AntiAbortion, pro legal abortion

[Winchester]

Dairy,

New thread to discuss the position that while one may oppose abortion morally, one believes it improper to make it illegal.

Let's dipense with the Catholicity of the idea. I can knock that down in the other thread (voting, proportionality etc are much larger beasts, I think you agree).

I believe it's an absurd position--which doesn't stop one from taking it. I myself am a large fan of absurd positions. Nevertheless, I believe you ssaid you can show it has merit from an objective position. I must rejoin that even personal injury lawyers have [i]some[/i] merit, so your task is not too difficult, but I trust you intend to show merit visible to the naked mind's eye.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Actually, I didn't say is objective. I said it COULD be objective. That's a speculative word. I can see how the confusion would arise though in that context.

[quote]Who knows what he's thinking. But I will argue how it could be objectively possible to do that if you want to start a new thread. [/quote]

Here is what I started not too long ago until cardero hijacked the thread. You can leave where I left off if you want.
[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=20482&hl=reasonable&st=50"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...easonable&st=50[/url]


I'll keep talking if you want to talk about what COULD be.


Keep in mind, I do hold to the moral absolute that it is wrong to kill someone who is "clearly" human. I say it is wrong to kill someone that I think is "clearly" human. If I don't think that person is "clearly" human, then my faith would compel me to allow that person to "kill" it because the life is disputed. I believe (actually I don't I just speculate but it's easier to say I believe instead) that recognizing human choice is above reasonably disputed life.

And before anyone says it, no, I am not saying that it is okay to allow someone to kill a person because they want to or think it's reasonable. Read the link where I talk if you want more info.

Keep in mind, that I say that we can't define a baby as a human in it's full form by scientific methods. If we could define that then you'd have made your case. I'm not going to go into this unless you respond to what's in the link.

You would argue that objectivity becomes simply the notion of the individual on a case by case basis. That is not true or what I'm saying. Objectivity is true regardless of the person.

We can objectively say that no one can prove objectivity. We can have faith that objectively we should not insist on our views if we cannot insist on our views of objectivity. It seems to me (seems being the operative word that we will agree to disagree on values) recognizing the limits of ourselves would compel us to allow other's legal recognition to do what they think is just.

Recognizing human choice above reasonably disputed life.

Instead of trying to think of all the arguments that will be made and responding in one intro, I will allow our discussion to evolve where we're discussion one or two critical issues. And then we can tackle anymore.


Sorry if that didn't make sense. I gotta get goin but don't want to stop in the middle!

[Winchester]

We are discussing Kerry's postition if you are responding to my statement that his position is untenable and absurd.

Kerry claims Catholicism as his belief. According to Catholicism, human life begins at conception, so assumption one from this is that Kerry believes human life begins at conception.

Catholicism strictly forbids intentional killing of a fetus. Kerry claims he supports this.

Kerry supports legalizing the killing of human beings. By taking the position that he believes the Catholic Church, he's welcomed these assumptions.

The Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the State must uphold the right to life: it is not an option for a Catholic to oppose abortion but feel it should be legal.

You are in doubt about the humaness of the unborn child. Very well, but if Kerry claims Catholicism, he is not. You are in doubt and choose to err on the side of the rights of choice of the person who is already born ,rather than erring on the side of the other. Very well. Your doubt makes your position understandable.

[quote]We can objectively say that no one can prove objectivity. We can have faith that objectively we should not insist on our views if we cannot insist on our views of objectivity. It seems to me (seems being the operative word that we will agree to disagree on values) recognizing the limits of ourselves would compel us to allow other's legal recognition to do what they think is just.
[/quote]
How far do you wish to take this premise? Leaving this as is, you have just condoned the attacks on September 11th, since al qaeda thought it quite just to hijack noncombatants and drive them through the Two Towers. If that is not abhorrent to you, then I would say we leave this one off because you and I are too separated in our world views to speak. If you find this abhorrent, then I suggest corralling this rather permissive statement, though I'm curious to see how you do it.

[quote]Keep in mind, that I say that we can't define a baby as a human in it's full form by scientific methods[/quote]
What is a human's "full form"? I believe humanity as proven by our current methods relies on genetics, which are identifiably human at the moment of conception. Our understanding of genetics allows us to identify without seeing an entire body, so clearly such identification relies not on outward appearance (the old way of classifying species) or behaviour. Whish rather leaves you in a pickle to desribe "full form," as we do not need a living specimin to prove the species of a creature. Humans have human DNA, end of story and our little unborn have the same genetics as we who breathe and vote and type.
If one is not human at the moment of conception, then when does one become human?

