year – I do no such thing.
you do not act in a self-sacrificial manner. – there is more than one form of, or opportunity for, self-sacrifice.
No matter how many times you get up and walk the dog when you don’t feel like it. – I don’t have a dog, nor do I walk anyone else’s.
You can start by promoting better sexual responsibility but that is probably too inconvenient for a pro-abortionist like you “reality.” – you do realise that our opinions of what constitutes ‘sexual responsibility’ differ fundamentally?
You have never advocated for personal responsibility on these pages but always provide circular-logic that starts and ends with the woman’s convenience. – that is not factual. Just because you may not have seen such, or claim not to have, doesn’t make it so.
Face it that this is all that matters to you. How is that promoting a better life for all persons? – to claim that that is all that matters to me is a display of gross ignorance. I do what I can to promote a better life for all persons.
“Reality” again is daring enough, foolish enough, dishonest enough, or just enough ignorant to continue a cult-like, anti-scientific view about “person-hood.” I have not missed any point. There is no such thing as an individual, living homo sapiens that is not a person, and there is no such thing as a person who is not a homo sapiens.
I am quite aware of what a “corporation” is, legally, and of the Citizens, United case. No scientific citations will be forth-coming regarding the difference between “living human” and “personhood.”
“is daring enough, foolish enough, dishonest enough, or just enough ignorant to continue a cult-like, anti-scientific view” – that’s a rather nice little cluster of words you’ve come up with there. How long did that take you? Pity it’s all utter tosh.
Reality wrote, in reply to my comment:
So Paladin, am I to ask how you have come to incorrectly address what I said, or why you have done so?
(?) You might possibly ask why your syntax is so convoluted as to make that question bizarre, friend… but I’ll address your points, below.
[Paladin]
those “folk who do suffer” such losses/conditions WOULD be “non-persons”, in your eyes?
[Reality]
no, as I stated “some folk do suffer the losses or conditions you mention – but not all of them” – they only suffer the loss of one or some of the required attributes.
I see. So: you believe that someone who’s comatose has (one or more of) “thought processes, emotions, yearnings, desires, the neurological capacity to feel pain, sense of self, and [the redundant] cognition”? And could you state the minimum number of these which would be needed to satisfy your definition of “person”? I want to be quite clear about your position, here.
[Paladin]
You don’t explain why your requirements are necessary.
[Reality]
they denote personhood.
Come, now… that’s a textbook circular argument. You can’t assume your conclusion (i.e. “some or all of your list of attributes are necessary for personhood”) in order to prove it. You really do need to explain WHY (and how many of) those particular characteristics are part-and-parcel of “personhood”; at present, you’ve merely stated your raw personal opinion, forcefully and repeatedly. It’s time to move a bit beyond that.
[Paladin]
Why is it not enough that a human fetus is alive and thriving,
[Reality]
my liver is alive and thriving. So is a cow.
(*sigh*) You *do* realise that you selectively edited off the very part of my sentence which was key to your (off-base) objection, here?
“Why is it not enough that a human fetus is alive and thriving, with the expected capacity (with eventual expected realisation) to enjoy some or all of your stated criteria, in order to enjoy ‘personhood’?”
Perhaps you could re-shape your objection with that in mind? (I’d also add that your cow is an example of that which “has the neurological capacity to feel pain”–one of your required criteria, yes? You’ve not yet stated how many, or which, of those criteria are necessary–you’ve only said that not all of them are needed.)
[Paladin]
It seems that you started with the desire to justify abortion, and you (or your sources, more likely) cobbled together this rather lame and fallacy-ridden argument, as an attempt at after-the-fact rationalisation.
[Reality]
you are incorrect. Abortion is supported in a myriad of ways.
Such as?
This particular aspect is addressed because some anti-choicers confer attributes on fetuses which they simply do not possess.
Such as? We attribute personhood to the unborn child (fetus = “small boy/child”, in Latin); you’ve insisted that no one can be a person without some or all (you still haven’t specified) of your laundry-list of hand-picked attributes, with nary a scrap of proof as to why these attributes on your list should be required. More on that, below.
Nor is it lame or fallacy-ridden.
No? Here are merely a few of the problems with your claim:
1) You woefully confuse “necessary” with “sufficient”. It is *sufficient*, for example (by any sane standard), for a living human to show the ability to do mathematics in order to demonstrate personhood; but it is not *necessary* (i.e. a requirement without which the demonstration of “personhood” would fail). I agree that any human manifestation of self-awareness, compassion, thought, etc., would be sufficient to prove personhood. But I do not agree that their absence (such as would be the case in an infant, or in a sleeping, unconscious, severely disabled and/or comatose human)… since I do not confuse “sufficient” with “necessary”, as you’ve done here (which is a fallacy).
2) On the same line: you assume that the original conditional statement (“these things demonstrate personhood”) logically proves its inverse (“the absence of these things demonstrates the absence of personhood”), which is not true at all (and is a textbook fallacy). The fact that a multiple of 6 is an even number does not prove that a non-multiple of 6 cannot be an even number, for example (e.g. “4”, “8”, etc.).
3) You’ve steadfastly neglected (as I’ve already said) to specify which, and how many, of your List elements are necessary in order to prove personhood; you’ve left it rather nebulous and vague… which–forgive me–is rather lame.
The facts speak for themselves.
They do, indeed.
[Paladin]
Come, now! Surely you see that this is not only self-serving rhetoric, but that it proves nothing, even if it’s true?
[Reality]
MaryRose claimed that I choose delusion over compassion and self-sacrifice. MaryRose is wrong and I said so. Whether she is prepared to accept that or not is not my bother.
MaryRose was not wrong, and your reply was something of a non-sequitur which didn’t address her point in any direct way (e.g. “I’m not a bank robber! Why, I donate to the United Way every year, and I even pat little birdies on the head!”). She said that your compassion for the unborn (and willingness to self-sacrifice in order to protect them, as opposed to the abortion-tolerant attitude of “kill the fetus so that I and others can have free sexual license without worrying about supporting/raising children”) was absent, in place of the delusion that unborn children are “not children/persons at all”.
As a note to that point: I’ll wager that, even with your artificial laundry-list of “personhood” requirements, you’d be reluctant to criminalise late-term abortion and/or partial-birth abortion. True? Or not true?
‘people’ is the operative word.
It is (though I’d add that you’re also morally obligated not to treat even animals with cruelty and abandon–kittens are not persons, but you’d still be committing a grave evil if–forgive the grotesque word-picture–you threw live kittens into a running blender, for example).
my mother is a person. And I never punch anyone.
That’s praiseworthy, so far as it goes. But that does not excuse you from the obligation NOT to support the murder of unborn offspring of human parents.
Clearly TLD you have stacks and stacks of ‘science’ and scientific-opinion[conclusion-making] to make what science deems written-in-stone to actually be in pursuit of more humble conclusions. In such a case as with Reality, he does seem to pick-and-choose what ideas he thinks fit his ‘science. {I can remember one Harvard mathematical professor who found his study so engaging that (he concluded) that there must be a God. Reality ( dismissed the idea as preposterous and proceeded to throw the concept (and the professor under-the-bus.} Your analysis of reality’s abilities seems correct (which Reality does not refute). Instead he attacks your claims without wondering if they do have merit. He says that you speak ‘utter tosh’ but this does not refute the accusation(s) against his ignorance of classical science. There is a known phenomenon wherein a fetus sends his own stem cells to repair and cure its mother of hepatitis B. This non-rational effort means what?
MaryRose wrote:
No matter how many times you get up and walk the dog when you don’t feel like it.
:) Or feed the cat. Let’s not forget that!
Part of the differences in view in this comment thread arise because “Reality” has some really un-scientific views.
I noted ignoring the abortion-breast cancer link as one. “Reality” hid behind the political NCI declaration of 2001 that they could find no ABC connection, after cherry-picking studies and explaining away various findings. I declared that there have been many positive findings published before the NCI pronouncement, which “Reality” dismissed since they were dismissed by NCI, and I also noted that studies continue to detect this likely valid finding.
I took some time and rounded up some of these studies. The citations are below. In contrast, there have been contrary results from two longitudinal studies: EPIC and Nurses Health Study. I have not yet analyzed how these two status-quo/mainstream studies have ended up finding a protective effect from BC for those with abortion history versus not. But those are just two of many studies.
ABC detected:
1. Prolonged breastfeeding reduces risk of breast cancer in Sri Lankan women: a case-control study.
De Silva M, Senarath U, Gunatilake M, Lokuhetty D.
Cancer Epidemiol . 2010 Jun;34(3):267-73. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2010.02.012. Epub 2010 Mar 24.
PMID: 20338838 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
2. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years.
Dolle JM, Daling JR, White E, Brinton LA, Doody DR, Porter PL, Malone KE.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Apr;18(4):1157-66. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-1005. Epub 2009 Mar 31.
PMID: 19336554 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
3. Reproductive factors associated with breast cancer risk in northern Iran.
Hajian-Tilaki KO, Kaveh-Ahangar T.
Med Oncol. 2011 Jun;28(2):441-6. doi: 10.1007/s12032-010-9498-z. Epub 2010 Apr 3.
PMID: 20364336 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
4. Abortions and breast cancer risk in premenopausal and postmenopausal women in Jiangsu Province of China.
Jiang AR, Gao CM, Ding JH, Li SP, Liu YT, Cao HX, Wu JZ, Tang JH, Qian Y, Tajima K.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(1):33-5.
PMID: 22502696 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article
5. A study on risk factors of breast cancer among patients attending the tertiary care hospital, in udupi district.
Kamath R, Mahajan KS, Ashok L, Sanal TS.
Indian J Community Med. 2013 Apr;38(2):95-9. doi: 10.4103/0970-0218.112440.
PMID: 23878422 [PubMed] Free PMC Article
6. Reproductive history and risk of second primary breast cancer: the WECARE study.
Largent JA, Capanu M, Bernstein L, Langholz B, Mellemkaer L, Malone KE, Begg CB, Haile RW, Lynch CF, Anton-Culver H, Wolitzer A, Bernstein JL.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 May;16(5):906-11.
PMID: 17507614 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article
7. Physiological, reproductive factors and breast cancer risk in Jiangsu province of China.
Liu YT, Gao CM, Ding JH, Li SP, Cao HX, Wu JZ, Tang JH, Qian Y, Tajima K.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12(3):787-90.
PMID: 21627384 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article
8. Induced and spontaneous abortion and incidence of breast cancer among young women: a prospective cohort study.
Michels KB, Xue F, Colditz GA, Willett WC.
Arch Intern Med. 2007 Apr 23;167(8):814-20.
PMID: 17452545 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
9. Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women–a University Hospital based nested case control study.
Ozmen V, Ozcinar B, Karanlik H, Cabioglu N, Tukenmez M, Disci R, Ozmen T, Igci A, Muslumanoglu M, Kecer M, Soran A.
World J Surg Oncol. 2009 Apr 8;7:37. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-7-37.
PMID: 19356229 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
10. Risk factors for breast cancer and expression of insulin-like growth factor-2 (IGF-2) in women with breast cancer in Wuhan City, China.
Qiu J, Yang R, Rao Y, Du Y, Kalembo FW.
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36497. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036497. Epub 2012 May 25.
PMID: 22662119 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
11. Risk profile for breast carcinoma and tumour histopathology of medical uninsured patients in Pakistan.
Raza U, Khanam A, Meh-Jabeen, Furqan M, Saleem-ul-Haque.
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2011 Jan-Mar;23(1):9-14.
PMID: 22830135 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
12. Menstrual and reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer in Asian-Americans.
Wu AH, Ziegler RG, Pike MC, Nomura AM, West DW, Kolonel LN, Horn-Ross PL, Rosenthal JF, Hoover RN.
Br J Cancer. 1996 Mar;73(5):680-6.
PMID: 8605107 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
13. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China.
Xing P, Li J, Jin F.
Med Oncol. 2010 Sep;27(3):926-31. doi: 10.1007/s12032-009-9308-7. Epub 2009 Sep 23.
PMID: 19771534 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
14. Reproductive variables and risk of breast malignant and benign tumours in Yunnan province, China.
Yanhua C, Geater A, You J, Li L, Shaoqiang Z, Chongsuvivatwong V, Sriplung H.
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(5):2179-84.
PMID: 22901191 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article
15. Genetic and clinical predictors for breast cancer risk assessment and stratification among Chinese women.
Zheng W, Wen W, Gao YT, Shyr Y, Zheng Y, Long J, Li G, Li C, Gu K, Cai Q, Shu XO, Lu W.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Jul 7;102(13):972-81. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq170. Epub 2010 May 18.
PMID: 20484103 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article
I have a monster headcold and cannot form coherent thoughts well. Will try to revisit this post when I start to follow conversations clearly again :/
You might possibly ask why your syntax is so convoluted as to make that question bizarre – hm, I find your opening gambit amusing rather than insulting. The question was concise and pertinent. And then you present a response which is both convoluted and inconsistent in its structure. Go figure.
You *do* realise that you selectively edited off the very part of my sentence which was key to your (off-base) objection, here?
“Why is it not enough that a human fetus is alive and thriving, with the expected capacity (with eventual expected realisation) to enjoy some or all of your stated criteria, in order to enjoy ‘personhood’?” – because what might be isn’t pertinent to what is.
On a couple of occasions recently I have stated that some of the arguments presented by anti-choice folk here lead me more and more to conclude that Singer may have a very good point. Yours is one of them. Gestating fetuses do not possess attributes or traits which confer personhood rather than simply being a human organism.
MaryRose was not wrong, and your reply was something of a non-sequitur which didn’t address her point in any direct way – now both of you are wrong. I do possess compassion and self-sacrifice. The fact that I support womens reproductive choice does not preclude such.
She said that your compassion for the unborn was absent – no she didn’t.
in place of the delusion that unborn children are “not children/persons at all”. – adding words now Paladin? Personhood was all that was spoken of. The delusion is conferring attributes on fetuses that they simply do not possess.
As a note to that point: I’ll wager that, even with your scientific analysis of what constitutes personhood, you’d be reluctant to criminalise late-term abortion and/or partial-birth abortion. True? Or not true? – true.
But that does not excuse you from the obligation NOT to support the murder of unborn offspring of human parents – murder, what murder? What obligation?
Or feed the cat. Let’s not forget that! – I do that thoughtfully and well.
Part of the differences in view in this comment thread arise because “Reality” has some really un-scientific views. – apparently you wouldn’t recognise science if it dropped an apple on your head.
I noted ignoring the abortion-breast cancer link as one. “Reality” hid behind the political NCI declaration of 2001 – no, I didn’t. That was your feeble attempt to evade the facts. There are far more recent studies (studies – that’d be plural) which demonstrate the fallacy of the claimed ABC link.
It would appear that you have been to the ‘Maureen School of Research’. Throw up a lengthy list of stuff that has some appropriate sounding words in the titles but which contain next to nothing about what you claim they support.
Did you actually read any of the studies you cited?
Did you notice that some don’t even address the claimed ABC link?
Did you even peruse the conclusions in some of the studies?
CONCLUSION:
“The study suggests that non vegetarian diet is the important risk factor for Breast Cancer and the risk of Breast Cancer is more in educated women as compared with the illiterate women.”
Gee, that’s useful to know.
CONCLUSION:
“Among this predominantly premenopausal population, neither induced nor spontaneous abortion was associated with the incidence of breast cancer.”
