VA senate pushes through ultrasound/personhood bill (abortion related, slightly rapey)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Karma168:

Kendarik:

Well that, at best, is medical malpractice, not rape.

But as I said to KY, it makes no sense to get consent to a specific part of surgery anyway. That would simply become part of the surgery and informed consent would be given that included knowing that part would be part of the procedure.

It's not clear, I'm sure someone could make a convincing argument either way.

And people give partial consent all the time; for example a Jehovah's witness could have surgery but refuse blood transfusions. The type of surgery you undergo can also change dependent on your wishes.

The woman should still be able to refuse internal ultrasound if she doesn't want it

Very few doctors would accept that JW consent during a surgery. The general surgical consent allows doctors to do whatever is needed because things go very wrong in surgery sometimes.

GoaThief:

Kendarik:

The use of internal ultrasound is one of two valid techniques currently in use and medically approved as part of an abortion. This makes it significantly different than your example.

The part you are ignoring is that one of the two techniques only become valid when the other is no longer a viable option. Ergo it's a completely needless procedure and testament to malpractice, which in virtually any other circumstance would result in a fat lawsuit. Keep in mind this procedure is extremely invasive, I'm sure many lawyers would argue it is indeed rape/sexual assault as it fits the definition.

It does not fit the definition because of the doctor's intent.

Seriously folks, using overblow language does not make the case against a stupid law. Fight it for what it is, not by exaggeration. That just makes you look silly.

Kendarik:

It does not fit the definition because of the doctor's intent.

Seriously folks, using overblow language does not make the case against a stupid law. Fight it for what it is, not by exaggeration. That just makes you look silly.

No, it's you who is looking a bit silly.

Malpractice definition; In law, malpractice is a type of negligence in, which the professional under a duty to act, fails to follow generally accepted professional standards. When applied to the topic at hand, the medical professional carrying out an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound is indeed failing to follow generally accepted professional standards, which as you kindly pointed out, only require this invasive technique in rare circumstances.

You can bet your bottom dollar that lawyers will argue malpractice at the very least as intent of the healthcare professional has no bearing on the definition, merely the severity of the crime, punishments and/or compensation paid to the victim.

I find this pretty appalling, since the transvaginal ultrasound that you're forced to watch is something that you must agree to in order to have the abortion, and the doctor has to do it even if he doesn't agree that it it's in the patient's best interest. Getting caught not doing so could easily mean getting shut down. I do feel that the purpose of this rule is to be as invasive and humiliating as possible, while forcing a guilt trip on top of the woman (who has already undergone counseling and is aware of the medical implications and should be able to make her own decision by that point.) Reminds me a bit of those "pregnancy counseling centers".

mdk31:

MoNKeyYy:

Strictly speaking, this would be consentual. The woman would have knowledge, or the access to the knowledge, that they would recieve a trans-vaginal ultrasound as part of their abortion and by accepting the abortion they consent to any procedure that coincides. From a legal point of view, this is par for the course.

I'm actually more okay with this than I thought I would be soley because of the alternative, which is an outright ban on abortion. In a state with a Republican supermajority this would be an incredibly easy process, but the fact that the bill they've passed so far is only biased is nice. To play devil's advocate a bit, they're only trying to help people make informed choices, even if they think "informed" is "exactly what we want you to do". That being said, I still don't like this law and think it's quite terrible that proponants of less government intervention in people's lives are so directly imposing themselves on people.

I suppose you're right. In any event, if I were a woman in that state who wanted an abortion, I'd just take an hour's drive and go to a neighboring state and get it there.

Good luck with that if you live in, say, the middle of Texas, where the surrounding states are even worse :C

Seekster, can I ask you to define "Sacred"?

Seekster:
I am not sure if being sentient is the right measure but its close to it. Basically life that can appreciate itself and is aware of itself and which is able to operate outside of instinct should be considered more sacred. As I said, all life is sacred, but all life is not equally sacred.

(word count: 55)

This is what I'm interested in. Expand on this please.

Seekster:
Sean asked me to demonstrate this and I will do so. Treating human beings as property was seen as morally wrong even back during the days when slavery was legal (though attempts were made to justify slavery on economic and later even ethical grounds based on ignorant theories of white supremacy). There are no such qualms about treating animals as property. For a recent and somewhat humorous example we have PETA suing Sea World on behalf of its Orcas which PETA claims have been enslaved. One of the ironies is that one of the Orcas would be guilty of murder or at least manslaughter if it were treated with the same level of sanctity as a human life and given the same rights and responsibilities (one of them is the one who drowned it's trainer a while back if you remember that story).

this only demonstrates that human beings treat different creatures differently. It doesn't demonstate any inhernet nature of sacredness or variance thereof from species to species.

Seekster:
So you see the question of why we behave in this way is a deep philosophical one, yet we can no more deny that human life is more sacred than that of non-sentient animals than we can deny that the sun brings light in warmth, we knew this to be true long before we knew why it was true.

(word count: 59)

You somehow managed to use four more words saying nothing with this paragraph than you used to actually try to answer my question.

Try again please.

See Spot Run:
Seekster, can I ask you to define "Sacred"?

Seekster:
I am not sure if being sentient is the right measure but its close to it. Basically life that can appreciate itself and is aware of itself and which is able to operate outside of instinct should be considered more sacred. As I said, all life is sacred, but all life is not equally sacred.

(word count: 55)

This is what I'm interested in. Expand on this please.