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 23 2004, 01:52 PM'] Keep in mind, that I say that we can't define a baby as a human in it's full form by scientific methods. If we could define that then you'd have made your case. [/quote]
Hi dairygirl4u2c,

Please define "reasonably disputed," and please offer evidence to back up your claim that the start of human life is "reasonably disputed." The fact of the matter is that [b]all [/b]human embryologists (those in a position to know) believe that life begins at conception ([url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4548"]source[/url]). There are other scientists (e.g., biologists, physicists, and so forth) who dispute this. But, you have to realize that embryology is not their area of expertise, so they can't exactly be taken as an authority on this issue. I mean, would you go to a botanist if you had cancer? Of course not! You'd go to an oncologist. When abortion was made legal, the scientists (who weren't embryologists) said they didn't know when life begins. I don't think even that gives one the moral and legal "right" to destroy an embryo or a fetus. Think of it this way: Would you think it'd be okay to wreck an apartment building without knowing if there were people inside? What if the person wrecking the building was a very poor man who would profit from tearing the building down? Do you think his choice to tear the building down (without knowing whether or not there were people inside) trumps human life, even if that human life isn't 100% established?

God bless,

Jennifer

[Guest Aluigi]

hey that was a sweet example.

btw, an embryo has 46 chromosomes and all the information necessary within itself to determine every charecteristic of the developement to a fully formed human being. It is most definitely human.

[Theoketos]

Most impotantly, the eymbryo has a soul

[StColette]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 24 2004, 10:17 AM'] hey that was a sweet example.

btw, an embryo has 46 chromosomes and all the information necessary within itself to determine every charecteristic of the developement to a fully formed human being. It is most definitely human. [/quote]
correct correct !! I can even draw ya out each chromosome lol

[Winchester]

bump

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]We are discussing Kerry's postition if you are responding to my statement that his position is untenable and absurd.[/quote]
Your post that I responded in the other thread does talk about how it is pandering for Kerry to believe as he does when he's a Catholic. But I thought we were just going to talk about the objectivity of it in general. I say this because you did not mention in the first post of this thread that we were going to talk about Kerry, abortion, and his catholicity. In fact, this might make one think you expressly did not want to talk about it in that context.
[quote]Let's dipense with the Catholicity of the idea.  [/quote]

Because you do want to talk about it in that context then I do not disagree. I did not disagree in the last thread; I was just saying that it incidentally has some arguable claims to objectivity. I might be able to see if you thought I was defending his catholicity position. That said, I do not think he can rightly say that he is Catholic and deny the ordinary magisterium's authority. Whether or not it is the ordinary magisterium and considering any other technicalities, he may be right in his stance and a good Catholic, but I do not think we're here to get into that type of legal discussion. I have no substantial position there anyway.

[quote]How far do you wish to take this premise? Leaving this as is, you have just condoned the attacks on September 11th, since al qaeda thought it quite just to hijack noncombatants and drive them through the Two Towers. [/quote]

I have not condoned the attacks. You must not have read or understood the link of things I said. Maybe I did not make myself clear. I can see maybe I did not make it clear in this thread. That's why I said "no, I'm not saying etc" in the last post and said to read more. But I'll digress.

For one thing, I never argued that it is okay to take a life that is not disputed just because they think that is just. I didn't even get close to that? Maybe you can show me how you thought I did.

For two, all I mean is that just because someone thinks a person is not reasonably a person does not give them right to kill that person. If I think that person is reasonably disputed (and in a situation to warrant their decision as final, but let's not make it too complicated) then I am okay with making it legal for someone to "kill" the disputed human. If you are not, then I understand and accept your position. And herein comes democracy to settle the dispute.

[quote]I believe humanity as proven by our current methods relies on genetics, which are identifiably human at the moment of conception. Our understanding of genetics allows us to identify without seeing an entire body, so clearly such identification relies not on outward appearance (the old way of classifying species) or behaviour[/quote]

There are full genes there yes. But there are genes in any living cell of at least moderatly formed species. How are they different? Well, they are different in that the one in the womb is unique genes. It is also growing into something, but his is essentially arguing about what is potential, and not what is. So the only thing you can argue it might seem is that the genes are there and are unique.

I think this alone is not adequate to insist on your view if you think that it is human in full form. ie with a soul. One somewhat/questionably relavent point. Cells become fertilized all the time and die before implantation. 50% if I'm not mistaken. I realize this is a natural process, but it might make one wonder if the cells should be treated much differently if they can die with such quantity to begin with. Look where I left off in that link. I do want a technical saavvy person to make points to me that I have not heard before. (just don't do the same o copy paste thing of same o links) Or just provide some philosophical insight to rebuke my notions. I'd appreciate that probably moreso because most rebukes and ideas are just rehashed without too many new ideas.

[quote].... If one is not human at the moment of conception, then when does one become human? [/quote]
If you asking the question to stir thought and discussion, then that seems appropriate. But if you are asking the question and thinking that we must give the benefit of the doubt, or by default take your position, I do not like the question or what is implied. Besides, you can't answer the question either. We could say that you should by default take our position if that's the case.