I’d call that a fail.
I wish you a speedy recovery MaryRose :-)
I provided a significant break between my responses to Paladin and TLD in my posted comment, it appears to have disappeared upon uploading.
reality’s comprehension of science conclusion is questionable, but understandable, especially when thee conclusions see more akin to sound bites. For example most cancers (except perhaps leukemia) take decades to develop … this includes breast cancer. To seek to explain breast cancer via n ABC link in pre-menopausal women is absurd, mainly because the A-age would likely usually be pre-pubescent.
The problem doesn’t lie with my comprehension of scientific conclusions John, it lies with claiming something supports a claim when it is totally clear that it doesn’t. Did you examine the articles that TLD claimed supported the ABC link? As I said, most of them weren’t addressing the issue and one concluded the exact opposite of hwta TLD claimed it supported.
Yes, breast cancer doesn’t establish itself overnight. For some women, it has been shown to have genetic causes. There is also the fact that there are so many other impacting factors which can and do contribute – diet, environment, medicinal history, alcohol etc. Even if data were to show an increased level amongst post-abortive women, other potential correlative and causitive factors would need to be suitable assessed.
To seek to explain breast cancer via n ABC link in pre-menopausal women is absurd, mainly because the A-age would likely usually be pre-pubescent. – you might want to explain this a bit better John.
Happy to obligue, Reality If cancer takes 25-30 years to develop + age of puberty(@14 then total age where the ABC link will begin to appear (if it does exist) is age 39-44 After pre-menopause. To seek an ABC link in pre-menopausal women is tentamount to calling this so-called link a genetic one or an environmentally toxic(chemically based factor. The authors already should know this. Adding in superfluous numbers only skews the evidence. {When working with percentage numbers, it is very important to know exactly what the numbers represent … for instance ::: in a very small field like ‘2’ and ‘1’ of these gets cancer …. a rate of 50% cited by some is true>… well probably not.}
I must agree with you re. potential-personhood-traits. PL often assign different attributes to different ‘stages’ of growth and very much underestimate the overpowering traits of ‘present’ existence. The notion of there even being any ‘stages’ at al has another problematic difficulty for you: if there are no stages {and fetus is only a stage in an ever-changing/growing/defecating human) then only ‘human’ is left … not person/personhood. Humans have delineated ‘Rights” The first of these is LIFE.
It is not very often when ‘potential’ gets physically manifest. A farmer sewing seed for an expected crop in a ‘fantasy-future’ is a continuing problem with one who defines reality as ‘what is’ period. It is known that a male fetus sent his stem cells to repair the liver of his Mom, while she was pregnant with him. Researchers thought that this meant a non-sentient ’plan’ to secure adequate nutrition for his ‘future’. [The only other explanation was fetal-altruism.] Can you think of another?
Sorry for the delay; things are rather frantically busy in these parts, though I’ll write what I can, for now…
Reality wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
You *do* realise that you selectively edited off the very part of my sentence which was key to your (off-base) objection, here?
“Why is it not enough that a human fetus is alive and thriving, with the expected capacity (with eventual expected realisation) to enjoy some or all of your stated criteria, in order to enjoy ‘personhood’?”
[Reality]
because what might be isn’t pertinent to what is.
(??) My dear fellow, that may be the most bizarre (and logically counter-productive) thing you’ve said, thus far! “What might be” was precisely the reason why (according even to you, if I’m not mistaken) we are not free to slaughter (for example) people who are temporarily unconscious, even though they show no sign of responsiveness to pain, no indication of “cognition”, or any other parts of your laundry-list; you would say (correct me if I’m mistaken) that they are still “people” (with the right to life, and the right not to be killed without just cause) because of what “might be” in the near future (i.e. they “might” be expected to wake up, eventually). If I take your statements at face-value, here, I’d be forced to conclude that you extend life-protection to the unconscious man on the operating table, but you deny that life-protection to the unborn child, simply because you are impatient! (You’re willing to wait a few hours or days, but you’re not at all willing to wait up to nine months.) That would be rather shallow of you, wouldn’t it?
[Reality]
On a couple of occasions recently I have stated that some of the arguments presented by anti-choice folk here lead me more and more to conclude that Singer may have a very good point. Yours is one of them.
(*facepalm*)
I see. Well, then… I’m really not sure there’s any common ground for discussion between us at all, friend, if you think that Dr. Peter Singer (that is the fellow to whom you refer, yes?) and his arguments in favour of infanticide are anything short of lunacy. In the name of self-consistency, he (and perhaps you) are willing to sacrifice born children who happen to be so-called “unwanted children”. If that is your idea of “compassion”, I’ll stick with the Christian model; thanks just the same.
Gestating fetuses do not possess attributes or traits which confer personhood rather than simply being a human organism.
Friend, how can you be such an apparently well-read and erudite fellow, and still miss the plain fact that you are making a RAW ASSERTION, here? You state–emphatically, repeatedly and colourfully–that your “laundry-list” somehow “confers” personhood… and yet, you offer no positive proof for that claim, at all! The most you’ve done (if even that–I’d need to look back at your comments to be certain) is ask, “Well, if these don’t convey personhood, then what does?” If you haven’t yet heard of the fallacy known as “begging the question” (in addition to the other fallacies–such as “circular argument”–which you’ve offered), perhaps you might look it up. It really makes no good sense for you to say, “No, a gestating human fetus does not have personhood by virtue of its gestating fetus-hood, because it doesn’t have the characteristics which I insist must be present in any true person!”… and then neglect to show WHY that list is, and must be, necessary. Isn’t the lack of a proof for your thesis statement rather a shortcoming, in your case?
[Paladin]
MaryRose was not wrong, and your reply was something of a non-sequitur which didn’t address her point in any direct way
[Reality]
now both of you are wrong. I do possess compassion and self-sacrifice.
I addressed this already, in a previous comment; and you’re consistently misreading MaryRose’s comment. Nowhere did she say that you were “devoid of every last scrap of compassion and self-sacrifice”; go back, and look, if you doubt. She said only that you had “chosen delusion over compassion and self-sacrifice”–and you certainly have, in this case. It makes no never-mind to her point that you act with compassion and self-sacrifice in other venues. Doing good on Monday does not excuse the advocation of evil on Tuesday. (And before you assail me with objections that you don’t ever remember bringing in days of the week to your examples: may I please remind you that this is a *metaphor*? The same was true with the mother-punching example, too, you know.)
The fact that I support womens reproductive choice does not preclude such.
It certainly does preclude it for the unborn children who die with your approval–and for the women who are brutalised by the process! I’m not sure how you can miss that rather enormous point… even while using such a bland euphemism such as “reproductive choice”. (I’d note that your choice of words insinuates that your opponents want nothing to do with giving women “reproductive choice”–which is blithering nonsense; we seek only to deny women [and men] the license to kill children intentionally in the womb. One might as well insinuate that someone is “against the free choice to live where one wishes” because we wish to deny anyone the freedom to slaughter a family and claim their house for one’s own!)
[Paladin]
She said that your compassion for the unborn was absent
[Reality]
no she didn’t.
Oh, for the love of sanity, man! Are you so desperate for a “successful debate point” that you’d split MaryRose’s comment into complete isolation, only to crow about the fact that you didn’t use the precise words that I mentioned in my paraphrase?
If it makes you feel better, and if it puts this silly turnip-ghost to rest once and for all: yes, Reality, you’re quite right that i used words which didn’t appear in her exact, verbatim text. I repent of the inaccuracy in dust and ashes. Good Heavens, man, but you can be tedious when you put your mind to it!
Case in point: have you paid no attention to the topic of this thread at all? Did the context in which MaryRose’s comment was written escape you? Whyever do you think she would have said such a thing, but for your stance on abortion? Your own comment (e.g. “The fact that I support womens [sic] reproductive choice does not preclude such.”) shows that you know the context (and what she actually said, and meant), full well. Would you be so kind as NOT to feign stupidity? Casual observers might be forgiven for thinking that you’re not feigning, if you keep this up.
[Paladin]
in place of the delusion that unborn children are “not children/persons at all”.
[Reality[
adding words now Paladin?
“Now?” You’d just finished saying that I had already added words to MaryRose’s comments, in your above… (*sigh*) Never mind. See above.
Personhood was all that was spoken of.
“All”? She wasn’t referring to abortion (and to your acceptance of it) in the least, you think? Have some sense, man!
The delusion is conferring attributes on fetuses that they simply do not possess.
You really do need to be more specific on that point, for me to comment further. What attributes do you mean, specifically… and which ones, and how many, and under what circumstances?
[Paladin]
As a note to that point: I’ll wager that, even with your scientific analysis of what constitutes personhood, you’d be reluctant to criminalise late-term abortion and/or partial-birth abortion. True? Or not true?
[Reality]
true.
Thank you for your candour. Then your original criterion of “capacity to feel pain” wasn’t really one of your criteria, after all… since the soon-to-be-born child most certainly can feel pain. You would also (though you suggested as much, in yoru admiration for Dr. Singer’s ideas) place infants in the category of “non-persons”, since their capacity for the items in your “laundry-list” does not change appreciably in the 30 seconds between “being in the birth canal” and “emerging fully from the birth canal”. Your position is logically and morally incoherent, friend.
[Paladin]
But that does not excuse you from the obligation NOT to support the murder of unborn offspring of human parents
[Reality]
murder, what murder? What obligation?
(*sigh*) I assume you’re asking a rhetorical question; but in deference to your favourite style, I’ll respond as if that were a literal interrogative:
I refer to the murder of any unborn child who is willfully and directly killed by the procedure known colloquially as “abortion”. You, if you make any claim to good morality at all, are morally bound to act against such an atrocity–by refusing to support it (by word, deed, vote, choice, etc.), at very least.
[Paladin]
Or feed the cat. Let’s not forget that!
[Reality]
I do that thoughtfully and well.
Right-o. Now, if we could get you to extend that compassion and self-sacrifice to human persons (both born and unborn), that would be true progress!
I came back to defend my previous comments & to clarify for Reality, only to discover that Paladin has taken care of it all quite eloquently.
Thank you for the well-wishes, Reality. My wonderful husband made sure I had plenty of rest and fluids and I am moderately clearheaded today as a result.
When you advocate the brutal deaths of millions of humans every year – I do no such thing.
This is the only comment to which I don’t see a response at this time. I may have missed it.
Are you, Reality, or are you not, an abortion advocate? Do you or do you not believe that abortion should be legal for all women for any reason up to the very end of pregnancy? Are you or are you not a supporter of Planned Parenthood, our nation’s leading provider of abortions?
Does abortion or does it not kill a human being? Is it or is it not brutal to have your arms and legs torn off and your scull crushed? Alternatively, is it or is it not brutal to be burned to death in a chemical solution? How about to have your spinal column severed? What about having a chemical injection designed to cause a heart attack? How about being starved to death?
Which part of my statement exactly is it that you disagree with? I ask because I was quite purposeful in my delivery. I made a point of using the term humans rather than people (since you seem to lack the basic clarity of mind to see that they are one and the same). I used the term “killing” instead of “murder” as you seem to feel that it is only possible to murder when the law is against you. Hitler was not responsible for mass-murder but for mass-killings by your logic, so I make it a point of expressing my point clearly but using your language.
You have, on many many occasions, expressed your opinion that women should not be bothered over their reasons for abortion, so one must assume that every woman who has chosen abortion has had sufficient reason, in your mind. Although perhaps you do not support those which are forced or coerced. Yet even still, in your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge them or do anything about them, one could say that you support them by protecting the individual forcing or coercing the mother into killing her child.
So now I have to wonder, what is it that you stand against in my statement? What part of it do you not feel is consistent with your advocacy of abortion?
Excuse me-I said deaths, not killing(s). Same point, different word.
:) …and God speed your healing, MaryRose!
Thank you :)
Glad you explained that John. It was a quandry to see pre-pubescent and abortion in the same sentence.
While your timeline scenario is vaguely interesting it contributes exactly zero to any argument for an ABC link. The genetic link isn’t one of guesswork. The ABC ones are, none of them address the other possible causitive factors. Even the supposed correlation is a stretch.
Without knowing more about the stem cells/liver scenario I would think it had something to do with organic chemical balance.
Paladin, there is a significant difference between a gestating fetus and someone who is unconscious, under anesthesia or who has lapsed into a coma. Can you guess what it is?
Singer’s argument is one that is worthy of consideration, not lunacy. Most people wouldn’t agree with post-birth termination but that is an emotional response, not a logical one. That’s normal, many positions, choices and beliefs are based at least in part on emotions.
It’s not a raw assertion, it’s based in science. A fetus lacks those attributes which make us individuals, give us personal identity, character traits.
Given the breadth of meaning of peoples claims regarding matters such as my compassion and self-sacrifice which have sometimes been displayed here, I do not assume that someone may be focussing on one specific factor.
And it is fundamentally and self-evidently untrue that I have chosen ‘delusion’ over anything. Nor do I advocate ‘evil’. The fact that you and MaryRose disagree with my position does not mean it is delusional or evil.
You make the statement “women who are brutalised by the process” and then complain about me speaking of “reproductive choice”? You place the importance, the value, of a gestating fetus above that of an existent person. I find that wrong. To terminate something of unknown capacity rather than risk, devalue, impinge on, limit, the life of an existent person is the better choice.
Turnips have ghosts? See my “Given the breadth…” response just up a bit.
The fact that a fetus does not possess the neural capacity to feel pain prior to 24 weeks at the earliest is indicative of the overall neural capacity being less than fully achieved. Given the level of support required following more than slightly premature births, incomplete physiological capacity is obvious.
Since ‘murder’ means unlawful killing, abortion isn’t murder. Nor is it an ‘atrocity’. My moral position is that people, women, are more important than gestating fetuses. That is where I apply my compassion and self-sacrifice.
No MaryRose, I am not an abortion advocate. I am a choice advocate. I advocate for womens rights, including reproductive freedom.
Abortion terminates a gestating fetus of the human species. The methodology may be less than nice, as with many procedures, but there is no brutal suffering.
You may have been purposeful in your delivery but you weren’t specific.
Thinking that something being ‘human’ automatically denotes a person is what lacks clarity.
Every woman who chooses abortion, of her own volition, has sufficient reason. And you are wrong about me protecting those who may force or coerce. I have slammed groups like bro-choice and other individuals over time.
Your entire remark was wrong. There is no delusion on my part, that is displayed by those conferring attributes on fetuses which they do not possess, and I do have compassion and self-sacrifice. Heck, I’ve even supported women who have chosen not to abort when it would have been the easier path for them.
Reality wrote, in reply to my comment:
Paladin, there is a significant difference between a gestating fetus and someone who is unconscious, under anesthesia or who has lapsed into a coma. Can you guess what it is?
I know of many significant differences between them. I know of none of them which would grant the right to life to one, but deny it to the other. If you have one or more in mind, you’ll have to tell me explicitly.
Singer’s argument is one that is worthy of consideration, not lunacy.
Dr. Singer’s argument is logically self-defeating, in addition to being morally barbaric; and any embrace of logical nonsense is lunacy, at least so far as it goes. See below, re: “moral relativism”.
Most people wouldn’t agree with post-birth termination but that is an emotional response, not a logical one.