Seekster:
Sean asked me to demonstrate this and I will do so. Treating human beings as property was seen as morally wrong even back during the days when slavery was legal (though attempts were made to justify slavery on economic and later even ethical grounds based on ignorant theories of white supremacy). There are no such qualms about treating animals as property. For a recent and somewhat humorous example we have PETA suing Sea World on behalf of its Orcas which PETA claims have been enslaved. One of the ironies is that one of the Orcas would be guilty of murder or at least manslaughter if it were treated with the same level of sanctity as a human life and given the same rights and responsibilities (one of them is the one who drowned it's trainer a while back if you remember that story).

this only demonstrates that human beings treat different creatures differently. It doesn't demonstate any inhernet nature of sacredness or variance thereof from species to species.

Seekster:
So you see the question of why we behave in this way is a deep philosophical one, yet we can no more deny that human life is more sacred than that of non-sentient animals than we can deny that the sun brings light in warmth, we knew this to be true long before we knew why it was true.

(word count: 59)

You somehow managed to use four more words saying nothing with this paragraph than you used to actually try to answer my question.

Try again please.

In this context sacred means "has inherent significance and worth" though I am not sure if that definition does the term justice it at least gets you in the ballpark of what it means.

I expanded on the first part in the part that followed.

Yeah the whole thing can be chalked up to bias because we have no other sentient species to compare ourselves to. I'm afraid there is no way to disprove the bias counter until we come across another sentient race.

Spot I answered your question, what part of the answer don't you understand? If you don't understand thats fine I will be happy to clarify things for you but if you are just fishing for an answer that you like I can't help you there.

Kendarik:

Karma168:

Kendarik:

Well that, at best, is medical malpractice, not rape.

But as I said to KY, it makes no sense to get consent to a specific part of surgery anyway. That would simply become part of the surgery and informed consent would be given that included knowing that part would be part of the procedure.

It's not clear, I'm sure someone could make a convincing argument either way.

And people give partial consent all the time; for example a Jehovah's witness could have surgery but refuse blood transfusions. The type of surgery you undergo can also change dependent on your wishes.

The woman should still be able to refuse internal ultrasound if she doesn't want it

Very few doctors would accept that JW consent during a surgery. The general surgical consent allows doctors to do whatever is needed because things go very wrong in surgery sometimes.

And that's between the doctor and the patient. As far as I know there aren't any laws requiring transfusions to be performed during surgery. There are also plenty of people who undergo surgery while under a DNR order if something goes catastrophically wrong.

Can we at least agree that if there was a law requiring women seeking abortions to be penetrated with a dildo, that would be state-sanctioned rape? How is this law any different, aside from a flimsy pretense of ensuring "informed consent" while simultaneously denying the patient's right to consent to one procedure but not the other?

edit: oh and i forgot to mention, thanks for calling me "ky". i actually greatly prefer it to "cobra" (ugh), and i should really see about trying to get my name changed one of these days. :/

Seekster:

"You're just repeating yourself now."

Of course I am, its called being consistent.

"How can we be any more certain that a sperm cell isn't alive?"

If it is then a hair cell must also be alive and that means barbers are guilty of mass murder, come now think about it.

"What does the word "alive" even mean?"

Thats actually a very good question, what do you think it means?

well i suppose we have to draw a clear distinction between being "alive" in the sense of consisting of living tissue engaging in biological processes, and "alive" in the sense of being an independent organism with rights and interests.

A fetus in its earliest stages is not an independent being, it has yet to develop any intentional states, and therefore rights should not yet be assigned to it.

Seekster:
"The story you linked is the first known case of an infant surviving after less than 23 weeks."

Yes but the point is it CAN happen. If it can happen it would be wrong to step in and intervene unless there is a dire need to for health reasons or something of that sort.

"But let's stop talking about barely viable fetuses for the time being, hmmm? let's talk about why this thing supposedly has human rights:"

Ill actually just concede that point so we can stay on the fetuses. Like I said I don't agree with everything in the personhood argument.

If you're willing to concede on embryos then i'm satisfied, because that is when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed. Well over 50% of all abortions occur during the embryonic stage so that's more than enough to justify the existence of abortion services. And i'm willing to say that there should be a buffer zone between the cut-off date for elective abortions and viability, to allow for the kind of medical miracles you've just brought up. If you're not comfortable with 20 weeks, then a 16 week time limit would still allow for 95% of all abortions performed in the U.S.

GoaThief:

Kendarik:

It does not fit the definition because of the doctor's intent.

Seriously folks, using overblow language does not make the case against a stupid law. Fight it for what it is, not by exaggeration. That just makes you look silly.

No, it's you who is looking a bit silly.

Malpractice definition; In law, malpractice is a type of negligence in, which the professional under a duty to act, fails to follow generally accepted professional standards. When applied to the topic at hand, the medical professional carrying out an unnecessary vaginal ultrasound is indeed failing to follow generally accepted professional standards, which as you kindly pointed out, only require this invasive technique in rare circumstances.

What I pointed out is that it was infrequently used, but it is still a valid option if a doctor wants to for every single surgery. It's not malpractice because its one of two effective ways for the doctor to visualize the area, and its actually the more effective method.

You can bet your bottom dollar that lawyers will argue malpractice at the very least as intent of the healthcare professional has no bearing on the definition, merely the severity of the crime, punishments and/or compensation paid to the victim.

The intent question was relating to the silly charge of rape people were asserting. Context my friend or you will continue to look foolish.

cobra_ky:

Kendarik:

Karma168:

It's not clear, I'm sure someone could make a convincing argument either way.

And people give partial consent all the time; for example a Jehovah's witness could have surgery but refuse blood transfusions. The type of surgery you undergo can also change dependent on your wishes.