One more thing. Faith does not mean we should not look for reasonableness of other's claims. I know you can say you find reason in their claims but your faith compels you to deny them. That is fine as long as you are honest.

All this said.
If you think there is no disputed life, then I can accept that. We have to agree to disagree about the status of the life.
If you think choice should not be above disputed life, (because you find it reasonable that there is dispute) then I can accept that too. We have to agree to disagree to what to do with the disputed life. (we also probably would eventually agree to disagree to varying levels of dispute but we sholdn't make this too complicated)



[quote]There are other scientists (e.g., biologists, physicists, and so forth) who dispute this. [/quote]
What do you mean by "life"? No one disputes that life is there in general terms, but the question is if it's viable life. Not sure what others mean when they say viable but I mean life that is a human with a soul. Are you saying all embryologists believe this? And these other scientists are the only ones who don't?

Edited October 26, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

My fault for not clarifying:

Kerry's position is that he is a Catholic and believes abortion is immoral. One may presume by identifying himself as Catholic that the immorality proceeds from the fact that it is the wilfull taking of a human life in a murderous manner. He goes on to say that he believes the choice (to murder) should be left to the woman, and his religion should not enter into his attempts to legislate.

"Disputable" does not enter into the equation. I am sorry I lent it credence by even addressing it past pointing out that Kerry's position (the position, not the man, not the fact that he holds it or is Catholic. Think of Kerry in this sense as an article, his name a designation to identify "position") does not attempt to quibble about the humanity of the unborn.

I further regret allowing myself to be drawn away with asking about where the lines are drawn in allowing actions thought to be immoral. It was foolish to feed the digression.

By dispensing with the Catholicity of this, we can avoid arguing whether or not this position is acceptable to a Catholic. Removing the Catholic references, we can come up with this statement.

[quote]I believe abortion is murder, but the state should allow abortion because abortion is between a woman and her doctor[/quote]

Kerry believes that abortion is murder, but it is murder of a private sort. Perhaps because of my flagrant disregard for spelling things out, you misunderstood my rather fuzzy boundaries, but here they are. Can you explain this position as something with actual merit? If you can, then let's go for it. The other stuff we can tackle (one at a time) if you so desire on another thread.

Explain to me why one who believed an act was murder would believe the act should be protected under the law? Remember, the "disputable" life thing doesn't really enter into it, and if it does, then what are your criteria for "disputable" lives?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Kerry's position does not attempt to quibble about the humanity of the unborn.[/quote]

[quote]Explain to me why one who believed an act was murder would believe the act should be protected under the law? Remember, the "disputable" life thing doesn't really enter into it, and if it does, then what are your criteria for "disputable" lives?[/quote]

I see where an issue arises because Kerry says he thinks it is undisputed by faith. Maybe he's just not thinking it through and is thus making an uninformed desicion. But he does always say that he does not want to impose his faith onto other people in regards to abortion. I'd like to think he probably does not want to get into a complex issue in a political realm; probably because people will misinterpret it and all that. I've certainly had much of that here; the issue is in terms completely foreign to the minds of most people and would have to take sometime to sink in I'd imagine. I do agree that Kerry is not making much of any clear argument, but what he does say could be a general hazzy explanation of what I'm about to say.

I would have to say that the "disputable" life thing enters into it. That's why he says he does not want to impose his views of faith. He recognizes and thinks by faith that the life is viable; you might even say undisputably viable by faith (but this is going to make it unneccessarily complicated). He also recognizes that others "reasonably" do not think think the life is viable, and is thus "reasonably" disputed. He sees reason in their claims. So this is the main point: he would have to regard the freedom of choice above "reasonably" disputed life even though by faith he holds that life is viable. Again, he recognizes, as an article of personal faith even, the reasonableness and holds freedom of choice above life that is reasonably disputed. I think this is a reasonable stance. (again to reiterate I realize not one a Catholic can make)

My criteria are subjective of course. For one somewhat justification. Remember the 50% of conceived cells that die. Also just basing it on observation, I just base my criteria what seems reasonable. I might say well at that point it's reasonably disputed, then at that point it's not... so we'll have to draw the line somewhere in between, probaly with the benefit of the doubt toward reasonably disputed. I can hold my view and everyone else can hold their own view. Regulations would have to decide this based on democracy.

As I said.
[quote]All this said.
If you think there is no disputed life, then I can accept that. We have to agree to disagree about the status of the life.
If you think choice should not be above disputed life, (because you find it reasonable in human terms that there is dispute) and that you think your faith should be imposed, then I can accept that too. We have to agree to disagree to what to do with the disputed life. (we also probably would eventually agree to disagree to varying levels of dispute but we sholdn't make this too complicated.. because this is just a side point)[/quote]

I see the disputableness being ambiguous by human terms and faith terms. Just let me know thepoints where you would like further discussion.