Forgive me, friend, but that’s unadulterated balderdash. One does not make one’s position “logical” simply by appending or inserting the word “logical” into its description… and your comment would (though perhaps you didn’t realise it) make utter nonsense of any possible talk about morals or ethics, whatsoever. What, you don’t think there are any objective standards by which a moral action may be judged, apart from emotional hysteria? One cannot object to rape, for example, without recourse to irrationality and screams and mouth-frothing and hyperventilation? Have some sense.
Case in point #1: I object to abortion because it is a completely inexcusable and inhuman (in the literal sense of being removed from the expected behaviour of man as a moral creature) killing of a provably innocent, utterly distinct and unique human being. On some days, the grief of the reality (and magnitude) of abortion brings me to my knees in tears. On other days, I (whether through resolve, or fatigue, or simple change in mood) handle the issue with almost clinical coolness. Those who truly know logic know that a given moral position has nothing particularly to do with whether one has (or doesn’t have) strong feelings on the matter. It’s quite possible for a very logical person to feel incensed and outraged at an injustice; just as it’s quite possible for an emotionally numb person to propose blithering nonsense.
Case in point #2: logic only works if three conditions are met: (a) clear definitions, (b) true premises/starting assumptions, and (c) the conclusion follows from the premises. You’ve claimed (or at least insinuated) that your abortion-tolerant position is “logical”. Well and good: that’s your stated opinion. Now, your task is to prove it. Otherwise, you’re simply parroting phrases and slogans which you don’t really understand.
That’s normal, many positions, choices and beliefs are based at least in part on emotions.
Let’s assume that this smug-sounding, self-congratulatory claim is so. Would the not suggest that, given no further information, your own position is at least as likely to be based on such? I say this especially because you’ve offered nothing in the way of logical proof for your position… and given that (by all appearances) you are a moral relativist, I don’t hold out much hope that you will be able to do so.
It’s not a raw assertion, it’s based in science.
Ah, yes… “science”. You seem to use that word just as you use the word “logic”–as a sort of incantation by which your claims–no matter how fallacy-ridden or unsupported by sane reason they might be–would be “canonised” as “logical and scientific” (at which point your audience is expected to retreat in confusion, since they–by not agreeing with your assertion–must be “illogical and unscientific” by that mere fact). (*sigh*) Lord, give me strength…
Perhaps this may make things more clear: the difference between “raw assertion” and “demonstrated/proven fact” is the existence (or lack) of valid and sound proof/demonstration. Merely stating a position, forcefully and colourfully (I do feel as if I’ve said all this before, yes?), does not constitute a proof or logical demonstration. Merely claiming that “my position is scientific” does not prove anything useful, aside from the rather unexciting fact that you happen to view your own assertion as “scientific”. If you want others to take you seriously, friend, you need to show that your assertions are, in fact, objectively TRUE. You’ve not come close to that… and in some cases, you haven’t even made the attempt.
A fetus lacks those attributes which make us individuals, give us personal identity, character traits.
I already took this apart for you, earlier, but you seem not to have registered the main points:
1) You insert the new word “individuals”… and not only do you offer no proof for this claim, but it’s provably wrong; surely the fact that the unborn child is a member of the species “homo sapiens” (do check any good textbook on embryology, to that effect), and that it has a unique DNA, sets it apart as an “individual” of the species? I do not claim here that its individuality gives it the right to life, per se (at least, not yet); but this is more than enough to neutralise your claim that the fetus (“small child”) is somehow not an “individual”.
2) “give us personal identity”: and what traits are necessary to bestow this, would you say? You’ve steadfastly refused to specify which elements of your original “laundry list” are necessary for the right to life, and now you’ve added a new claim (personal identity) which requires one or more of them. Could you specify? With which ones can we dispense, and which are absolutely required? Would capacity for pain be required for personal identity, do you think? Or the ability to feel particular emotions? I’m genuinely curious, here.
3) “character traits”: which ones, exactly? Would only one do, or would one need multiple traits of this type to qualify under your (as yet undefined) standard? And how would they bear into the idea of “right to life”?
Given the breadth of meaning of peoples claims regarding matters such as my compassion and self-sacrifice which have sometimes been displayed here, I do not assume that someone may be focussing on one specific factor.
Not even if the entire thread is talking almost exclusively about that one factor, and if the entire forum is dedicated toward that same theme? I’ll admit, your ability not to be distracted by the main point of the conversation is rather impressive… :)
And it is fundamentally and self-evidently untrue that I have chosen ‘delusion’ over anything.
Er… I’ll gently remind you that “self-evident” actually has a definition, and that you’ve not come close to meeting that definition. You believe that unborn children may be killed at the discretion of the state and/or the doctor and/or the mother, etc., because you believe them not to be persons with the right to life. That is nonsense (i.e. to deny it would remove your own self-acknowledged right to life and personhood, though you seem not to know it), yet you still embrace it. Embracing a logical self-contradiction is to embrace a non-reality, which is delusional. Do you see, now?
If nothing else, could you at least *attempt* a proof of your statement above, rather than forcing us to take it on faith?
Nor do I advocate ‘evil’. The fact that you and MaryRose disagree with my position does not mean it is delusional or evil.
The mere fact that MaryRose and I disagree with you does not make your position delusional or evil; that is true. But we’ve never claimed that you are wrong, or that your position is evil, SIMPLY because you disagreed with us (did you somehow miss that fact)? We are not moral relativists (as you seem to be); we believe that there is such a thing as an objective moral standard by which actions may be judged… and that is what we use, here. (More on that, below.)
You make the statement “women who are brutalised by the process” and then complain about me speaking of “reproductive choice”?
Yes. I describe a reality without white-washing the meaning (perhaps you’ve met Carla, our good moderator? If you don’t take my word for the fact that women are brutalised by abortion, perhaps you may ask her?); whereas you seek to avoid the unpleasant talk of killing, dismembering, slicing spinal cords, and such, by the bland euphemism “reproductive choice”, which (when used as you use it) is so vague as to be nearly empty of meaning.
You place the importance, the value, of a gestating fetus above that of an existent person.
(*sigh*) You really don’t realise that you’re still assuming (without a scrap of proof) that a “gestating fetus” (which is Latin for “developing small child”–perhaps a course in Latin might help your understanding of these things, rather than using the word “fetus” as a sort of dehumanising incantation?) is NOT an “existent person”?
I find that wrong.
Now, this interests me! Why, exactly (even given your false starting assumptions and definitions), do you find it wrong? On what basis? And is that basis mere emotion and personal taste, or is it “scientific”?
To terminate something of unknown capacity
…such as an adult human person? Or are you saying that you know the “capacity” (whatever that might mean) of any given person? Do you not see that your terms have no clear meaning, here? How can you build an argument if your building-blocks are made of pure gas?
rather than risk, devalue, impinge on, limit, the life of an existent person is the better choice.
I see. Well… until you clarify these definitions, explain why your assumptions are true, and show how your conclusion (“better choice”, whatever that means, and by whatever standards you happen to use) follows from them, I really don’t have much to say on that statement… save that it said almost precisely nothing.
Turnips have ghosts? See my “Given the breadth…” response just up a bit.
Oh, my. Given your word choices in past posts, I’d assumed that you were familiar with British figures of speech; apparently I was mistaken. See here, if you like (or read a bit more Chesterton and C.S Lewis), and look especially at the secondary definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/turnip%20ghost
The fact that a fetus does not possess the neural capacity to feel pain prior to 24 weeks at the earliest is indicative of the overall neural capacity being less than fully achieved.
Just so. And given the fact that a man in a coma does not possess any provable capacity to feel pain while in that state is indicative of his overall neural capacity to be less than fully active. Does this further your main point, in some way?
Given the level of support required following more than slightly premature births, incomplete physiological capacity is obvious.
Of course. And given the level of support needed for astronauts on space-walks to survive (or for most fish to survive out of water, or for most squirrels to survive underwater) for more than a very brief time, limited physiological capacity in that regard is equally obvious. I’m not seeing progress toward a point, here…
Since ‘murder’ means unlawful killing, abortion isn’t murder.
Ah. So the slaughter of the Jews in Nazi Germany was not murder, since it was quite legal under the laws of the Third Reich; and slaughter of Jews under Sharia law is not murder, since it is quite legal under Sharia Law. Do you seriously not see what nonsense you’re giving, here? “Unlawful” does not mean, and it cannot possibly mean, a mere legal consensus of a provincial bit of the world… or even a unanimous consent (good luck finding that on ANY topic, by the way!) by all humans on earth. If there is no objective standard by which particular classes of humans can be judged to have the right to life, then NO human on earth has a secure right to life. No… the mere fact that a given country happens not to have a law on the books does not change objective morality; surely you don’t think rape would be morally permissible if it were somehow sanctioned by law?
Nor is it an ‘atrocity’.
Your assertion is duly noted. :) Now, would you be so kind as to work toward proving that statement?
My moral position is that<em> people, women,</em> are more important than gestating fetuses.
And I (and others) are pointing out that your distinction is nonsense (and based entirely on personal taste and emotion, I’d add–it certainly has no logic to support it).
As a final note (and I once said this to Doug, a sometime contributor on this board whom I haven’t seen for some time–very nice fellow): moral relativism (the belief that there are no moral absolutes–i.e. that there is no such thing as an objective moral standard, above and beyond any individual or collective views of the subjects in question) is self-contradictory and nonsensical, and you seem to have swallowed it–hook, line and sinker (perhaps because of the behavioural license which it promises). There are only three possible outcomes for anyone who embraces moral relativism:
1) solipsism (the belief that there is only the self, and all other things and people are mere mental constructs)
2) insanity (though solipsism would qualify in this category, as well, it’s important enough to be distinct)
3) conversion away from moral relativism
Gosh, I hope Thomas R. doesn’t spot your lengthy comment, he seems to think that the more that is being said the less value it has :-)
I disagree with him.
From conception through fetal development, many attributes and abilities are formed, developed, constituted. Physiological, neurological, whatever. It is certain elements of these factors which make each human the person that they are. We are not identical to each other. We are not androids. Our differences as persons are delivered by how we develop. Intrinsic and extrinsic. Nature and nurture.
Someone who ends up comatose for any particular reason may lose one or some of these paricular attributes on a temporary or permanent basis. The difference is that all the pertinent attributes have been achieved whereas a gestating fetus has not done so.
An astronaut requires support systems because they are not in the environment that humans evolved to exist in. Early prematures are not in an environment unsuitable for normal human habitation.
It would be interesting to know why you consider Singer’s postulation to be logically self-defeating and morally barbaric.
What, you don’t think there are any objective standards by which a moral action may be judged, apart from emotional hysteria? – I don’t find ’emotional hysteria’ to be an objective standard of morals. It is self-evidently a subjective one. There are no objective standards of morals.
I object to abortion because it is a completely inexcusable and inhuman – no, you object to abortion because you find it inexcusable and inhuman. Many others don’t.
Those who truly know logic know that a given moral position has nothing particularly to do with whether one has (or doesn’t have) strong feelings on the matter. – then how is it that some people find homosexuality immoral?
logic only works if three conditions are met: (a) clear definitions, (b) true premises/starting assumptions, and (c) the conclusion follows from the premises. – and the variability derives from (b). (a) can be a little hazy too.
Let’s assume that this smug-sounding, self-congratulatory claim is so – are you really going to claim that positions, choices and beliefs aren’t based on emotions in at least some cases?
Your choice to not acknowledge the science does not constitute a failure by me to have provided it.
Not even if the entire thread is talking almost exclusively about that one factor, and if the entire forum is dedicated toward that same theme? – unfortunately not. Lesson learned.
That is nonsense (i.e. to deny it would remove your own self-acknowledged right to life and personhood, though you seem not to know it), yet you still embrace it. – your assertion of ‘nonsense’ is merely your opinion. I reject it on the basis of what I have explained.
Embracing a logical self-contradiction is to embrace a non-reality, which is delusional. Do you see, now? – I see that you have an opinion with which I fundamentally disagree. There is no self-contradiction and there is certainly no non-reality.
But we’ve never claimed that you are wrong, or that your position is evil, SIMPLY because you disagreed with us (did you somehow miss that fact)? We are not moral relativists (as you seem to be); we believe that there is such a thing as an objective moral standard by which actions may be judged… and that is what we use, here – it is quite obvious that there is no objective moral standard. You apply such terms as ‘delusional’ or ‘evil’ because my moral standard does not always equate to yours. Given the diversity of what people consider ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’, subjectivity plays a large role.
I have acknowledged that some women, including Carla, can feel harmed, damaged or guilty from having had abortions. The overwhelming majority aren’t and women can also be harmed by not having access to abortion. Some folk are harmed by vaccinations yet the anti-vaxxer stance is appropriately condemned. I also wonder, in some instances, if guilt brings committment to faith or if committment to faith brings guilt.
Why, exactly (even given your false starting assumptions and definitions – tut tut, venturing your opinion as fact) , do you find it wrong? On what basis? And is that basis mere emotion and personal taste, or is it “scientific”?
Or are you saying that you know the “capacity” (whatever that might mean) of any given person?
“better choice”, whatever that means
We cannot know the physical, mental or intellectual capacity that a gestating fetus might or might not realise post-birth. It is an unknown quantity. An existent woman is not an unknown quantity. Depending on her circumstances, abortion may well deliver the better outcome and thus would be the better choice.
Are you claiming to be familiar with every British figure of speech? I wouldn’t. Being familiar with something does not necessarily demand knowing every last detail. Oh my.
So the slaughter of the Jews in Nazi Germany was not murder, since it was quite legal under the laws of the Third Reich; and slaughter of Jews under Sharia law is not murder, since it is quite legal under Sharia Law. – like it or not that may well be the case. It depends on the jurisdiction. It may be classed as murder in 99% of nations. But not in those instances in those jurisdictions. You and I may consider it ‘murder’ judged by our standards, our morals. Obviously those perpetrators didn’t or wouldn’t. Is that moral relativism then? The nazis weren’t charged and tried under German Law. Nor were they charged simply with murder per se.
No… the mere fact that a given country happens not to have a law on the books does not change objective morality; surely you don’t think rape would be morally permissible if it were somehow sanctioned by law? – by ‘objective morality’ you mean ‘my morality’. No I don’t think rape would be moral no matter what the law says. Nor do I consider it moral that a rape victim be punished as they are in some countries. Obviously others have a different moral viewpoint on that. Homosexuality is legal in some nations and not in others. So it can be either legal or illegal. What’s the ‘objective morality’ on that?
Now, would you be so kind as to work toward proving that statement? – right after you prove your original assertion.
And I (and others) are pointing out that your distinction is nonsense – not quite, you are pointing out that you disgree with it to the extent that you declare it nonsense.
(and based entirely on personal taste and emotion, I’d add–it certainly has no logic to support it). – indeed it does. It is supported by the logic I have described. The one containing (b), you know, the variable.
moral relativism (the belief that there are no moral absolutes–i.e. that there is no such thing as an objective moral standard, above and beyond any individual or collective views of the subjects in question) is self-contradictory and nonsensical – it would be interesting to know on what basis you make this claim. Given that what is considered ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ has been shown to vary over time, between cultures and faiths and under the influence of knowledge and understanding, it is quite clear that there is no singular objective morality.
I’d also like to know how you can demonstrate that there are only three possible outcomes.
Reality said – “It would appear that you have been to the ‘Maureen School of Research’. Throw up a lengthy list of stuff that has some appropriate sounding words in the titles but which contain next to nothing about what you claim they support. Did you actually read any of the studies you cited? Did you notice that some don’t even address the claimed ABC link? Did you even peruse the conclusions in some of the studies?”