The woman should still be able to refuse internal ultrasound if she doesn't want it

Very few doctors would accept that JW consent during a surgery. The general surgical consent allows doctors to do whatever is needed because things go very wrong in surgery sometimes.

And that's between the doctor and the patient. As far as I know there aren't any laws requiring transfusions to be performed during surgery. There are also plenty of people who undergo surgery while under a DNR order if something goes catastrophically wrong.

Can we at least agree that if there was a law requiring women seeking abortions to be penetrated with a dildo, that would be state-sanctioned rape? How is this law any different, aside from a flimsy pretense of ensuring "informed consent" while simultaneously denying the patient's right to consent to one procedure but not the other?

edit: oh and i forgot to mention, thanks for calling me "ky". i actually greatly prefer it to "cobra" (ugh), and i should really see about trying to get my name changed one of these days. :/

Lucky guess on my part with the name lol.

DNR orders are accepted in most places, that's true. Heroic measures usually sit in their own category medically speaking. But, short of that, the consents are hugely open, usually with a "doctor's professional opinion" clause.

For example, when giving vaginal birth one of the disclosed things a doctor will do in most places, without your specific consent, is to determine if they should risk your vaginal opening ripping open or if they will just slice you a bigger vaginal hole and sew it up after. If it comes to it, if both you and the baby are in distress, they may switch to a C-section without specific consent and/or they can go as far as an effective abortion on the baby during the delivery process.

And of course when it comes to abortion, sticking a probe in you is the least evasive thing they do.

I'll continue to state I am against the law and think it is unreasonable and, in my opinion, cruel. I don't think it will change a single mind either. But I still don't like the people trying to make it something it isn't in this thread (especially considering the number of men expressing their opinion on this issue, sorry, men can't put themselves in those stirrups)

Seekster:
In this context sacred means "has inherent significance and worth" though I am not sure if that definition does the term justice it at least gets you in the ballpark of what it means.

Ok, so, maybe it's time to force a little clarity into the discussion by making the distinction between "sacred" which means "divine, holy, worthy of reverence" and your use of it to mean "of innate value".

The definition you just gave is not that of "sacred" but of "valuable".

If you are using "sacred" to mean "held by humans to be of some innate value" that has an entirely different set of implications than "understood by humans to be of inherent worth to god." One of those can be squared with the disposability of lower forms of life. One can't.

Seekster:
I expanded on the first part in the part that followed.

No, you really didn't. The rest of your post could be sumarised as "because different forms of life have different values we treat them differently and this shows that they have different values." That's circular reasoning, and doesn't explain or demonstrate anything.

Seekster:
Yeah the whole thing can be chalked up to bias because we have no other sentient species to compare ourselves to. I'm afraid there is no way to disprove the bias counter until we come across another sentient race.

Disagree.

Seekster:
Spot I answered your question, what part of the answer don't you understand? If you don't understand thats fine I will be happy to clarify things for you but if you are just fishing for an answer that you like I can't help you there.

>Implying I don't understand you

I understand you just fine. I simply want you to present a detailed, reasoned argument for why you hold the postion you do, because I want it made very clear how you justify your position. I don't care about excuses that "it's some deep philosophical question" or your answers to someone else's requests for a demonstration.

I want you to lay out the thought process that led you to your conclusion. This is either something you can, or you can't do. Pick one.

cobra_ky:

Seekster:

"You're just repeating yourself now."

Of course I am, its called being consistent.

"How can we be any more certain that a sperm cell isn't alive?"

If it is then a hair cell must also be alive and that means barbers are guilty of mass murder, come now think about it.

"What does the word "alive" even mean?"

Thats actually a very good question, what do you think it means?

well i suppose we have to draw a clear distinction between being "alive" in the sense of consisting of living tissue engaging in biological processes, and "alive" in the sense of being an independent organism with rights and interests.

A fetus in its earliest stages is not an independent being, it has yet to develop any intentional states, and therefore rights should not yet be assigned to it.

Seekster:
"The story you linked is the first known case of an infant surviving after less than 23 weeks."

Yes but the point is it CAN happen. If it can happen it would be wrong to step in and intervene unless there is a dire need to for health reasons or something of that sort.

"But let's stop talking about barely viable fetuses for the time being, hmmm? let's talk about why this thing supposedly has human rights:"

Ill actually just concede that point so we can stay on the fetuses. Like I said I don't agree with everything in the personhood argument.

If you're willing to concede on embryos then i'm satisfied, because that is when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed. Well over 50% of all abortions occur during the embryonic stage so that's more than enough to justify the existence of abortion services. And i'm willing to say that there should be a buffer zone between the cut-off date for elective abortions and viability, to allow for the kind of medical miracles you've just brought up. If you're not comfortable with 20 weeks, then a 16 week time limit would still allow for 95% of all abortions performed in the U.S.

A newborn baby isnt exactly an independent being either (they cannot survive on their own). Why give rights to one dependent being but not another?

I am for limiting abortion in any way that it can be limited.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
In this context sacred means "has inherent significance and worth" though I am not sure if that definition does the term justice it at least gets you in the ballpark of what it means.

Ok, so, maybe it's time to force a little clarity into the discussion by making the distinction between "sacred" which means "divine, holy, worthy of reverence" and your use of it to mean "of innate value".

The definition you just gave is not that of "sacred" but of "valuable".

If you are using "sacred" to mean "held by humans to be of some innate value" that has an entirely different set of implications than "understood by humans to be of inherent worth to god." One of those can be squared with the disposability of lower forms of life. One can't.