Edited October 27, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

I want to go into the disputable life thing insofar as defeding that for the Catholic (non-heretical), it does not enter into the equation. There is no dispute. We Catholics are beholden not only to believe in humanity at conception, but also to defend that humanity. The opinions of others in this matter are to be given no quarter.

The mortality rate in early development has no bearing on humanity, else humanity would be fluid according to death rates. would you feel comfortable removing the status of human from 2 year olds if they suddenly averaged 60% mortality?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 27 2004, 01:53 PM'] Remember the 50% of conceived cells that die. [/quote]
I remember you mentioning this on an old thread. I asked you whether you had any links to scientific studies to back up this number (NIH maybe). I'm curious if this is anything more than some scientist's ballpark guestimation.

Sorry for the side-tracking, but thanks in advance for the link!

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Sorry for the side-tracking, but thanks in advance for the link! [/quote]

It may be 80% as this is all I found. (I only searched for like a minute though) I'm not sure if I can get a better link, but this has some leads if you'd like to look into it. It's not really the point actually.
[quote]studies indicate that up to 80% of conceived embryos naturally fail to implant[/quote]
[url="http://epm.org/articles/pilldebate.html"]http://epm.org/articles/pilldebate.html[/url]



[quote]The mortality rate in early development has no bearing on humanity, else humanity would be fluid according to death rates. would you feel comfortable removing the status of human from 2 year olds if they suddenly averaged 60% mortality? [/quote]
If 2 year olds were dying at that age, I would not be for it. This is because two year olds are not to me reasonably disputed. I don't believe your analogy stands. It may to you but I hope my next explanation will say why I don't think it does even for someone who believes the baby is a person by faith.

But I do agree that just because they are dying, doesn't mean we should let them be killed if they are not reasonably life. In this case, they are reasonably disputed.

Also, I'm not even using that as a proof to prove my case. Only as food for thought and speculation. I can even not mention that and still have my case. That way we could focus more on the main issues.


[quote]I want to go into the disputable life thing insofar as defeding that for the Catholic (non-heretical), it does not enter into the equation. There is no dispute. We Catholics are beholden not only to believe in humanity at conception, but also to defend that humanity. The opinions of others in this matter are to be given no quarter.  [/quote]

I'm not following you here. I'm thinking you don't want to talk about Catholics correct?
[quote]By dispensing with the Catholicity of this, we can avoid arguing whether or not this position is acceptable to a Catholic.[/quote]

I'm thinking you want to discuss how someone can think the baby is a life by faith and still be pro-choice? You want to discuss in general how someone can think this right?

[quote]I believe abortion is murder, but the state should allow abortion because abortion is between a woman and her doctor[/quote]

I thought I explained it in my last post. Can you ask me to explain something specifically that I said? And any other specifics.


I will say one additional thing though. Yes, the Catholic Church's stance is that the baby is a viable human and the choice of the mother should not be allowed, even if by human terms their stance is reasonable. There's no question for a Catholic to think otherwise by nature of the fact that the Catholic Church has said it. I think if you were to speculate outside of what the Catholic Church taught as final, you could make a reasonable claim otherwise. Some one else ccould hold that the reasonableness of the mother's choice could be above a reasonably disputed life. This person is free to think this as they are not Catholic (the only reason they'd have to) and would not, I submit, be a walking contradiction.

Again, ask me something specific in this and the last post and in general. Thanks.

Edited October 28, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Just to bump with a reiteration:

[quote]So this is the main point: he would have to regard the freedom of choice above "reasonably" disputed life even though by faith he holds that life is viable. Again, he recognizes, as an article of personal faith even, the reasonableness and holds freedom of choice above life that is reasonably disputed. I think this is a reasonable stance. (again to reiterate I realize not one a Catholic can make)[/quote]

Here's what someone can say:
I believe that the baby is a human. I believe this on faith. All lives that are not reasonably disputed should not be taken by anyone's personal choice. I recognize that I do not have a way to prove this to the world. I believe that other's reasonably think otherwise.

I recognize that some people do not recognize reason in the dispute. I recognize that some people recognize that other's reasonably think otherwise but do not want to allow them to have the option to choose. These people hold their faith above the other's option to choose.

I believe that it is reasonable on the other hand that some may hold the life is not reasonably a person. And I on the otherhand believe by my faith that they should have the option to choose.


I hope I did that good enough. I have confidence in your intellectuality and honesty. Many times I ask other's if we can agree to disagree and state the position. I don't get responded to. I would like it if you made the statements where we agree to disagree so that I can see if you understand me correctly. You have to agree that we can agree to disagree. (a sour point for those who want to disagree ALL the time ) Or just state my position if you want so that I can see. If you think I'm contradicting myself, explain it and let me respond.

Edited October 29, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c