For everyone’s edification:
I have not been to the Maureen School of research. Do they have online classes?
I have ‘saved’ those articles because they do address ABC.
Sure, some do not have an ABC-specific title, and are not specifically studies of ABC hypothesis. What happens is that researchers run a study on something else, and properly include abortion history in their analyses as a “covariate,” then abortion history shows up as being predictive of breast cancer.
Some studies try to figure out what predicts to breast cancer and go a further step to analyze by receptor type, dietary folate level, or some other twist. If abortion does predict to breast cancer of one receptor type, but not another, this is a valuable finding.
It allows Reality to declare that abortion does not lead to breast cancer, or to parrot the theme of mixed or inconsistent results. No, abortion does not lead to an increased risk of breast cancer in a notable way for those women who go ahead and have a full-term pregnancy in the next few years.
One study reflected the magnitude of effect seen in other studies, but has too few cases to reach statistical significance. These are worth noting because they can be piled up into meta-analyses to see if the effect is genuine, when enough people are included in an analysis.
The ABC hypothesis depends on the idea that certain breast cells, that develop/differentiate to provide milk, only partly develop when the blob of flesh is aborted, and this mid-way development stage leaves these cells at risk for going cancerous. Those cells are prompted by the hormone changes of pregnancy to begin developing so that the mother can nurse the baby after birth. This pregnancy-dependent development is partly driven by estrogen.
If a woman gets into this risky phase, but then has a baby in the next couple or few years, those cells do get fully developed, and so get moved out of the risky mid-way stage.
So, results need to be examined in terms of whether a woman had a full-term pregnancy/had at least one child somewhere in the years following the abortion.
So, a study may have many categories of study participants with an abortion history, but not physiologically at risk.
This is a reality of the problem that allows pro-choice advocates to point to studies and say there is no relation.
This is simply dogma leading to spin, rather than an earnest review of the ABC hypothesis.
I have read all of those studies.
I am bothering to linger on with this discussion thread because it is very illuminating in many ways. “Reality” has been engaged enough to show some of the mental gymnastics it takes to be guided by political dogma while claiming to be scientific.
This thread will soon tire out. But hopefully Reality can continue to show more of this un-scientific, twisted thinking before it does.
A honeybee only lives for four weeks. Either when enjoying honey, or receiving a bite, none of us would deny that a honeybee is a living organism. That honeybee is alive. as is a four-week old fetus. Different organisms have different life cycles. Some go through larvae and pupae stages, and so on. Some pass through the fetus stage to the infant stage and so on.
Whether “personhood” has been granted or not, abortion of a four-week old fetus is a matter of killing a living organism.
Each living organism belongs to a genus and a species.
A four-week-old human fetus belongs to homo sapiens.
As I noted earlier, it is an old, debunked belief to think that live arises from spontaneous generation, from bad air.
It is un-scientific to defend abortion by declaring that the fetus is part of the woman.
It is un-scientific to defend abortion by claiming that the fetus is a parasite. None of us ever heard that in middle-school science class. We learned a different definition for a parasite. By definition, a parasite is a member of one species that sponges off another species as a way of life. To say otherwise is un-scientific.
If a four-week-old fetus is a parasite, then it has to belong to another species. We should be able to do DNA analysis and figure out which species it belongs to.
All of these pro-choice dogma arguments fall apart once you begin to think about them a bit. They are simply rhetoric devices developed to give the faithful an automatic, knee-jerk answer when challenged by a reasonable, scientific-minded person.
I have no confidence that any of this will change the mind of Reality, since Reality is guided by political beliefs, and not science. I hope some other readers learn something, though. I used to believe all of this rhetoric until I began to actually use my mind, instead of listening to automatic answers parroted by my fellow liberals.
“One might as well insinuate that someone is “against the free choice to live where one wishes” because we wish to deny anyone the freedom to slaughter a family and claim their house for one’s own!”
D’oh! That’s gonna leave a mark. pwned.
Apologies for not replying to all the points; this reply is getting a bit long, even for my standards! Do feel free to ask about the bits to which I didn’t respond directly…
Reality wrote, in reply to my comment:
The difference is that all the pertinent attributes have been achieved whereas a gestating fetus has not done so.
I do not deny that. But (confining myself to your own “laundry list”, for the moment… which I still think is woefully inadequate to define personhood) I’m remembering that you (unless I’m mistaken) do not think it morally licit to kill a comatose person; correct? If some other person were to come into the hospital room and kill that comatose person for no good reason, you’d still consider that to be a murderous and immoral act, yes?
Here’s my point: if you’re seriously suggesting that the absence of one or more (you do need to specify) of your “laundry list” characteristics entails the absence of personhood, then I don’t see how you’d be able to refuse the (bizarre) idea that one can gain and lose “personhood” (and specifically the right to life) repeatedly, simply by losing consciousness (and all capacity for “advertising one’s personhood” to others), then it would make no difference whether those “laundry list” traits of yours were lost, or whether they were not yet acquired: you’d deny both of them the right to life, and you’d sanction the killing of either of them, under the right circumstances.
An astronaut requires support systems because they are not in the environment that humans evolved to exist in. Early prematures are not in an environment unsuitable for normal human habitation.
Premature children are only in a “suitable” environment when they are in the womb (or some suitable technological equivalent, as a distant second); when they are expelled from the womb, tyhey are expelled from the only place specifically designed for their growth and survival.
It would be interesting to know why you consider Singer’s postulation to be logically self-defeating and morally barbaric.
I find it morally barbaric because all humans, regardless of their perceived “utility” to others, have an intrinsic right to life which cannot be violated for any but the gravest reasons (and even then, only under the correct circumstances); it is always and everywhere immoral to “will” (i.e. choose an ambition for) the death of another human being.
(Now, if you want to question THAT premise (i.e. go against the general universal consensus on the subject), I’ll refer you to the “three possible outcomes” of moral relativism which I mentioned earlier. More on that, in a moment.)
I find it logically self-defeating in two ways:
1) It’s based on a fundamental denial of objective morality, which renders all talk of “morality and ethics” nonsensical; so any moral relativist who still prattles on about “moral obligations” of any sort whatever (as Dr. Singer does) is talking literal nonsense.
2) It cuts the ground out from under his OWN right to life, though he seems (with all due respect) too shallow to understand that fact. If the right to life is “awarded” by other humans (as opposed to “recognised” as an intrinsic right belonging to any human person), then it can be taken away by humans (either the same group, or a group which ascends to power afterward). I do not speak politically/militarily (anyone with a big enough gun, etc., can kill anyone else, regardless of these moral issues); I speak ethically (i.e. whether any given killing of a human is truly WRONG, and not simply against the single or collective opinion of a particular group). If Dr. Singer has the right to “change reality” so that the killing of newborn infants is now “morally permissible, in general” on the basis that such infants may have a negative utility, then there is nothing to stop someone else from “changing reality” by saying (just as wrongly) that it is now permissible to kill Dr. Singer, given that his views have a negative utility (i.e. they lead to the wrongful death of babies).
I’d also note that Dr. Singer is at least making efforts *not* to be an utter moral relativist; he’s actually trying to construct a coherent moral programme (though that is doomed to failure). You, on the other hand, seem eager to discard any and all moral obligations whatsoever, for the sake of making your position less assailable… and that not only leads to one of the three outcomes, but it also loses you Dr. Singer as a supporter.
[Paladin]
What, you don’t think there are any objective standards by which a moral action may be judged, apart from emotional hysteria?
[Reality]
I don’t find ‘emotional hysteria’ to be an objective standard of morals. It is self-evidently a subjective one.
You misunderstood me; the fact that “emotional hysteria” is subjective was precisely my point. If I may put the same point in other words: “What, you don’t think that moral judgments can be made objectively, but that anyone who tries (and especially anyone who is outraged at abortion, for instance) must instead fall back on irrational and subjective emotional hysteria?”
There are no objective standards of morals.
That is logical nonsense, sir… and it is the quintessence of the absurd worldview known as “moral relativism”. By saying so, you neutralise any possible efforts of your own to condemn (or even to label as wrong) any human action whatsoever –including child rape, torture of innocents, etc. (I suppose it might be easier for you to surrender all right to moral qualms, rather than have a blow to your pride in admitting that you’ve embraced an error, here.) Worse (logically speaking), this reasoning leads inexorably to UTTER relativism (i.e. there is no truth at all, but only subjective perceptions), which is easily shown to be self-contradictory in many ways.
[Paladin]
I object to abortion because it is a completely inexcusable and inhuman
[Reality]
no, you object to abortion because you find it inexcusable and inhuman.
Therein lies our key disagreement; you subscribe to the self-contradictory view known as “moral relativism” (i.e. there are no objective morals, only opinions and personal views”), andf I do not. More on that, below.
Many others don’t.
That is so. And if you know any logic at all, you must know that both views cannot possibly be right at the same time; one must be right, and one must be wrong (since there is no third option, and since the two contradict–you might look up “Law of Non-Contradiction”, when you get a moment). You, as a rational person, are called upon to find out which is correct, and which is wrong… and not simply plunge your head in the sand to hide from the issue.
[Paladin]
Those who truly know logic know that a given moral position has nothing particularly to do with whether one has (or doesn’t have) strong feelings on the matter.
[Reality]
then how is it that some people find homosexuality immoral?
By reasoning from premises, using clear definitions, to arrive at a sound conclusion. How else would those who truly know (and use, I should have said!) logic do so? I do not deny that some people jump irrationally to this-or-that conclusion (and this is usually done by those on both sides of any issue); I merely deny your insinuation that those with strong feelings on issue [x] must necessarily have used their strong feelings INSTEAD of logic/sane reason, when arriving at their conclusion on issue [x]. You made that (implicit) accusation, with nary a scrap of proof for it.
[Paladin]
logic only works if three conditions are met: (a) clear definitions, (b) true premises/starting assumptions, and (c) the conclusion follows from the premises.
[Reality]
and the variability derives from (b). (a) can be a little hazy too.
It can be. To the extent that the definitions are unclear, or to the extent that the premises are not true (or to the extent that a fallacy prevents the conclusion from following from the premises), the conclusion is insecure.
[Paladin]
Let’s assume that this smug-sounding, self-congratulatory claim is so – are you really going to claim that positions, choices and beliefs aren’t based on emotions in at least some cases?
[Reality]
Your choice to not acknowledge the science does not constitute a failure by me to have provided it.
My dear fellow, you’ve offered double-handfuls of scattered opinions, and some self-sealing and/or circular arguments (e.g. by defining “personhood” as “that which satisfies my hand-picked conditions”, you seek to reach your conclusions); you’ve offered nothing particular in the way of “science” at all which is germane to your point. (You’ve also neglected to say which “science” you use; given that you’re a relativist, I assume you mean the empirical sciences, since those are the only sciences which seem to garner any trust from non-objectivists… which is ironic, since their relativism undercuts any trust that our senses are gathering accurate empirical data at all!)
It is not “science” to make the bald assertion that “the fetus is a non-person” (that is a philosophy question, anyway–not an empirical science question at all). It is also not “science” to claim, bereft of proof, that it is more justifiable to kill that fetus (you do remember the Latin etymology of that term, yes?) than it is to inconvenience a woman (or, more often, the men and women who are coercing that woman into killing her unborn offspring); that is a question of ethics, which empirical science is powerless to touch. I’m afraid your totemic use of the word “science” is rather vacuous.
[Paladin]
Not even if the entire thread is talking almost exclusively about that one factor, and if the entire forum is dedicated toward that same theme?
[Reality]
unfortunately not. Lesson learned.
Well… it’s good of you to admit that, at least. I don’t suppose you might work yourself up to an apology to MaryRose for your (mistakenly) indignant denials to that effect?
[Paladin]
That is nonsense (i.e. to deny it would remove your own self-acknowledged right to life and personhood, though you seem not to know it), yet you still embrace it.
[Reality]
your assertion of ‘nonsense’ is merely your opinion. I reject it on the basis of what I have explained.
You are mistaken on both counts. If objective morality (especially re: the “right to life” of any human) does not exist, and the “right to life” is a mere privilege granted by the state, then the state can take it away again, on whatever pretext it chooses (so long as it has the political, military, etc., power to enforce it). If it is morally licit for unborn children to be killed merely by “reclassifying” them as “non-persons”, then Jews and blacks can be killed in like manner (and they have–are you ignorant of history to that effect?), for the same reason, and with equal moral liceity. In other words, the Nazi slaughter of the Jews was not simply an atrocity forced upon the Jews by a morally corrupt regime; the Nazis were as morally right to support that as you are to support abortion. In other words, the American rape and murder of black slaves (since they were mere property, in the eyes of the law–a law which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford) was not a moral wrong which was tolerated by unjust laws; those who supported abuse and murder of black slaves were just as morally justified as you are in your support of abortion.
That’s merely today, by the way. You might be next, in the category of the “licit to kill” list. I might be next, as well. Why do you think that you are privileged or exempt from such caprice? Why embrace such a suicidal view?
[Paladin]
Embracing a logical self-contradiction is to embrace a non-reality, which is delusional. Do you see, now?
[Reality]
I see that you have an opinion with which I fundamentally disagree. There is no self-contradiction and there is certainly no non-reality.
You do not see, then. I’ll try to address this further, below.
[Paladin]
But we’ve never claimed that you are wrong, or that your position is evil, SIMPLY because you disagreed with us (did you somehow miss that fact)? We are not moral relativists (as you seem to be); we believe that there is such a thing as an objective moral standard by which actions may be judged… and that is what we use, here
[Reality]
it is quite obvious that there is no objective moral standard.
(*sigh*) “It’s just as obvious that colour doesn’t exist,” says one who is colour-blind. See below.
You apply such terms as ‘delusional’ or ‘evil’ because my moral standard does not always equate to yours.
I think you misunderstand. I do not think my moral beliefs (the ones about which I am certain, anyway) are true because they are mine. They are mine because they are true, and they have shown themselves to be true. “2 + 2 = 4” is not true because I believe it; I believe it because it is true. The universe does not exist because I believe in its existence; I believe in its existence because it does, in fact, exist. The murder (in the moral sense) of a person is unjust not because I believe it; I believe it because it is, in fact, unjust.
Given the diversity of what people consider ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’, subjectivity plays a large role.
…and given the diversity of answers which math students have for the problem “24 + 31 = ?”, the matter must be a subjective one, yes? (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way, which expects the answer “No, of course not!” Just in case there’s any confusion for you…) Mere diversity of answers does not imply a lack of an objective standard; but that is precisely what you are arguing, here. You’ll need to do better than that, dear chap.
I have acknowledged that some women, including Carla, can feel harmed, damaged or guilty from having had abortions.
Ah. It’s a mere “feeling”, then. I do wonder what your definition of “brutalised” would be, then… since you objected to my use of it so strongly.
The overwhelming majority aren’t
“Overwhelming majority”? Could you clarify (and cite sources for this claim, and define “overwhelming”)? That’s a dramatic-sounding claim…
and women can also be harmed by not having access to abortion.
How so?
Some folk are harmed by vaccinations
True.
yet the anti-vaxxer stance is appropriately condemned.
Why was it “appropriate” to condemn them? Or is that merely your personal tastes talking, here? You’ll need to unpack that, unless you want it categorised as “mere opinion” on your part.