Seekster:
I expanded on the first part in the part that followed.

No, you really didn't. The rest of your post could be sumarised as "because different forms of life have different values we treat them differently and this shows that they have different values." That's circular reasoning, and doesn't explain or demonstrate anything.

Seekster:
Yeah the whole thing can be chalked up to bias because we have no other sentient species to compare ourselves to. I'm afraid there is no way to disprove the bias counter until we come across another sentient race.

Disagree.

Seekster:
Spot I answered your question, what part of the answer don't you understand? If you don't understand thats fine I will be happy to clarify things for you but if you are just fishing for an answer that you like I can't help you there.

>Implying I don't understand you

I understand you just fine. I simply want you to present a detailed, reasoned argument for why you hold the postion you do, because I want it made very clear how you justify your position. I don't care about excuses that "it's some deep philosophical question" or your answers to someone else's requests for a demonstration.

I want you to lay out the thought process that led you to your conclusion. This is either something you can, or you can't do. Pick one.

That is a different use for the word "sacred", its not the one I am using.

Its not an excuse to saying something is a deep philosophical question, its just the way it is.

I don't know how else to phrase my explanation, it made sense to me but if it doesnt make sense to you then trying to explain it in a way that makes sense to you probably wouldnt make sense to me so I guess we are at an impasse. I'm told I am a good writer (by people who are neither friends or family members) and if nothing else I am a verbose one, but I guess I am not very good at explaining myself to some people. Then again on other forums people seem to get what I am saying on the first explanation so maybe its not entirely my fault though on the other hand the issues brought up on this forum tend to be a lot more complex than on say a forum where you discuss anime or video games or whatever.

Seekster:
That is a different use for the word "sacred", its not the one I am using.

The definition of sacred that I provided is the correct one. "sacred", by definition, has religious implications. If you don't intend those implications, you should find a different word.

Seekster:
Its not an excuse to saying something is a deep philosophical question, its just the way it is.

It is if you use it as a reason not to go into detail as to why you think a certain way. More words have been spent reasoning out "Deep philosophcal questions" than just about anything else on this earth. A question that requires some hard thinking should be an avenue for more discussion not less.

Seekster:
I don't know how else to phrase my explanation, it made sense to me but if it doesnt make sense to you then trying to explain it in a way that makes sense to you probably wouldnt make sense to me so I guess we are at an impasse. I'm told I am a good writer (by people who are neither friends or family members) and if nothing else I am a verbose one, but I guess I am not very good at explaining myself to some people. Then again on other forums people seem to get what I am saying on the first explanation so maybe its not entirely my fault though on the other hand the issues brought up on this forum tend to be a lot more complex than on say a forum where you discuss anime or video games or whatever.

You find yourself here because you haven't really tried to explain your position. You asserted that all life was sacred. Then you asserted that all life is not equally sacred. Your sole defense of this assertion was a paragraph about how humans regard different forms of life differently. This demonstration, such as it was, validates neither of your original assertions.

If you can't even begin to form a cogent argument to support your position, why even participate in this discussion? If you can't give your own reasons for believing something, than how can you ever hope to give someone else reasons they should agree with you?

Why should any one of us here even begin to take you seriously, if you aren't willing or aren't able to put some effort into expressing why you hold your beliefs?

And if what you've posted here really is the full extent of why you believe what you do, then you should go and undertake some SERIOUS consideration of whether you can justifiably continue believing what you do.

You spent several posts, a page or two ago, smugly and tirumphantly stating that your arguments hadn't been refuted. I think it's pretty clear at this point that you never had an argument. Just an assertion.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
That is a different use for the word "sacred", its not the one I am using.

The definition of sacred that I provided is the correct one. "sacred", by definition, has religious implications. If you don't intend those implications, you should find a different word.

Seekster:
Its not an excuse to saying something is a deep philosophical question, its just the way it is.

It is if you use it as a reason not to go into detail as to why you think a certain way. More words have been spent reasoning out "Deep philosophcal questions" than just about anything else on this earth. A question that requires some hard thinking should be an avenue for more discussion not less.

Seekster:
I don't know how else to phrase my explanation, it made sense to me but if it doesnt make sense to you then trying to explain it in a way that makes sense to you probably wouldnt make sense to me so I guess we are at an impasse. I'm told I am a good writer (by people who are neither friends or family members) and if nothing else I am a verbose one, but I guess I am not very good at explaining myself to some people. Then again on other forums people seem to get what I am saying on the first explanation so maybe its not entirely my fault though on the other hand the issues brought up on this forum tend to be a lot more complex than on say a forum where you discuss anime or video games or whatever.

You find yourself here because you haven't really tried to explain your position. You asserted that all life was sacred. Then you asserted that all life is not equally sacred. Your sole defense of this assertion was a paragraph about how humans regard different forms of life differently. This demonstration, such as it was, validates neither of your original assertions.

If you can't even begin to form a cogent argument to support your position, why even participate in this discussion? If you can't give your own reasons for believing something, than how can you ever hope to give someone else reasons they should agree with you?

Why should any one of us here even begin to take you seriously, if you aren't willing or aren't able to put some effort into expressing why you hold your beliefs?

And if what you've posted here really is the full extent of why you believe what you do, then you should go and undertake some SERIOUS consideration of whether you can justifiably continue believing what you do.

You spent several posts, a page or two ago, smugly and tirumphantly stating that your arguments hadn't been refuted. I think it's pretty clear at this point that you never had an argument. Just an assertion.

You realize that in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" right? Its a bit of anecdotal evidence but my point is that the term sacred can be used without a religious meaning attached to it.

Pft, its not an excuse. Thats like a person saying "I don't know" when they really don't know and you going "thats no excuse." and asking the question again. Which is basically what you did only I know I just don't know how to put it in words.

"If you can't even begin to form a cogent argument to support your position, why even participate in this discussion? If you can't give your own reasons for believing something, than how can you ever hope to give someone else reasons they should agree with you?"

My argument makes sense to me and its made sense to other people. Perhaps our views of the world are just so far apart we can't even begin to see eye to eye.

"Why should any one of us here even begin to take you seriously, if you aren't willing or aren't able to put some effort into expressing why you hold your beliefs?"

This is a video game forum...I don't come here to be taken seriously, I come here to enjoy myself with some spirited discussions.

"You spent several posts, a page or two ago, smugly and tirumphantly stating that your arguments hadn't been refuted. I think it's pretty clear at this point that you never had an argument. Just an assertion."

If thats the case then this entire topic is filled with nothing but assertions but at this point I've honestly lost interest. Ill wait for a better abortion topic to come up. Right now we have some sexy foreign policy topics that are active and I am not passing those up to argue the meaning of the word "sacred" with you.

Seekster:
Yes all life is sacred but then when you try and say that all life has to be equally sacred I don't see where you are coming from. This discussion is becoming circular and I don't see it going anywhere unless there is some kind of breakthrough.

What do you mean you don't see where I'm coming from? I've presented you with ample evidence showing why that statement is absolute. I've also taken the time to explain to you what moral absolutism is. At this point you're just being willfully ignorant. Moral absolutism does not allow for degrees because it's an absolute.

Seekster:
You realize that in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" right? Its a bit of anecdotal evidence but my point is that the term sacred can be used without a religious meaning attached to it.

Yes. Notice where I included "worthy of reverence" in my supplied definition of the word? The underpinning of the word sacred is that of fervent respect and inviolability. Violation of something sacred is held to be a most serious transgression. This DOES square with how Jefferson used the word. This does not square with the disposability of lower levels of life.

Seekster:
Pft, its not an excuse. Thats like a person saying "I don't know" when they really don't know and you going "thats no excuse." and asking the question again. Which is basically what you did only I know I just don't know how to put it in words.

If you don't know why you believe what you believe, then admit that. Also, stop asserting that what you believe is correct. If you DO know why you believe what you believe, then make an attempt at expressing it, and consider how well it holds up under scrutiny.
But either way, don't try to use the premise that "it's deep and philosophical' as a reason not to do it. "Deep and philosophical" is a jumping off point for throwing your ideas at a wall and watching what sticks. It is not an excuse for closing off consideration of your point.

Seekster:
My argument makes sense to me and its made sense to other people. Perhaps our views of the world are just so far apart we can't even begin to see eye to eye.

Oh yes, this thread is full to the brim with people who clearly understood your point, and who totally thought it made perfect sense. This is evident from the dozens of posters that totally agreed with you.

Seekster:
If thats the case then this entire topic is filled with nothing but assertions but at this point I've honestly lost interest. Ill wait for a better abortion topic to come up. Right now we have some sexy foreign policy topics that are active and I am not passing those up to argue the meaning of the word "sacred" with you.

No, no it hasn't been. But, even if it has been, that doesn't matter. We aren't talking about what other people have said or asserted. We are talking about how you justify your assertions. Just because other people make baseless assertions too, doesn't mean you get a free pass.
If it saves you from actually having to do some introspection, you're welcome to step out of this thread now. We know where you stand on deep thought.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Yes all life is sacred but then when you try and say that all life has to be equally sacred I don't see where you are coming from. This discussion is becoming circular and I don't see it going anywhere unless there is some kind of breakthrough.

What do you mean you don't see where I'm coming from? I've presented you with ample evidence showing why that statement is absolute. I've also taken the time to explain to you what moral absolutism is. At this point you're just being willfully ignorant. Moral absolutism does not allow for degrees because it's an absolute.

How is "All life is not equally sacred" moral absolutism?

I am not being willfully ignorant I am sincerely trying to understand why you think there is a contradiction in my views.

"Moral absolutism does not allow for degrees because it's an absolute."

Hang Moral Absolutism, this is an imperfect society in an imperfect world we are talking about here. I think Sean is the only one to actually understand what I've been saying all this time (he got close near the top of page 7 though was a little insulting about it, I guess I can't hold that against him given that Ill probably return the favor someday if I havnt already).

Seekster:
How is "All life is not equally sacred" moral absolutism?

Because it's an absolute statement.

"ALL life is sacred"
"ALL thieves are evil"
"ALL children are naive"

If a sentence follows the "All X are Y" pattern then it's an absolute statement.

Seekster:
Hang Moral Absolutism

That's like saying hang Maths. There are certain rules we know to be absolutely true. 2+2 will always be 4 no matter what and any sentence that follows the pattern "All X are Y" will always be an absolute statement no matter what. If you make the claim that all X is Y then you cannot turn around and say that in certain situations, all X's aren't Y. That's contradictory.

If you say all killing is wrong but then say that in certain contexts killing can be justified then you are contradicting your original statement. If something is absolutely wrong then it can never be justified. If it can be justified then it's not absolutely wrong. If there's an exception then it's not an absolute.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
You realize that in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" right? Its a bit of anecdotal evidence but my point is that the term sacred can be used without a religious meaning attached to it.

Yes. Notice where I included "worthy of reverence" in my supplied definition of the word? The underpinning of the word sacred is that of fervent respect and inviolability. Violation of something sacred is held to be a most serious transgression. This DOES square with how Jefferson used the word. This does not square with the disposability of lower levels of life.