I also wonder, in some instances, if guilt brings committment to faith or if committment to faith brings guilt.
Before I reply to that: do you mean “guilt” in the objective sense (i.e. someone is actually morally culpable for a wrongdoing), or do you mean it in the subjective sense (of a mere “feeling” of guilt)? And do you take “faith” to be a “feeling”, as well?
[Paladin]
Why, exactly (even given your false starting assumptions and definitions
[Reality]
tut tut, venturing your opinion as fact)
I was actually granting your starting premises (which you haven’t proven, and which fly in the face of sane reason) for the sake of that example; are you objecting to that?
[Paladin]
do you find it wrong? On what basis? And is that basis mere emotion and personal taste, or is it “scientific”?
You forgot to answer this part, yes? On what basis *do* you find the “denial of abortion ‘services’, for the sake of a fetus” to be “wrong”? And is that a scientific conclusion, or is it merely your raw opinion/personal taste? I really do want to know.
Or are you saying that you know the “capacity” (whatever that might mean) of any given person?
You also missed this one.
“better choice”, whatever that means
And this.
We cannot know the physical, mental or intellectual capacity that a gestating fetus might or might not realise post-birth.
True. We also cannot know the physical, mental or intellectual capacity that a man might have, post-coma. How does this further your case?
It is an unknown quantity.
It is. See above.
An existent woman is not an unknown quantity.
You’re being rather glib with definitions, here. You’re not comparing “a woman” to “a fetus”; you’re comparing “a woman” (without defining how, or what aspects) to an unborn child’s *life*; more specifically, you’re comparing something about “a woman” (you really do need to be more clear) versus the choice (either by her, or by those who mislead/coerce her) to have her unborn child killed, directly and proximately. It is never morally licit to intend the latter.
Depending on her circumstances, abortion may well deliver the better outcome and thus would be the better choice.
This is so painfully vague as to be beyond comment. Could you clarify/specify?
Are you claiming to be familiar with every British figure of speech?
Certainly not; I’m not familiar with EVERY British form of speech, or every Yank form of speech, or every Australian form of speech, or any other, for that matter. I happened to know that one, and it wasn’t an uncommon one, back in the day.
I wouldn’t. Being familiar with something does not necessarily demand knowing every last detail.
True… but in normal polite society, one *asks* about a figure of speech about which one doesn’t know; one doesn’t put one’s foot in one’s mouth by mocking the speaker about it, and insinuating that he/she has used something hand-made or bizarre. Had you simply asked “What in the world is a turnip ghost?”, I would have told you–politely, straight-forwardly, and without censure. But when you made such a scene of it, you brought the reaction on yourself, I’m afraid. A tip for the future, friend.
Oh my.
:) “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” as they say…
[Paladin]
So the slaughter of the Jews in Nazi Germany was not murder, since it was quite legal under the laws of the Third Reich; and slaughter of Jews under Sharia law is not murder, since it is quite legal under Sharia Law.
[Reality]
like it or not that may well be the case. It depends on the jurisdiction. It may be classed as murder in 99% of nations. But not in those instances in those jurisdictions. You and I may consider it ‘murder’ judged by our standards, our morals. Obviously those perpetrators didn’t or wouldn’t. Is that moral relativism then? The nazis weren’t charged and tried under German Law. Nor were they charged simply with murder per se.
I confess, I’d framed my questions so as to allow for the possibility that I might have been mistaken about your moral relativism (which is now confirmed beyond reasonable doubt). I stand corrected; if one uses the strict secular legal definition of “murder” as “killing of a person against the laws of the state”, then you are correct… but I was driving at a deeper point, which you address a bit, below.
[Paladin]
No… the mere fact that a given country happens not to have a law on the books does not change objective morality; surely you don’t think rape would be morally permissible if it were somehow sanctioned by law?
[Reality]
by ‘objective morality’ you mean ‘my morality’.
That is precisely what I do NOT mean. Objective means “objective”.
No I don’t think rape would be moral no matter what the law says. Nor do I consider it moral that a rape victim be punished as they are in some countries. Obviously others have a different moral viewpoint on that.
…and your viewpoint is no more or less significant in the moral order than is your fondness (or lack of fondness) for chestnuts. I see. (*wry look*)
Do think about this reasonably! Differences do not logically imply the lack of an answer. There are only two possibilities: (1) rape is morally illicit; (2) rape is not morally illicit. The two statements contradict, so they cannot both be true (cf. the “Law of Non-Contradiction”), and it is mere credulity to say vaguely that “there is no answer”. Nonsense, man; that’s as silly as a child would be after seeing the question “If x + 3 = 5, is x an even number, or is it an odd number?”, failing to find an answer, and declaring, “There is no answer! All evenness and oddness is simply in the eye of the beholder!” That’s nothing more or less than taking your own ignorance and trying to project it onto the cosmos. That, friend, simply won’t do.
Homosexuality is legal in some nations and not in others. So it can be either legal or illegal. What’s the ‘objective morality’ on that?
Do you remember that we are now talking about morality, and not about legality? We’ve both agreed that various countries can put on the books whatever laws they wish, given enough power and influence; that’s not the point. Homosexual acts are either intrinsically disordered, or they are not; there is no third option, and both cannot be true simultaneously.
[Paladin]
Now, would you be so kind as to work toward proving that statement [that abortion is not an atrocity]?
[Reality]
right after you prove your original assertion.
Hm. All right… but I do hope you’ll take up your own part of that task; otherwise, it’s what we in logical circles would call a “dodge”. See my comments about “moral relativism”, below.
[Paladin]
moral relativism (the belief that there are no moral absolutes–i.e. that there is no such thing as an objective moral standard, above and beyond any individual or collective views of the subjects in question) is self-contradictory and nonsensical
[Reality]
it would be interesting to know on what basis you make this claim.
I’ve given you some, above. In addition, any talk of “moral relativism” makes nonsense of the entire *concept* of right and wrong, and of morality (which is the study of behavioual rightness and wrongness–what one ought to do, and what one ought not to do); the words “right”, “wrong”, “ethics” and “morality” lose all meaning, and the term “moral realtivism” becomes utterly vacuous, devoid of meaning (akin to a “square circle”). See below.
Given that what is considered ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ has been shown to vary over time, between cultures and faiths and under the influence of knowledge and understanding, it is quite clear that there is no singular objective morality.
Your conclusion is not at all “clear”; it is a hasty leap without basis (see above, re: plurality of views does not imply lack of a standard, as opposed to mere error, deception, etc.).
I’d also like to know how you can demonstrate that there are only three possible outcomes.
Let’s suppose you’re a moral relativist (which is a fairly secure assumption). As such, you believe that there is no such thing as an objective standard of “good” or “evil”, and even your own views about what is good and what is evil (e.g. child rape, etc.) have no more weight or importance or significance than does your taste (or distaste) for olives. To you, all morality is whim, and those who insist that (for example) the rape and torture of a 3-year-old girl (done for the sheer enjoyment of the perpetrator) is “evil” are as irrational and provincial as would be someone who insisted that everyone on earth should like olives (since they can’t imagine how anyone couldn’t love them).
If you really and truly thought about your position (as opposed to merely ignoring the quandary, and plunging your head in the sand), you’d eventually be forced into one of three positions:
1) solipsism–the belief that you are the only provable (to you) being who exists. If you believe, like any good relativist, that nothing is absolute (which is self-contradictory even in the saying of it, since it’s an absolute statement), then you’ve cut the ground out from under anything else which you can’t prove “a priori” (i.e. with 100%, mathematical certainty–and these would tell you nothing about the empirical world, anyway: you’d have a bucket-ful of “if-then” statements and tautologies in your head which might or might not correspond to an outside world), and all hope of trusting in an external world would be gone. *Poof.* Reality is the only certainly-existing person, in Reality’s mind.
2) Insanity–the rejection of one or more external realities, while still trying to live by them. You reject all restraints on your morality (you’d like the freedom to rape and kill, even if you don’t particularly have a taste for them, and even if you suppose you never will–it’s the principle of the thing), since you reject objective morality altogether… but you’re stuck in a world where people and groups and nations who are stronger than you can force you NOT to do certain things. You’d jump out of the way of a speeding car, even though you reject all sane basis for accepting its existence. You live on the “fumes” of your parents and grandparents and others who actually believed in objective morality (in that you would [correct me if I’m wrong] refuse to torture, rape and kill a child, even if you knew for certain that you would never get caught–but you think your reluctance to do so has no more basis than does your whim to grab some fish and chips on Friday. In short: your interior life is utterly detached from your exterior life, save by complete accident… and that is a fairly good working definition of “insanity” (which agrees with medical textbooks to that effect).
3) conversion away from moral relativism: the best choice, and the only sane and logical one. It’s the result of not wanting to be utterly isolated, insane, and/or a monster.
LastDemocrat… :)
One side, note, while the topic of moral relativism is in the air…
Once upon a time, I happened on an atheist forum, and I stopped by to chat a bit with some of the members (some of whom were nice, some of whom were extremely difficult people), and one conversation struck me in particular:
One specific fellow was defending moral relativism, and the extent to which he jettisoned every last scrap of recognisable morality for the sake of his worldview was astonishing to me. He honestly denied that any moral code or idea had any objective weight, and he agreed with me when I suggested that his conviction against rape was as frivolous and whimsical as was his taste for olives (i.e. it could easily have been different given a different biochemistry, upbringing, yadda yadda yadda)! But what struck me most was a comment he made near the end of my visit, when I’d told him that I’d “blocked” the comments from a particularly irritable and insulting atheist on the forum; he replied that he was genuinely shocked that I would do such a thing… shocked and dismayed, that I would go so far as to limit free discussion in such a manner! (These were his words.) I had places to be, so I wasn’t able to pursue that curious comment with the question, “and whyever would such an action dismay you? On what basis do you feel that I did anything that wasn’t perfectly fine?”
Frankly, if I were to take his comments all at face-value, I’d have been forced to say something akin to this:
“Well. I suppose, given that you claim that anyone’s indignation is utterly subjective and dependent upon your whims and tastes and humours of the moment, I suppose I can’t do more than say what I would say to someone who told me that they happened to have a very bad head-ache: ‘I’m sorry to hear that; I hope you feel better soon!'”
This conversation with you, Reality, is reminding me of that. Honestly: how far are you willing to push your inclination to discard morality, in order to defend your rhetorical castle?
The only reasons I could imagine for anyone adopting moral relativism (apart from an impaired ability to use logic) would be the behavioural license it promises (e.g. if there is no sexual right and wrong, I can act in any sexual way that I please; if there is no such thing as wrongness of robbery, I can steal without needing to listen to any qualms of conscience; etc.). I’d like to think that this is not the case with you, Reality; what say you? Do you have any standards of moral conduct stronger than your momentary taste for mushrooms?
Face facts TLD, you listed a raft of articles which you claimed provided evidence of an ABC link. They didn’t. Not only do they not have ABC-specific titles, they don’t address it. In fact the one which did touch on the ABC link delivered a conclusion opposite to what you were claiming it as proof of.
I don’t run with the arguments you moan about regarding parasites etc.
For you to speak of science after what you have displayed is laughable.
Paladin, given the sheer length of our comments now being posted, I am going to attempt to bring some clear, concise structure to our discussion. Personhood, logic and morality.
But a thought for the moment. The fact that I reject the concept of objective morality does not mean that I discard morality and have standards of moral conduct no stronger than any immediate yearnings. You and I may not agree whether some things are moral or immoral. That does not mean I have none or that they are without value. I’ll let you mull that over.
Reality,
Fair enough; I’ll await your next installment. And consider your comment mulled. :)
Hello again Paladin :-)
This is going to require a bit of a re-shuffling – as best I can – of the order in which you posted comments, so as to achieve some overall clarity. Bear with me.
Personhood.
You are of the school which holds that ‘if it’s human, it’s a person’. I knew that. I am not. Neither, according to recent votes, are a great many people.
I have given you the grounds on which I find that a gestating fetus lacks what constitutes personhood. You reject them. That is your choice.
I have also explained that a comatose person is someone who is post-birth and therefore has attained personhood. The fact that circumstance has temporarily or permanently impinged on this does not reverse things to the state of a gestating fetus. A car which no longer runs isn’t suddenly transformed back into a rack of components on an assembly line.
Premature children are only in a “suitable” environment when they are in the womb – indeed.
I find it morally barbaric because all humans, regardless of their perceived “utility” to others, have an intrinsic right to life which cannot be violated….. – it’s not about ‘utility’. Since I find there to be a substantial difference between ‘human’ and ‘person’ you’ll understand that I, and a great many others, differ.
In regards to you finding it morally self-defeating –
1) It’s based on a fundamental denial of objective morality – yes - which renders all talk of “morality and ethics” nonsensical – no (more on this later)
2) you are aware of the grounds on which he bases his argument aren’t you? It does amount to the whole ‘human’/’person’ thing.
You, on the other hand, seem eager to discard any and all moral obligations whatsoever – that simply isn’t true. The fact that you disgaree with some of my morals doesn’t mean I don’t have any.
Logic.
It can be. To the extent that the definitions are unclear, or to the extent that the premises are not true (or to the extent that a fallacy prevents the conclusion from following from the premises), the conclusion is insecure. – good. Can you also recognise that to claim your case is supported by your algorithm of logic doesn’t cut it unless you can demonstrate that what you assert at (b) is proven accurate?
It is not “science” to make the bald assertion that “the fetus is a non-person” (that is a philosophy question, anyway–not an empirical science question at all). – ignoring the fact that I spoke of physiological and neurological aspects, it therefore holds that you have no proof in science to claim that a fetus is a person.
It is also not “science” to claim, bereft of proof, that it is more justifiable to kill that fetus (you do remember the Latin etymology of that term, yes?) than it is to inconvenience a woman – the proof is in the pudding. The basis on which a fetus is not a person (regardless of your disagreement) supports the rights of the woman being paramount.
(or, more often, the men and women who are coercing that woman into killing her unborn offspring); – really? You said this?
that is a question of ethics, which empirical science is powerless to touch. I’m afraid your totemic use of the word “science” is rather vacuous. – ah, ‘ethics’. Do you consider ethics to only be objective?
MaryRose ventured an opinion, which even if it only pertained to abortion, cannot be substantiated.
Morality.
What, I wonder, brings you to compare morality with basic arithmetic.
If I hold 2 apples in my left hand and 2 apples in my right hand and there are no other apples in the vicinity, seen or unseen – and precluding those who attempt sophistry on such matters – I am in possession of 4 apples. And, given all matters are clear, I agree that objectively 24 + 31 = 55.
Morality cannot be dropped into this bucket. It’s not that long since the majority considered non-marital sex, homosexuality and mixed marriages to be immoral. Not so much nowadays. Some people of islam find iconography immoral (music and movies too). Do you? There are a number of areas in which christianity, islam and atheists disgaree about what is moral and what is immoral. This disagreement even takes place within those groups. There are areas of general agreement too of course.
There is no objective moral standard. It is largely subjective. There is yours and there is mine. They overlap. When and why the term relativism may be applied is another question.
If there were such a thing as objective morality the problem is that obviously no one has ever found it. And that may well mean that my moral standard is right and yours wrong. Have you thought about that.
…and your viewpoint is no more or less significant in the moral order than is your fondness (or lack of fondness) for chestnuts. – yours too Paladin.