Quoting Jefferson's original draft was just to make appoint how it doesnt necessarily need to be used in a religious context (since you didnt object to that either you agree or didnt get it, I choose to believe the first option as its less frustrating and I don't think you are stupid).

If you want an example of how not all things that are sacred are equally sacred lets use a religious example shall we? The teachings of Jesus for example are often held as more sacred and more important than the teachings of any other Biblical source though all of those teachings are considered sacred.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
Pft, its not an excuse. Thats like a person saying "I don't know" when they really don't know and you going "thats no excuse." and asking the question again. Which is basically what you did only I know I just don't know how to put it in words.

If you don't know why you believe what you believe, then admit that. Also, stop asserting that what you believe is correct. If you DO know why you believe what you believe, then make an attempt at expressing it, and consider how well it holds up under scrutiny.
But either way, don't try to use the premise that "it's deep and philosophical' as a reason not to do it. "Deep and philosophical" is a jumping off point for throwing your ideas at a wall and watching what sticks. It is not an excuse for closing off consideration of your point.

Actually in this case I am not using it as a means of escape (I can escape any time I want but I wont because you guys are too much fun sometimes, even when you get annoying, I know, like me, you don't mean to be). No I often use the escapist as a forum for testing arguments before I use them in the real world. The people here are considerably more to the left of what your typical person I am going to meet in my everyday life is so I can take that into account and see how things go. Thats not to say I am not arguing in good faith because I most certainly am. Its just I consider the stakes to be lower so this forum is a good testing ground for arguments I would use in real life. It has been quite useful in this regard and I have refined my arguments on a number of topics due to exposed weaknesses in my arguments on other topics.

On top of that, its always good to at least try and see things from other points of view and try and understand why people think that way. Though on some things we are so far apart in terms of our worldviews that its difficult at best to do this.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
My argument makes sense to me and its made sense to other people. Perhaps our views of the world are just so far apart we can't even begin to see eye to eye.

Oh yes, this thread is full to the brim with people who clearly understood your point, and who totally thought it made perfect sense. This is evident from the dozens of posters that totally agreed with you.

Pft, I wasn't referring to people on this forum. I've been to lots of forums where people either agree with me or disagree with me on details but agree in principle. I come to the Escapist because I am virtually guaranteed to find people who disagree with me and then I can see if there are any viable counter arguments to the arguments I put forward, every now and then there are. Plus you learn things from people disagreeing with you. Its always good to learn things.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
If thats the case then this entire topic is filled with nothing but assertions but at this point I've honestly lost interest. Ill wait for a better abortion topic to come up. Right now we have some sexy foreign policy topics that are active and I am not passing those up to argue the meaning of the word "sacred" with you.

No, no it hasn't been. But, even if it has been, that doesn't matter. We aren't talking about what other people have said or asserted. We are talking about how you justify your assertions. Just because other people make baseless assertions too, doesn't mean you get a free pass.
If it saves you from actually having to do some introspection, you're welcome to step out of this thread now. We know where you stand on deep thought.

Oh yes I am very much in favor of deep thought. I prefer not to answer questions unless I am reasonably certain of the answer.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
How is "All life is not equally sacred" moral absolutism?

Because it's an absolute statement.

"ALL life is sacred"
"ALL thieves are evil"
"ALL children are naive"

If a sentence follows the "All X are Y" pattern then it's an absolute statement.

Seekster:
Hang Moral Absolutism

That's like saying hang Maths. There are certain rules we know to be absolutely true. 2+2 will always be 4 no matter what and any sentence that follows the pattern "All X are Y" will always be an absolute statement no matter what. If you make the claim that all X is Y then you cannot turn around and say that in certain situations, all X's aren't Y. That's contradictory.

If you say all killing is wrong but then say that in certain contexts killing can be justified then you are contradicting your original statement. If something is absolutely wrong then it can never be justified. If it can be justified then it's not absolutely wrong. If there's an exception then it's not an absolute.

Ok lets look at the entire statement that forms the core of my viewpoint here. "All life is sacred..." (I will grant you that part is an absolute) "...but all life is not equally sacred". Takes as a whole that statement is not an absolute because it implies degrees of sanctity (which honestly is always the case unless your are devoutly Shinto and even then I could be wrong).

I do not think Maths is the plural of Math but I am not getting into another grammatical argument with you. See what I said in the paragraph above. Its clear we arent getting anywhere until we clear up your attachment to moral absolutism (or more accurately calling my view one of moral absolutism).

I would say in a perfect world all killing would be wrong but of course perfection doesnt work well in an imperfect world. You need imperfect morality in an imperfect world and that is why our society has invented a system of morality that excuses or justifies certain actions that in a perfect world would be immoral.

Seekster:
Quoting Jefferson's original draft was just to make appoint how it doesnt necessarily need to be used in a religious context (since you didnt object to that either you agree or didnt get it, I choose to believe the first option as its less frustrating and I don't think you are stupid).

Yes, I got the point you were making, and I addressed it directly.
I should clarify, I admit, when I said "religious implications" I meant that the word is necessarily devotional. Things that are "sacred", when the word is used in a secular sense, are things that are inviolable, revered, held aloft with 'religious' fervor. I, personally, don't like the use of sacred in a secular sense (and I know more than a few people agree with me) because the principle of sanctity does, by nature, imply religious or spiritual connotations. We have better words to represent secular valuation of a thing that doesn't confuse the discussion in such a way.
Using "sacred" as opposed to, say, "intrinsically valuable" carries the implication that any violation of the object in question is a tremendous offense, whether or not it is more or less "sacred" than another object. All sacred objects are to be held above us and revered. This is the meaning the word carries. If you are using it differently than this, you are basically using it incorrectly.
The moral absolutism argument that sprung up in this thread stemmed from that confusion. If something is sacred it should never be violated. If all life is sacred, there is no justification for taking life. I understood what you were getting at when you said it. That's why I suggested you stop using the word. You were obfuscating your own point.

Seekster:
Actually in this case I am not using it as a means of escape (I can escape any time I want but I wont because you guys are too much fun sometimes, even when you get annoying, I know, like me, you don't mean to be).

Except that's exactly what you did. Go back and read it. The paragraph you used it in essentially read "it's a deep philosophical question, but it's totally self-evident, so I shouldn't have to detail my argument." I was specifically asking you to detail your argument DESPITE your claim that it was self-evident, because I wanted you to put into words why you arrived at the conclusion you did.
You've spent more effort and words trying to defend the fact that you didn't answer my question than it ever would have taken to satisfactorily answer my question.

Seekster:
Though on some things we are so far apart in terms of our worldviews that its difficult at best to do this.

Of course, if you go back to around where I entered the thread: Oh, hey! Would you look at that!?

See Spot Run:
I mostly agree with the statement, but I want you to explain to me WHY that is true.

I told you I fundamentally agreed with your premise, so that's not the case on this particular philosophical point. I was interested in exploring how we both came to different conclusions from a similar starting point, but instead you dug your heels in and refused to actually DISCUSS.

Seekster:
Oh yes I am very much in favor of deep thought. I prefer not to answer questions unless I am reasonably certain of the answer.

Except when you're asked to engage in a bit of it, apparently.
You know what the nice thing about posting on an internet message board is? Discussions don't take place in real time. You don't have to hit "post" until you've constructed an answer you're happy with. It gives you this great opportunity to compose all your thoughts and scrutinize them before throwing them into the wild.
This is what I was asking for. I was giving you an opportunity to collect your thoughts, compose them, consider them and present them. I was giving you the chance to try and develop some certainty of your answer.
And instead of taking advantage of that opportunity you chose to defend a position you aren't even sure of why you hold.

See Spot Run:
-snip-

...you know what, I don't even care anymore, about this discussion not about the larger issue.

Seekster:
Ok lets look at the entire statement that forms the core of my viewpoint here. "All life is sacred..." (I will grant you that part is an absolute) "...but all life is not equally sacred". Takes as a whole that statement is not an absolute because it implies degrees of sanctity (which honestly is always the case unless your are devoutly Shinto and even then I could be wrong).

That's contradictory. If all life has the right to live then how can certain life not have the right to live?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Ok lets look at the entire statement that forms the core of my viewpoint here. "All life is sacred..." (I will grant you that part is an absolute) "...but all life is not equally sacred". Takes as a whole that statement is not an absolute because it implies degrees of sanctity (which honestly is always the case unless your are devoutly Shinto and even then I could be wrong).

That's contradictory. If all life has the right to live then how can certain life not have the right to live?

I didnt say that though. I said all life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. In other words all living things have a right to live (ability is another story but I digress).

Seekster:
snip

But you said that not all life is equally sacred which would imply that certain living beings right to live trumps other living being's right to live. So essentially, certain living beings have the right to live whereas others do not. My question still stands. How can all life have the right to live if not all life has the right to live?

Seekster:

cobra_ky:

Seekster:

"You're just repeating yourself now."

Of course I am, its called being consistent.

"How can we be any more certain that a sperm cell isn't alive?"

If it is then a hair cell must also be alive and that means barbers are guilty of mass murder, come now think about it.

"What does the word "alive" even mean?"

Thats actually a very good question, what do you think it means?

well i suppose we have to draw a clear distinction between being "alive" in the sense of consisting of living tissue engaging in biological processes, and "alive" in the sense of being an independent organism with rights and interests.

A fetus in its earliest stages is not an independent being, it has yet to develop any intentional states, and therefore rights should not yet be assigned to it.

Seekster:
"The story you linked is the first known case of an infant surviving after less than 23 weeks."

Yes but the point is it CAN happen. If it can happen it would be wrong to step in and intervene unless there is a dire need to for health reasons or something of that sort.

"But let's stop talking about barely viable fetuses for the time being, hmmm? let's talk about why this thing supposedly has human rights:"

Ill actually just concede that point so we can stay on the fetuses. Like I said I don't agree with everything in the personhood argument.

If you're willing to concede on embryos then i'm satisfied, because that is when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed. Well over 50% of all abortions occur during the embryonic stage so that's more than enough to justify the existence of abortion services. And i'm willing to say that there should be a buffer zone between the cut-off date for elective abortions and viability, to allow for the kind of medical miracles you've just brought up. If you're not comfortable with 20 weeks, then a 16 week time limit would still allow for 95% of all abortions performed in the U.S.

A newborn baby isnt exactly an independent being either (they cannot survive on their own). Why give rights to one dependent being but not another?

I am for limiting abortion in any way that it can be limited.

a newborn baby can be taken away from its mother and cared for by another person or institution. it is not biologically dependent on its mother's body to directly provide it with sustenance. that's what i meant by independent; unless one of us happens to be a subsistence farmer i doubt any of us are truly "independent" human beings.

More importantly though, a newborn infant is sentient; an embryo is not.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
snip

But you said that not all life is equally sacred which would imply that certain living beings right to live trumps other living being's right to live. So essentially, certain living beings have the right to live whereas others do not. My question still stands. How can all life have the right to live if not all life has the right to live?