Do think about this reasonably! Differences do not logically imply the lack of an answer. There are only two possibilities: (1) rape is morally illicit; (2) rape is not morally illicit. – to you and to me the answer is (1). Obviously for some people the answer is (2).
Do you remember that we are now talking about morality, and not about legality? We’ve both agreed that various countries can put on the books whatever laws they wish, given enough power and influence; that’s not the point. – indeed. So how do you decide which ones are meeting ‘objective moral standards’ and which ones aren’t?
Homosexual acts are either intrinsically disordered, or they are not; there is no third option, and both cannot be true simultaneously. – fair enough. And since red hair and left-handedness are not intrinsically disordered, neither is homosexuality.
What, now you think ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are fixed? It was once considered wrong for women to vote and hold bank accounts. Does that still hold true?
Your tracts of prose on solipism and insanity are interesting and informative but are no more substantive an argument than offering bible verses as evidence of god. And under the spotlight of (b) in your algorithm of logic, they fail to support any case for objective moral standards.
The fact that I recognise that some have morals which are different to mine does not mean that I support them. What floundering twaddle you espouse about this.
You live on the “fumes” of your parents and grandparents and others who actually believed in objective morality – did they? You know this how?
I may not have exactly the same morals as you but they are not based on a whim, any more than yours are. My moral stance in regard to matters such as homosexuality and abortion have been what they are for as long as I can remember knowing what such things even were.
What you consider to be ‘objective moral standards’ are no more than ‘Paladin’s moral standards’.
And to touch again on your 6:08pm comment, to claim that I ‘discard morality’ in order to defend some ‘rhetorical castle’ is laughable. I may not align with your morals but that does not mean I discard morals, think that I can act in any sexual way that I please or that robbery isn’t wrong. Seriously, what makes you demean yourself by tossing this trash in?
Do you have any standards of moral conduct stronger than your momentary taste for mushrooms? – my standards of moral conduct are as ‘strong’ as yours, even if they differ. Perhaps they are even ‘stronger’ and/or ‘better’ than yours, who knows. Have the things you consider moral or immoral been absolutely consistent throughout your entire life?
Actually Paladin, I’m both surprised and disappointed that someone of your apparent intellectual prowess would feel the need to include a string of assertions based around discarding morality, morals on a whim, morals in the moment and even lacking in morals, simply because I disagree that there are fixed objective moral standards.
Reality,
Could you please explain why, if morality and ethics are strictly subjective, I should adhere to your moral standards?
Could you explain why we should prosecute individuals based on immoral actions if those actions are not immoral in the eyes of the individuals?
If there is no objective standard, what gives us the right to impose a subjective one?
Regarding the assertion that my entire comment was off-the-mark previously:
I have to point out that I said nothing about brutal ‘suffering’. If a patient were comatose with blocked pain receptors and a doctor began removing limbs, would it not be considered brutal? Suffering is not a requirement for brutality.
The rhetoric of choice is a nice safety blanket for you, but could be draped over all sorts of things. I am a supporter of homeschool rights. I could be called an advocate for “educational choice” but it would simply be a shield for something I feel no need to shield. I do not personally homeschool, nor do I feel that it is the right choice for every family. I am for the choice to homeschool. I am an advocate for homeschooling families. I am, therefore, a homeschool advocate. Denying that would be silly. But when we are talking about an action that results in the death of a human, we find that it simply isn’t as pretty to say “I am an abortion advocate.” You can deny it all you want, but you are what you are.
And again, I donate to a variety of charities on a regular basis, have worked one-on-one with quite a few post-abortive women, volunteered in a soup kitchen for a while, have volunteered separating and recycling used electronics to avoid unnecessary landfill waste, and have been involved in numerous community cleanup events. (These are the things that come immediately to mind). If I also say that slaveowners rights should have been protected in the civil war era and that things would be much safer for the blacks if they had the protection of their ‘masters’, I would STILL lack compassion for African Americans, despite having quite literally served many of them in the soup kitchen. You see, a good deed does make right the support one may lend to an immoral cause.
Could you please explain why, if morality and ethics are strictly subjective, I should adhere to your moral standards? – I haven’t said you should. What I have said is that you shouldn’t expect others to adhere to yours.
Could you explain why we should prosecute individuals based on immoral actions if those actions are not immoral in the eyes of the individuals? – it’s called society MaryRose. That’s why what is legal or illegal varies between countries, cultures and over time. Some folk still think homosexual acts are immoral yet the illegality was removed.
If there is no objective standard, what gives us the right to impose a subjective one? – as above. It’s anthropological.
I am, therefore, a homeschool advocate. – do you also advocate for the alternatives or just homeschooling?
Myself, I’m an advocate for choice. I don’t advocate for abortion alone.
As I have stated on previous occasions, I do, and have, provided support and assistance in various guises to varying extents to a variety of groups. Amongst these has been a group supporting young single mothers.
I have rational reasons for supporting abortion as a choice. You don’t have to agree with those reasons.
Therefore your claim that I am delusional and lack compassion and self-sacrifice was wrong.
OMIGOSH PUT YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND FURTHER!!!
I said, “When you advocate the brutal deaths of millions of humans every year, you do not act in a self-sacrificial manner.” (emphasis added for the ignorant).
As in, when you are saying that women should be allowed and encouraged to kill their babies, you are not acting very self-sacrificially. It shouldn’t even be a point of debate to begin with, but especially at this point you should have been able to figure out that what I explicitly said was that at the moment that you make this assertion, you are acting selfishly.
And yes, I advocate the public school system as well as parochial options. My husband went to a charter school which was very effective for some, and I have advocated for those at times, too. So yes, in advocating for a variety of choices in education, I am advocating for the freedom of education with an emphasis because it is the one up for debate on homeschooling.
How deep into your ears do you have to shove your fingers in order to tune out reality that completely, I wonder?
And thank you for clearing up that you are consistent that you place a ridiculous and unreasonable amount of value on location in determining morality.
Like I said before, I will gladly accept the label of “anti-choice” (because I DON’T believe all choices in regards to an unborn baby are equal or legit), if Reality would accept the “pro-abortion” or even “pro-legal abortion” label. It’s not inaccurate. And I still think it’s odd that people obfuscate about this so much. If abortion is a morally good or neutral act to you, why would you not want to label yourself as an advocate for the ability to legally obtain abortions?
MaryRose, how are you feeling? My ex wife got a terrible chest cold when she was eight months pregnant with our first child and it was horrible, not only was she uncomfortable from being that pregnant in the first place, then she had a horrible cold too! I hope you feel better, sick and pregnant is no fun.
Expressing your opinion in emotive language doesn’t make your claim any less inaccurate MaryRose.
I said, “When you advocate the brutal deaths of millions of humans every year, you do not act in a self-sacrificial manner.” (emphasis added for the ignorant). – and I’ve told you, I don’t advocate for abortion, I advocate for choice. I don’t go around saying ‘no no, don’t complete your pregnancy go through delivery and become a parent or adopt out; have an abortion instead.’
As in, when you are saying that women should be allowed and encouraged – I do no such thing.
you are acting selfishly. – and here you are telling others what they should and shouldn’t do.
And yes, I advocate the public school system as well as parochial options. – so you advocate for educational choice, not just one form of it.
How deep into your ears do you have to shove your fingers in order to tune out reality that completely, I wonder? – I am reality, deal with it.
And thank you for clearing up that you are consistent that you place a ridiculous and unreasonable amount of value on location in determining morality. – wow, ‘location determining morality’? I’d love to know the route you took to get there.
I will gladly accept the label of “anti-choice” (because I DON’T believe all choices in regards to an unborn baby are equal or legit), – fair enough.
if Reality would accept the “pro-abortion” or even “pro-legal abortion” label. It’s not inaccurate. – yes it is, it ignores all the other options that I am also ‘pro’.
And I still think it’s odd that people obfuscate about this so much. If abortion is a morally good or neutral act to you, why would you not want to label yourself as an advocate for the ability to legally obtain abortions? – because it’s not all I advocate for. I advocate for people having a free choice of all the options.
So which other choices are controversial, in regards to pregnancy? Keeping the baby? Is someone trying to make it illegal to parent your biological child? How about adoption? Last I checked there wasn’t a push to criminalize it. Abortion is the only one up for the debate. It seems to me like you all would be proud to label yourself with what you’re fighting to keep legal, if you do in fact see nothing wrong with it.
Jack,
I’m mostly doing better. Thank you for asking. Just a little bit of the ‘sniffles’ hanging on at this point.
Reality,
You assert that our society is what gives us the right to legislate based on morality, that our social structure is what makes it okay for us to inflict punishments on those who don’t follow a subjective moral code. You also point out that this varies from nation to nation.
One would assume, therefore, that folks like Hitler and Stalin are perfectly a-ok as long as they stay within the confines of their own nations. Assuming they are working within the confines of their own laws, we really have no right to tell them what to do to their own people, right? I mean, anthropologically-speaking. Where you are and the society in which you have chosen to remain is the primary determining factor in what moral atrocities should or should not be inflicted upon you.
On a side note: 16 days to my due date! :)
I’m excited for you MaryRose. I can’t remember if you said, but do you know if you are having another boy or a baby girl?
Some folk would like to see it be illegal for an unmarried person to keep their child Jack. There just aren’t enough of them for it to become controversial. Then there are indeed those who frown upon adoption for various reasons – ask Denise – but there aren’t many of those either. Abortion is only as big a controversy as it is because of the extent to which religion permeates society and politics in the US. Look at other western nations which have abortion. It doesn’t get the same level of attention and most of the groups who are agitating are offshoots of US groups.
Maybe I should call myself an anti-anti-choicer then?
that our social structure is what makes it okay for us to inflict punishments on those who don’t follow a subjective moral code. – not quite, punishment is only inflicted based on those aspects of a subjective code which have been turned into laws.
I am pleased to see that by ‘location’ you weren’t just speaking geographically.
One would assume, therefore, that folks like Hitler and Stalin are perfectly a-ok as long as they stay within the confines of their own nations. – why would you say that? Just because they considered what they did ‘moral’ doesn’t mean that you or I or anyone else did. It was their anthropological situation which brought them to determine the morality or otherwise. Do you think I find female circumcision ‘moral’? I assure you I don’t.
Assuming they are working within the confines of their own laws, we really have no right to tell them what to do to their own people, right? I mean, anthropologically-speaking. – we can offer a point of view. We can’t change their laws. That’s what their society determined. We could always see if we could beat them in a war.
Where you are and the society in which you have chosen to remain is the primary determining factor in what moral atrocities should or should not be inflicted upon you. – that’s a self-defeating statement.
Yes, Reality (though I disagree that abortion is a religious issue, obviously). But why wouldn’t you want to label yourself in opposition to the ANTI-abortion lobby?
“Just because they considered what they did ‘moral’ doesn’t mean that you or I or anyone else did. It was their anthropological situation which brought them to determine the morality or otherwise. Do you think I find female circumcision ‘moral’? I assure you I don’t.”
Well, we accept male circumcision in the US when I think it should be illegal (and of course female circumcision should be all around illegal as well). I don’t really get your argument. I can understand the idea that what’s “moral” in one society may be completely unacceptable in another, but what I don’t really understand is how you think you can judge another culture by your standards if this is your philosophy. Why would you say that any type of circumcision is wrong if it’s practiced in a culture that claims it is beneficial and good?
And Reality just because something is only partially correct doesn’t mean that it’s incorrect. You ARE pro-abortion, and you are also pro-adoption and pro-parenting. All those things are correct and all can be used to describe you. I am anti-abortion, pro-parenting, and pro-adoption (as long as it’s ethical adoption). Our overall views might be described as “pro-choice” and “pro-life”, but none of the partially correct terms are incorrect when used. So, it’s not wrong, when you’re debating abortion against people who are anti-abortion, for them to call you pro-abortion because it’s correct.
I can understand the idea that what’s “moral” in one society may be completely unacceptable in another, but what I don’t really understand is how you think you can judge another culture by your standards if this is your philosophy. – ‘judge’ or ‘disagree’? Even if I did judge, I’m not the jury and executioner.
Maybe you should be called a two-choicer and me a three-choicer, how does that sound?
Lol two-choicer and three-choicer sounds fine with me.
Jack, Thanks :) We don’t know the gender yet. I love that moment in the hospital, having my husband tell me if we have a little girl or a little boy is a precious moment to me. :)
“that’s a self-defeating statement” -bingo. Because the concept that morality is completely subjective is a self-defeating one. One must accept that there are at least some moral objectives or else one is at the mercy always of whoever is stronger. If I physically can hurt you and my personal moral code does not prevent it, by your standards there can be nothing wrong with me doing so unless I get caught by someone capable of hurting me and opposed to me hurting you. In short, the bigger/stronger/more powerful individual is always right when acting within his power and personal moral code. We’re always at the whim of a bigger bully.
er, no, not bingo. It is a self-defeating statement because the fact that a society deems it something which can be inflicted means it isn’t a moral actrocity in that context.
One must accept that there are at least some moral objectives – no one mustn’t.
or else one is at the mercy always of whoever is stronger – or smarter, or better resourced, or in a position of greater power, or backed by the majority.
If I physically can hurt you and my personal moral code does not prevent it, by your standards there can be nothing wrong with me doing so – that is not correct. By your standards there may be nothing wrong with you doing so but there is by mine.
In short, the bigger/stronger/more powerful individual is always right when acting within his power and personal moral code. – not at all, only to themselves.
We’re always at the whim of a bigger bully. – quite often.
For some reason you seem to have developed the idea that because there is no objective moral standard it also precludes one from disagreeing with the moral standards of others. Most dichotomous. If that were the case it would require you to stop trying to do anything to stop abortion. Just because we have different moral standards and behaviors doesn’t mean we must accept everyone elses without question or protest.
Reality, you are completely missing my point. Which is that if there were no objective moral standard then there would be nothing wrong with me deciding to slap around my son. Sure, I would be at the whim of the next larger entity for it, but it wouldn’t be inherently wrong.
It doesn’t mean that you can’t feel like it’s wrong. It means that your opinion of the rightness or wrongness of an act is only that: a feeling, an opinion. You could not justifiably say “It is wrong to slap your child” but you would have to, if you were intellectually honest with yourself, say instead “I believe that it is wrong for you to slap your child.”
I do hope you’ve braced yourself for another long reply! (I don’t cherish long replies for their own sakes… but deep and important questions usually cannot be answered with sound-bytes, especially when the opposing side shares and/or understands few [if any] of the presenter’s starting assumptions.)
Reality wrote, in reply to my comment:
You are of the school which holds that ‘if it’s human, it’s a person’. I knew that. I am not.
Apparently so. And (you can probably predict what I’m about to say, by now) these two views cannot possibly be true at the same time, nor are there any other options… so one of our views must be right, and one of our views must be wrong. For anyone to say, at this point, “there is no right answer to this question–it’s all up to the individual!” would be foolish and illogical. So long as you don’t do that (i.e. so long as you don’t say or suggest, “there’s no answer to this question”), you and I will be in agreement, at least up to that point.
Neither, according to recent votes, are a great many people.
And you are, of course, aware that objective truth–i.e. what actually “is”, as opposed to what “is not”–is not determined by votes, yes? If my entire class voted to repeal the Pythagorean Theorem, that would not make it any less true.
On that point: are you trying to suggest that your view is more likely to be true, because a great number of people agree with you?
I have given you the grounds on which I find that a gestating fetus lacks what constitutes personhood. You reject them. That is your choice.
My dear fellow, I did not simply reject it “out of hand”! You gave a vague list of possible “prerequisites for personhood”, though you still haven’t specified a minimum required list of them (e.g. Can a person be a person without the capacity for pain? Would an emotion-impaired human adult still be a person if he’s able to think and be self-aware? Would an adult human who’s cognitively impaired still be a person if he can still experience emotion? And is personhood always a guarantee of the right to life, in your mind? And is that right granted by other persons [or groups], or is it intrinsic to the person? Would a person who’s alone on the planet still have the right to life, even if there were no conscious threats against it?) The vagaries and gaps are legion; you’ll need to get your own argument quite clear before you can think of resting a case on it [much less declare victory over it]. Until you do this, I have no logical choice but to reject it as it stands… since it simply doesn’t do what you hope it will do (i.e. prove your case).
I have also explained that a comatose person is someone who is post-birth and therefore has attained personhood.
That’s actually a new and novel addition of yours; you’d not said that explicitly before now. Very well… let’s examine the assertion:
You claim that birth grants personhood; though I suspect you’d want plenty of qualifiers on that, yes? Would you consider anencephalic babies to be “persons”? (I do, but that’s an aside, for this conversation.) Would you consider corpses to be “persons”? Both of these would be post-born. Could you tidy up your argument, a bit? There’s bric-a-brac lying about, nearly everywhere…
The fact that circumstance has temporarily or permanently impinged on this does not reverse things to the state of a gestating fetus. A car which no longer runs isn’t suddenly transformed back into a rack of components on an assembly line.
Ah. So a corpse (a human which “no longer runs”) *is* a person, by your definition. That’s rather an odd view, I must say.
Premature children are only in a “suitable” environment when they are in the womb – indeed.
All right. So: do you now agree with my refutation of your “non-viable baby = worthy candidate for abortion” idea? You’d initially balked at it, using your astronaut idea; have you changed your mind?
[Paladin]
I find it morally barbaric because all humans, regardless of their perceived “utility” to others, have an intrinsic right to life which cannot be violated…
[Reality]
it’s not about ‘utility’.
Hm! You’ve managed to surprise me! If this is true (and if you’re not simply a utilitarian unawares), you’re one of the first atheist/relativists with whom I’ve chatted who *isn’t* a utilitarian!
Since I find there to be a substantial difference between ‘human’ and ‘person’ you’ll understand that I, and a great many others, differ.
That’s precisely why I need you to clarify your terms, supply your missing/suppressed premises, and clear up your deductions before I can do very much with my responses. I’m not yet certain which “humans” you find to be “persons”, and so on.
In regards to you finding [moral relativism] morally self-defeating – 1) It’s based on a fundamental denial of objective morality – yes - which renders all talk of “morality and ethics” nonsensical – no (more on this later)
All right… although I think you’re going to be disappointed.
you are aware of the grounds on which [Dr. Singer] bases his argument aren’t you? It does amount to the whole ‘human’/’person’ thing.
Yes, and no. Yes, in the sense that his reason for condoning infanticide (or minimising it, in the case of perfectly healthy babies) is because he has declared them to be “non-persons”; no, in the sense that he finds it more wrong for such “non-persons” who (in his view) happen to be *loved* to be killed (as would be the case of a burglar who kills someone else’s baby, as opposed to an abandoned AIDS baby, for example), and thus the crime is partially dependent on the “emotional utility” of the child (i.e. “will anyone miss her is she dies?”). He says that any newborn children who are “not wanted” (such as an abandoned orphan, and especially one who has disabilities) may be killed without moral evil being done. Even in cases where parents (or a single parent) might hypothetically want to kill their/her/his non-impaired newborn child, Dr. Singer insists that such an act would “not be as wrong as the killing of an actual person”.
[Paladin]
You, on the other hand, seem eager to discard any and all moral obligations whatsoever
[Reality]
that simply isn’t true. The fact that you disgaree with some of my morals doesn’t mean I don’t have any.
Nowhere did I suggest that you had “no morals” simply because you disagreed with me (haven’t I said something like this to you, before?). I suggested (based on past experience with relativists, and given the definition of moral relativism) that your moral standards have no more or less weight than do your personal tastes/whims, since moral relativism flatly excludes any other basis whatsoever. It’s a bit like atheism forbidding individual atheists from believing in angels (in the classical sense of spiritual beings who serve God): the extent to which an atheist believes in angels is the extent to which he is not an atheist. Just so, with your case: the extent to which you hold to morals which transcend your personal tastes is the extent to which you are not a moral relativist (whereupon your entire argument crumbles to the ground).
Can you also recognise that to claim your case is supported by your algorithm of logic doesn’t cut it unless you can demonstrate that what you assert at (b) is proven accurate?
Yes, indeed. But I was using a more efficient tactic, first (since the other main way would be to prove the existence of God (which can be done), then prove the validity/truth of Christianity beyond reasonable doubt, then show how your position flatly contradicts the moral tenets taught by Christianity (and in every human heart, for that matter, to the extent that it is unclouded by sin and error). If I can show that you do not live up to your own moral relativism, I can demolish your case with one stroke. If I can show that you DO live up to your own moral relativism (i.e. your morals are an inherited and/or biochemically and/or socially conditioned collection of personal tastes, such as one’s fierce and deep-seated love for chocolate), then I can show how you will end in one of the three aforementioned ways: solipsism (in which case I can ignore your argument, as it obviously only applies to you), insanity (in which I must disregard your argument, for obvious reasons), or conversion (in which case I will welcome you into the ranks of the pro-life… and may God speed the day!).
[Paladin]
It is not “science” to make the bald assertion that “the fetus is a non-person” (that is a philosophy question, anyway–not an empirical science question at all).
[Reality]
ignoring the fact that I spoke of physiological and neurological aspects, it therefore holds that you have no proof in science to claim that a fetus is a person.
But… friend: of COURSE I don’t have “scientific” proof! I already said that science (and you now confirm that you were speaking of the empirical sciences–as I expected) has nothing at all to say on the subject. There is no such thing as a “scientific (empiricism-based) proof” for personhood of ANYONE. I never made the attempt (and therefore the fact doesn’t harm my case); but you DID attempt it, and that presents a serious problem for your case.
[Paladin]
It is also not “science” to claim, bereft of proof, that it is more justifiable to kill that fetus (you do remember the Latin etymology of that term, yes?) than it is to inconvenience a woman
[Reality]
the proof is in the pudding. The basis on which a fetus is not a person (regardless of your disagreement) supports the rights of the woman being paramount.
Only is the “basis” has been clarified and proven, dear fellow. You’ve done nothing of the sort. And do be clear: I’m not simply “disagreeing” with you (that’s another reason why I suspected you of absolute moral relativism: you seem to see everything in terms of opinions and personal tastes); I’m pointing out that you have not yet achieved your objective. (See above, re: the missing parts in your “fetus = non-person” argument.)
[Paladin]
(or, more often, the men and women who are coercing that woman into killing her unborn offspring);
[Reality]
really? You said this?
(?) Yes. Did you think that someone else said it? Or is this a rhetorical way of expressing surprise? (If so, why are you surprised?)
[Paladin]
that is a question of ethics, which empirical science is powerless to touch. I’m afraid your totemic use of the word “science” is rather vacuous.
[Reality]
ah, ‘ethics’.
:) There’s that “sincerest form of flattery”, again…
Do you consider ethics to only be objective?
That has nothing especially to do with my point. (I’ll answer that later, if you wish, but it’s a complicate answer, and it won’t help the issue here very much, I’m afraid.) I was refuting your idea that you can somehow answer an ethics question by means of what you call “science” (i.e. the empirical sciences); the empirical sciences are helpless to prove moral propositions, one way or the other. They do not (and cannot) prove the right to life, by themselves; and they do not (and cannot) prove the right to kill, by themselves.
MaryRose ventured an opinion, which even if it only pertained to abortion, cannot be substantiated.
Ah… so you’ve walked back your comment on this point; fair enough. But her comment was quite true: the only thing keeping you from recognising the truth of her claims (that you have chosen delusion over compassion and self-sacrifice) is your refusal to see the human fetus as a person. Grant that, and your whole case (against her, and against unborn human life) shatters.
What, I wonder, brings you to compare morality with basic arithmetic.
I use mathematics in examples like this, especially with moral relativists (who eventually degenerate into absolute relativists, if they pursue their thinking on the subject), to remind them of the true idea that “there are truths which are not simply a matter of opinion, or of counting noses in a poll/vote (i.e. a collective opinion)”.
If I hold 2 apples in my left hand and 2 apples in my right hand and there are no other apples in the vicinity, seen or unseen – and precluding those who attempt sophistry on such matters – I am in possession of 4 apples.
All right. (See below.)
And, given all matters are clear, I agree that objectively 24 + 31 = 55.
Very good. I also trust that you agree with the statement “no whole number can be even and odd [given the canonical mathematical definitions] at the same time”. That’s my point, with regard to the issues you raise; when you suggest that “a variety of opinions indicates that there is no objective standard… or at least that there is no KNOWABLE objective standard” (which is a classic Sophist view: the Sophists were characterised by their agnosticism–did you know that? You might keep that in mind when speaking about “sophistry” in the future), you’re essentially claiming that, due to a variety of guesses on the parity (“evenness/oddness”) of a whole number, the number must not have a parity AT ALL… which is utterly absurd.
In other words: I bring up mathematics to highlight the law of non-contradiction, which you have violated repeatedly.
Morality cannot be dropped into this bucket.
Your basis for saying (and believing) so is illogical; see below.
It’s not that long since the majority considered non-marital sex, homosexuality and mixed marriages to be immoral. Not so much nowadays.
And again, you appeal to consensus (or a lack of consensus), which is a fallacy in either direction.
Some people of islam find iconography immoral (music and movies too). Do you?
Not intrinsically, no (though there are certainly examples of immoral content in all of the above). But again: you’re trying to (no pun intended) multiply examples of multiplicity/plurality, and you seem to be suggesting that this variety “proves” a lack of any knowable objective standard… and that simply doesn’t follow.
There are a number of areas in which christianity, islam and atheists disgaree about what is moral and what is immoral. This disagreement even takes place within those groups. There are areas of general agreement too of course.
See above. I agree with all your facts, but your conclusion does not follow from them in the least.
There is no objective moral standard. It is largely subjective.
:) Er… perhaps you can spot the contradiction in the pair of statements, above? A complete lack of an objective moral standard would require that the matter be ENTIRELY subjective, yes? Care to re-word?
There is yours and there is mine. They overlap.
That is so… but that has no bearing on the existence (or absence) of a standard. The fact that ten different students make ten different attempts to name the first president of the United States (even if they overlap! e.g. George Harris, George Carlin, George Jetson, Denzel Washington, etc.) doesn’t change the actual identity of the first president; it merely indicates that not all of these guesses can be correct at the same time.
When and why the term relativism may be applied is another question.
…and that is precisely the question which I am addressing, now.
If there were such a thing as objective morality the problem is that obviously no one has ever found it. And that may well mean that my moral standard is right and yours wrong. Have you thought about that.
I have–many times. (I assure you, this conversation is not the first time I’ve ever pondered these things!) See above, regarding the efficient vs. inefficient way to address our disagreement; if we can clarify yoru own relativism (or lack of relativism), it will settle matters far more efficiently. We can try the other method later, if you wish.
[Paladin]
and your viewpoint is no more or less significant in the moral order than is your fondness (or lack of fondness) for chestnuts.
[Reality]
yours too Paladin.
Oh, come now! I act as I do because I consciously follow an objective moral standard which I have received (not invented); you do not. You act as you do (according to your comments, here) because you “want what you want when you want it, for whatever reason”.
I might also point out that your objection, here, wouldn’t help your own case at all; look up the “tu quoque” fallacy, when you get the chance. It’s especially problematic for those who claim to be “the scientific one” in a debate.
[Paladin]
Do think about this reasonably! Differences do not logically imply the lack of an answer. There are only two possibilities: (1) rape is morally illicit; (2) rape is not morally illicit.
[Reality]
to you and to me the answer is (1). Obviously for some people the answer is (2).
…and? You remember the rest? (Hint: both cannot be true together!) Either we are right and they are wrong, or we are wrong and they are right. There is no third “relativistic” possibility.
So how do you decide which ones are meeting ‘objective moral standards’ and which ones aren’t?
That is a separate (and much longer) answer; for now, I simply wish to convince you that there are only two options (the objective moral law exists, or it does not); you’ve not yet admitted that self-evident fact.
[Paladin]
Homosexual acts are either intrinsically disordered, or they are not; there is no third option, and both cannot be true simultaneously.
[Reality]
fair enough.
Eureka! A breakthrough, at least by appearances! :)
And since red hair and left-handedness are not intrinsically disordered, neither is homosexuality.
I’d dearly love to chase down that rabbit-trail (the “inefficient method”) with you, but I’d rather try the faster way, first.
What, now you think ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are fixed?
Some things are, yes; some are not. You apparently deny that there are ANY objective moral standards at all, whereas I think that some are objective/intrinsic (such as the absolute wrongness of rape) and some are subjective (such as the idea that 100 km/hr is excessively fast on a given road). I object only to your suggestion that there are no objective moral standards whatsoever.
It was once considered wrong for women to vote and hold bank accounts. Does that still hold true?
Not in this culture, no… nor were they ever intrinsically evil (i.e. evil regardless of circumstances).
Your tracts of prose on solipism and insanity are interesting and informative but are no more substantive an argument than offering bible verses as evidence of god.
Offering Bible verse as evidence of God would be a circular argument (i.e. assuming the conclusion in the process of trying to prove it); my argument is not. More on that, below.
And under the spotlight of (b) in your algorithm of logic, they fail to support any case for objective moral standards.
I explained that, already: I’m not trying (at present) to show that objective moral standards exist; rather, I’m trying to show that your denial of all objective moral standards leads to contradictory nonsense and/or vacuity. Those who embrace utter moral relativism with their whole mind and soul find themselves to be solipsists; those who try to believe in moral relativism while trying to cling (behaviourally and/or intellectually) to some of the objectivist “trappings” (e.g. refusing to condone rape, and thinking that they have good reasons for condemning it, buy they have no good sense as to why) will eventually break under the strain of trying to live out a flat contradiction, and fall into insanity; the rest will see moral relativism for what it is, and abandon it.
The fact that I recognise that some have morals which are different to mine does not mean that I support them. What floundering twaddle you espouse about this.
You don’t seem to understand my point at all. I do not ask if you “support” them (subjectively and/or emotionally) or not; I ask if you ever think that any crime on earth is “truly wrong”, regardless of anyone’s opinion (including yours), or not. For example: I view rape to be an objective moral evil; it is intrinsically wrong (and not simply wrong because I, or one or more other people, don’t care for it). It would still be wrong, even if 100% of the world (including me) were to be brainwashed into believing that it is not evil. Thus, I believe that the wrongness of the act does not depend on my approbation or reprobation of it; the wrongness of the act does not depend on me (or any other subject), at all. Do you believe that? (The alternative is to admit the possibility that rape might be (in actuality) morally permissible for some cultures, or that it might “evolve” into a morally acceptable thing, in general.)
[Paladin]
You live on the “fumes” of your parents and grandparents and others who actually believed in objective morality
[Reality]
did they? You know this how?
I do not know it with mathematical certainty (though that would be impossible, anyway); I know it approximately, by induction… since it seems universally true in all people I’ve ever met, since you maintain that your rejection of certain evils is of a higher order than is your taste for olives (one who is a second- or third-generation moral relativist from birth would usually not feel the need to defend such a distinction, as was the case on the atheist forum I mentioned earlier), and since you are indignant at the suggestion that I thought otherwise about you. Mind you, I find this state of affairs to be a *good* thing (i.e. you haven’t totally abandoned the “taste” for objective morality, even though you’re apparently trying to fight it and expunge it, consciously)!
I may not have exactly the same morals as you but they are not based on a whim, any more than yours are.
All right… then you may be able to guess my next question: on what are they based, if not on a firm conviction that they are truly wrong (rather than simply “disliking them” as strongly as you might “strongly dislike” anchovies)?
My moral stance in regard to matters such as homosexuality and abortion have been what they are for as long as I can remember knowing what such things even were.
I see.
What you consider to be ‘objective moral standards’ are no more than ‘Paladin’s moral standards’.
Not only is that incorrect, but you’re still shooting wide of the point: your PHILOSOPHY (of moral relativism) is self-defeating, and it cannot possibly be true. To remove the final ground on which morality stands is as foolish and thoughtless as would be the idea that a series of blocks can still stand if the floor were removed, on the basis that “at least the other blocks still have something on which to rest–each other!”
And to touch again on your 6:08pm comment, to claim that I ‘discard morality’ in order to defend some ‘rhetorical castle’ is laughable.
I’m almost certain you didn’t take my meaning correctly. See below.
I may not align with your morals but that does not mean I discard morals, think that I can act in any sexual way that I please or that robbery isn’t wrong.
Perhaps not… but you apparently “think” so because your personal tastes happen to be inclined in that direction (just as your taste or distaste for Marmite happen to be strong or weak, in one direction or another). What, for example, is to separate your reluctance to be a complete sexual wanton from someone else’s aversion to sex because they think it “icky”? I (for one) see a qualitative difference between the two.
Seriously, what makes you demean yourself by tossing this trash in?
In no way was I introducing such ideas in order to insult you; that was not my intent at all (and, as I mentioned, it’s rather a good sign that you *do* feel insulted; you still have some vestiges of conscience left within you, and you have not embraced moral relativism to its utter fetid depths). I was pointing out that your philosophy and your personal moral code are running at cross-purposes; moral relativism, in its pure form, will not ALLOW you the luxury of saying that anything is truly wrong, anywhere and everywhere, at all times, for all people, regardless of the opinions of the moment. You simply can’t do that without surrendering your “Relativism Membership Card” (or without trying to have it both ways, and embrace insanity).
[Paladin]
Do you have any standards of moral conduct stronger than your momentary taste for mushrooms?
[Reality]
my standards of moral conduct are as ‘strong’ as yours, even if they differ.
Perhaps you’re taking “strong” to mean “intensity of the emotion attached to the view”? I did not mean that, at all; and again, the fact that your view “differs” from mine is not finally the point. Either your view is TRUE, or it is NOT true; there is no other choice… for you, for me, or for anyone.
Perhaps they are even ‘stronger’ and/or ‘better’ than yours, who knows.
If you are truly a moral relativist (and not simply dabbling with it for the sake of behavioural license), then you know that cannot possibly be true, by your own standards. One runner cannot be closer to the finish line than another runner, if there is no finish line. One item cannot be longer than another if there is no such thing as an objective standard for length (and if everyone has a different idea as to how long a centimetre is, for example). If there is no objective, immovable standard for morality, then it is nonsensical to speak of any moral view being “better” than another.
Have the things you consider moral or immoral been absolutely consistent throughout your entire life?
Many have; some have not. But I hope you see, now, that this is completely immaterial; my views about stealing, for example, progressed approximately through Kohlberg’s “stages of moral development” (from “my mother will spank me if I do” to “my mother will reward me if I don’t” to “I want to be a good boy in the eyes of others” to “society would crumble if everyone stole” to “it’s simply the right thing to do, to refrain from stealing”–I skipped the “stage 5” level of “society just happens to want it this way”, apparently, and went on to stage 6). It’s also rather akin to my ability to solve quadratic equations (“memorize the technique” becomes “learn several different techniques for different scenarios” becomes “learn roughly *why* the formulae and techniques work” becomes “master the formulae/techniques so that I can deconstruct and reconstruct them at will).
In short: many of my moral views changed over time because I gained a greater appreciation for, and understanding of, the true ideal; others changed when I found them to be mere conventions which did not apply in this-or-that situation. Change does not always happen because there is a lack of a standard; sometimes it happens because one can improve one’s understanding and one’s motives. Do you see?
For now Paladin, I shall restrict myself to addressing the topic of your claim for there being a set of objective moral standards. I find this most the interesting and it may also alleviate issues of length and complexity.
You make a number of assumptions and assume, indeed claim, that they are correct. You appear to expect that I will accept these assumptions as being correct. This fails.
It’s almost as if you wish you could convince people there is an objective moral standard because this may help you convince them that your moral standards are the ones we must adhere to. This also falls down. And as I said previously, if there were a set of objective moral standards it cannot be proven that yours are the ones which adhere to them rather than mine.
I suggested that your moral standards have no more or less weight than do your personal tastes/whims, since moral relativism flatly excludes any other basis whatsoever. – perhaps you need to stop alleging that I am nothing but a moral relativist then. The formation of my moral standards and my adherence to them is no different to yours. They just aren’t the same as yours.
It’s a bit like atheism forbidding individual atheists from believing in angels (in the classical sense of spiritual beings who serve God): the extent to which an atheist believes in angels is the extent to which he is not an atheist. – if someone believes in angels then they are clearly agnostic at best, not atheist, to any extent.
Just so, with your case: the extent to which you hold to morals which transcend your personal tastes is the extent to which you are not a moral relativist – and yours are held any differently how?
first (since the other main way would be to prove the existence of God (which can be done), – a false assumption.
then prove the validity/truth of Christianity beyond reasonable doubt, – therefore this fails.
then show how your position flatly contradicts the moral tenets taught by Christianity – well some of them. Christians can’t even agree amongst themselves! As I suspected – well knew actually – you base your moral standards on your version of christianity, which is your version of religion. You believe it to be true because you’d like to think that everyone else would adhere to them as long as they ‘see the light’.
So what we actually find is that you want believe that there is a set of objective moral standards because you believe in a god and you want everyone else to do so too, as evidenced by your words or conversion (in which case I will welcome you into the ranks of the pro-life… and may God speed the day!).
If I can show that you do not live up to your own moral relativism, I can demolish your case with one stroke. – perhaps you’d better prove that I am a moral relativist first.
If I can show that you DO live up to your own moral relativism (i.e. your morals are an inherited and/or biochemically and/or socially conditioned collection of personal tastes, such as one’s fierce and deep-seated love for chocolate), ) – and yours might be different how?
Again you cite the objectivity of basic arithmetic as evidential of morals having objectivity. Just saying such doesn’t make it true.
( Reality – It’s not that long since the majority considered non-marital sex, homosexuality and mixed marriages to be immoral. Not so much nowadays. )
( Paladin – And again, you appeal to consensus (or a lack of consensus), which is a fallacy in either direction. ) – your not liking the consensus view on what is moral and what is immoral does not provide any evidence that there is a set of objective moral standards.
But again: you’re trying to (no pun intended) multiply examples of multiplicity/plurality, and you seem to be suggesting that this variety “proves” a lack of any knowable objective standard… and that simply doesn’t follow. – well it sure as heck doesn’t ‘prove’ any knowable objective standard.
:) Er… perhaps you can spot the contradiction in the pair of statements, above? A complete lack of an objective moral standard would require that the matter be ENTIRELY subjective, yes? Care to re-word? – sure, Moral standards are entirely subjective.
( Reality – There is yours and there is mine. They overlap. )
( Paladin – That is so… but that has no bearing on the existence (or absence) of a standard. ) – fair enough, no evidence either way.
The fact that ten different students make ten different attempts to name the first president of the United States (even if they overlap! e.g. George Harris, George Carlin, George Jetson, Denzel Washington, etc.) doesn’t change the actual identity of the first president; it merely indicates that not all of these guesses can be correct at the same time. – a questionable analogy. Who the first president was can be pretty much claimed to be an objective exercise. But where is such certainty regarding which moral standards are the correct ones?
Oh, come now! I act as I do because I consciously follow an objective moral standard which I have received (not invented); you do not. ) – come now, that is fundamentally fallacious. You have zero evidence that your moral standards are ‘correct’ or objective, only belief. This is not proof whatsoever that anyones moral standards are objective. Just the opposite in fact.
You act as you do (according to your comments, here) because you “want what you want when you want it, for whatever reason”. – this is also fundamentally untrue. Nor did I say such a thing. This is a return to your negative assertions in regards to my morals. I act based on what I consider to be moral, not merely on my wants. Crass. Major fail on your behalf Paladin.
…and? You remember the rest? (Hint: both cannot be true together!) Either we are right and they are wrong, or we are wrong and they are right. – you are making assumptions again. You assume that what you and I find ‘right’ in regards to this is ‘the’ objective standard. Yet we find ‘us’ to be right and ‘them’ to be wrong while they find ‘us’ to be wrong and ‘them’ to be right.
I simply wish to convince you that there are only two options (the objective moral law exists, or it does not); you’ve not yet admitted that self-evident fact. – why do you say that? I have quite clearly argued there is only one option, that there is not a set of objective moral standards.
( Reality – What, now you think ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are fixed? )
( Paladin – Some things are, yes; some are not. ) – on what basis are some not? How is it determined?
You apparently deny that there are ANY objective moral standards at all, whereas I think that some are objective/intrinsic (such as the absolute wrongness of rape) and some are subjective (such as the idea that 100 km/hr is excessively fast on a given road). I object only to your suggestion that there are no objective moral standards whatsoever. – ah, so not all morals belong to an objective set. Which ones do and which ones don’t, and why? And on whose say so?
I’m trying to show that your denial of all objective moral standards leads to contradictory nonsense and/or vacuity. – I think you have set an unrealistic expectation for yourself.
Those who embrace utter moral relativism with their whole mind and soul – the fact that some of my morals don’t appeal to you and that I do not hold that there is any objective set does not equate to moral relativism. Soul? What soul?
e.g. refusing to condone rape, and thinking that they have good reasons for condemning it, buy they have no good sense as to why) – are you kidding? Why do you need a god to provide you with an objection to rape? You think I have no reasons to condemn rape which constitute good sense? Really?
I ask if you ever think that any crime on earth is “truly wrong”, regardless of anyone’s opinion (including yours), or not. – they can only be truly wrong to those of us who consider it so.
For example: I view rape to be an objective moral evil; it is intrinsically wrong (and not simply wrong because I, or one or more other people, don’t care for it). – is that it? You can only find it wrong because you determine it to be amongst these ‘objective morals’ which state that it is so?
Thus, I believe that the wrongness of the act does not depend on my approbation or reprobation of it; the wrongness of the act does not depend on me (or any other subject), at all. – so you relinquish responsibility for your behavior on any personal level. I’ve come across this with theists before, “without god, I’d rape and plunder and kill”.
The alternative is to admit the possibility that rape might be (in actuality) morally permissible for some cultures, or that it might “evolve” into a morally acceptable thing, in general.) – while, like yourself, I would personally find such an event reprehensible in regards to rape, there are other topics where what you describe occurs.
I do not know it with mathematical certainty (though that would be impossible, anyway); I know it approximately, by induction… since it seems universally true in all people I’ve ever met, – ‘induction’, ‘seems’. That’s not very objective now is it.
since you maintain that your rejection of certain evils is of a higher order than is your taste for olives – whether I have an olive or not, whether I like olives or not, is no great significance. My approach to ‘certain evils’ is.
All right… then you may be able to guess my next question: on what are they based, if not on a firm conviction that they are truly wrong – the same as yours, minus god. Given that theists argue amongst themselves as to what is moral and what is immoral the concept of them being derived from a god or being objective rather flies out the window. It boils down to anthropology and a brain.
Not only is that incorrect, but you’re still shooting wide of the point: your PHILOSOPHY (of moral relativism) is self-defeating, and it cannot possibly be true. – actually, it seems rather more your philosophy that it is my philosophy, not mine.
To remove the final ground on which morality stands is as foolish – what ground is that then?
What, for example, is to separate your reluctance to be a complete sexual wanton from someone else’s aversion to sex because they think it “icky”? I (for one) see a qualitative difference between the two. – why have you even asked this question? Are you an automaton or something?
you still have some vestiges of conscience left within you, – I’d love to see you attempt to demonstrate that my conscience is any less substantial than yours. What you really mean is that when it comes to morals, we do agree on a few things.
and you have not embraced moral relativism to its utter fetid depths). – yeah, I’m less and less convinced of your central theme of moral relativism being the only alternative to objective morals (which you’ve stated doesn’t apply to all morals anyway – how relative is that!)
was pointing out that your philosophy and your personal moral code are running at cross-purposes; – they are intertwined, just like yours.
moral relativism, in its pure form, will not ALLOW you the luxury of saying that anything is truly wrong, anywhere and everywhere, at all times, for all people, regardless of the opinions of the moment. - no, it’s the reality of humanity which does that.
Perhaps you’re taking “strong” to mean “intensity of the emotion attached to the view”? – actually I mean consistent and well-founded.
Either your view is TRUE, or it is NOT true; there is no other choice… for you, for me, or for anyone. – that’s not true. It is what you claim. And who determines what is ‘true’ anyway?
One runner cannot be closer to the finish line than another runner, if there is no finish line. – ah, but which finish line?
One item cannot be longer than another if there is no such thing as an objective standard for length – I guess we’re lucky there is an objective standard of length then.
If there is no objective, immovable standard for morality, then it is nonsensical to speak of any moral view being “better” than another. – thank you.
Many have; some have not. But I hope you see, now, that this is completely immaterial; – given that it’s based on a false assumption within your algorithm of logic, agreed.
my views about stealing, for example, progressed approximately through Kohlberg’s “stages of moral development” (from “my mother will spank me if I do” to “my mother will reward me if I don’t” to “I want to be a good boy in the eyes of others” to “society would crumble if everyone stole” to “it’s simply the right thing to do, to refrain from stealing”–I skipped the “stage 5? level of “society just happens to want it this way”, apparently, and went on to stage 6). - nothing extraordinary there. That’s a goodly sized chunk of how most people formulate their moral standards. So ‘stealing’ isn’t one of the ‘objective morals’ then?
In short: many of my moral views changed over time because I gained a greater appreciation for, and understanding of, the true ideal; others changed when I found them to be mere conventions which did not apply in this-or-that situation. Change does not always happen because there is a lack of a standard; sometimes it happens because one can improve one’s understanding and one’s motives. Do you see? – yes. So where is the objective set in there?
To summarise. What I see is you wanting your particular core set of moral standards (structured in part by theism) to be beyond the questioning or challenge of others, so you declare them to be objective, hence the only ‘right’ ones.
You have provided nothing which establishes the existence of any set of objective moral standards. All I see are repeated claims based on your assumptions and viewpoint. I haven’t seen anything which says “there must be an objective set of moral standards because….” in any form which is at all convincing.