The inference from what I said was all life has the right to live but sometimes one life may interfere with another life.

cobra_ky:

Seekster:

cobra_ky:

well i suppose we have to draw a clear distinction between being "alive" in the sense of consisting of living tissue engaging in biological processes, and "alive" in the sense of being an independent organism with rights and interests.

A fetus in its earliest stages is not an independent being, it has yet to develop any intentional states, and therefore rights should not yet be assigned to it.

If you're willing to concede on embryos then i'm satisfied, because that is when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed. Well over 50% of all abortions occur during the embryonic stage so that's more than enough to justify the existence of abortion services. And i'm willing to say that there should be a buffer zone between the cut-off date for elective abortions and viability, to allow for the kind of medical miracles you've just brought up. If you're not comfortable with 20 weeks, then a 16 week time limit would still allow for 95% of all abortions performed in the U.S.

A newborn baby isnt exactly an independent being either (they cannot survive on their own). Why give rights to one dependent being but not another?

I am for limiting abortion in any way that it can be limited.

a newborn baby can be taken away from its mother and cared for by another person or institution. it is not biologically dependent on its mother's body to directly provide it with sustenance. that's what i meant by independent; unless one of us happens to be a subsistence farmer i doubt any of us are truly "independent" human beings.

More importantly though, a newborn infant is sentient; an embryo is not.

Well ok Ill give you the first part but I am fairly certain a new born baby isnt self aware yet.

Seekster:

cobra_ky:

Seekster:

A newborn baby isnt exactly an independent being either (they cannot survive on their own). Why give rights to one dependent being but not another?

I am for limiting abortion in any way that it can be limited.

a newborn baby can be taken away from its mother and cared for by another person or institution. it is not biologically dependent on its mother's body to directly provide it with sustenance. that's what i meant by independent; unless one of us happens to be a subsistence farmer i doubt any of us are truly "independent" human beings.

More importantly though, a newborn infant is sentient; an embryo is not.

Well ok Ill give you the first part but I am fairly certain a new born baby isnt self aware yet.

Sentience in this case meaning simply the capacity to feel.

Seekster:
The inference from what I said was all life has the right to live but sometimes one life may interfere with another life.

So, once a woman gets preggers, she becomes wholly-owned chattel of the fetus. Good to know.

This seems vaguely relevant:
Exploring the Right Wing Blogosphere:
Virginia Wants to Wand Your Vagina. Rightbloggers are Outraged (That You'd Complain)

A thorough scuba-dive to the bottom of the rightwing cesspool, so everyone else can see what they really think about those filthy sluts women.

cobra_ky:

Seekster:

cobra_ky:

a newborn baby can be taken away from its mother and cared for by another person or institution. it is not biologically dependent on its mother's body to directly provide it with sustenance. that's what i meant by independent; unless one of us happens to be a subsistence farmer i doubt any of us are truly "independent" human beings.

More importantly though, a newborn infant is sentient; an embryo is not.

Well ok Ill give you the first part but I am fairly certain a new born baby isnt self aware yet.

Sentience in this case meaning simply the capacity to feel.

Ok that just cries out for clarification, I am fairly certain anything with skin can feel. I assume you mean have some kind of emotions outside of instinct?

Seekster:
I didnt say that though. I said all life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. In other words all living things have a right to live (ability is another story but I digress).

So now the masks are coming off eh? There's picking and choosing in what's sacred and not.

Your own life of course very much.
Other men's lives, a little.
Women's lives, who cares.
Baby's lives, who cares.
The rights of fetuses that aren't even alive yet, very very important cuz the pastor said so in church.

Bymidew:

Seekster:
The inference from what I said was all life has the right to live but sometimes one life may interfere with another life.

So, once a woman gets preggers, she becomes wholly-owned chattel of the fetus. Good to know.

This seems vaguely relevant:
Exploring the Right Wing Blogosphere:
Virginia Wants to Wand Your Vagina. Rightbloggers are Outraged (That You'd Complain)

A thorough scuba-dive to the bottom of the rightwing cesspool, so everyone else can see what they really think about those filthy sluts women.

Hmm...are you sure you aren't an alt of one of the shrills that got banned from this forum a while ago...ive faced more annoying than you before, they never last long.

But anyway no of course the woman isnt chattel of the fetus or anyone, don't be ridiculous. All I am saying is that the woman has no right to extinguish the life of the fetus unless it threatens her own life (and i mean in a medical sense).

Blablahb:

Seekster:
I didnt say that though. I said all life is sacred but not all life is equally sacred. In other words all living things have a right to live (ability is another story but I digress).

So now the masks are coming off eh? There's picking and choosing in what's sacred and not.

Your own life of course very much.
Other men's lives, a little.
Women's lives, who cares.
Baby's lives, who cares.
The rights of fetuses that aren't even alive yet, very very important cuz the pastor said so in church.

Blab, Blab, Blab, the mask was never on.

No my life is no more or less sacred than that of any other human being. Have I not said before that all human life is inherently equal at the most basic level?

Also for someone who has a history with religion you sure have a tendency to bring it up when nobody else is talking about it.

Seekster:

cobra_ky:

Seekster:

Well ok Ill give you the first part but I am fairly certain a new born baby isnt self aware yet.

Sentience in this case meaning simply the capacity to feel.

Ok that just cries out for clarification, I am fairly certain anything with skin can feel. I assume you mean have some kind of emotions outside of instinct?

You would be wrong, as feeling requires a sophisticated nervous system. And I mean having the capacity for subjective experience.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked