|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2001 : 15:42:07 [Permalink]
|
Viability is my choice. Modern medicine makes that earlier and earlier, but viability is a pretty good standard.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 16:12:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I believe that you will agree that a fertilized egg is, in fact, alive.
I would agree that it was alive in the same sense that a sperm is alive.
It seems to me that people are drawing arbitrary lines on when it becomes a "baby". I would just like some reasoning behind peoples' choices. Surely a fertilized egg doesn't meet the standards of a "baby".
Hear hear! I'd love to hear the reasoning behind people's choices.
Honestly, I cannot think of any way to draw a sharp line w/o engaging in some arbitrary or subjective reasoning. Alas it seems that the universe flaty just refuses to provide us with any sharp distinctions, or absolute moral standards. We'll have to make it up ourselves.
I picked third trimester unborn for three primary reasons:
1) Viability: The baby can live outside the womb.
2) Sensory development: Abortion is not painless killing at this neurologically advanced stage, it is torturous.
3) Elapsed time: The woman has had plenty of time for an abortion on demand before the baby fulfilled the above two criteria.
The relevant moral principles I've considered are human empathy, the immorallity of inflicting gratuitious suffering on a sentient being, moral autonomy, and a few others. I can be more detailed if necessary.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 17:55:19 [Permalink]
|
I can't think of much to add to tergiversant's posting. I particularly agree with quote:
... [there's no] way to draw a sharp line w/o engaging in some arbitrary or subjective reasoning. ...
My arbitrary and subjective reasoning would use pretty much the same guidelines as his, also (viability, development and elapsed time).
I would only add that those considerations would cause me to draw *my* arbitrary line a little earlier than 3rd trimester. I think I have read that both viability and development (feeling of pain) occur earlier.
I'd have a hard time advocating the placement of the line after the baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) has developed the ability to feel pain.
Perhaps that's squeamishness on my part, rather than a 'cold' decision based on fact.
In any regard, it's a monumentally tough decision...and I wish we as a society did more in the way of counseling 'carrying' women (and husbands/SOs, if they're part of the picture) before, during and after.
"If in the last few years you haven't discarded a major opinion or acquired a new one, check your pulse. You may be dead." |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 19:31:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
the immorallity of inflicting gratuitious suffering on a sentient being
(Does "gratuitous" fit here?)
This is a subject that I have great interest in.
Do you consider a baby "sentient"?
This may be a new thread I'd like to start, but I'm not sure where to put it... About when a human becomes "sentient", and about inflicting pain, and how it differs from fetuses and babies, and animals, and how this impacts "morality".
Circumcision would be a good example to discuss. Is it immoral, when the baby is maybe, arguably, not necessarily "self-aware", and doesn't remember the pain anyway? Is the memory of pain what is really "immoral" about infliction of it, or is it the actual infliction?
I've said too much in this thread, sorry, any suggestions on where to start a separate thread, or if there is even any interest in discussing it?
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/22/2001 19:32:30 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2001 : 21:12:15 [Permalink]
|
Anyone remember the TV show "Silent Scream" from the 80s? They used film showing bio-matter in a womb reacting to things and it was said to be pain that it was reacting too. What it was was a reaction that things like an ameoba might make uncer similar circumstances.
The circumsion thing goes way beyond the immediate pain the babies feel. They are chopping off the part with the most nerve endings!! I have done a lot of reading on this issue(was considering writing something on it for SFN a while back) and what parents do unknowingly has made me sick.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 05:54:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They are chopping off the part with the most nerve endings!!
Don't rub it in, I don't want to know how much I'm missing! 
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 07:40:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I believe that you will agree that a fertilized egg is, in fact, alive.
I would agree that it was alive in the same sense that a sperm is alive.
It seems to me that people are drawing arbitrary lines on when it becomes a "baby". I would just like some reasoning behind peoples' choices. Surely a fertilized egg doesn't meet the standards of a "baby".
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
My reasoning behind a collection of cells becoming a baby starts with the first brain impulses of a seperate entity. I believe the brain is the "attachment" point of the soul. Without a functioning brain, there is no soul to be particularly concerned with.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 07:43:55 [Permalink]
|
I'm going to ask your indulgence to wade through some stream of consciousness stuff prior to getting to my real question, but it's necessary to understand it when I get there. I also ask you to indulge me when it seems as if I'm posting in the wrong thread; the questions at the end will make it clear why I've posted here.
I find myself reviewing and possibly discarding a major opinion just as Zman's signature recommends.
Bacground:
1. I am a pro-lifer (or 'anti-deather', perhaps?), though not absolutely. I approach it in much the same way that Zman and Terg do, though I draw my 'line' a bit earlier--still, it's based on viability and sensory development. I also recognize that exceptions must/will be made, even past that line.
2. I have always been of the opinion that there is an immutable 'core' morality, though it may be unknowable in its totality. I have also believed that separate from this immutable core, there are (and have been) changeable (possibly fungible) 'add-on' morals to suit the society that created them. Further, I have believed and observed that moral intent can lead to immoral actions and immoral intent can lead to moral actions.
The opinion that I am in danger of discarding is this second one about morality. Over in the "Is There Evil?" thread, three major ideas regading the source of morality have been posited:
1. God
2. Majority opinion
3. The mighty
As an atheist, I long ago discarded number one, so with no disrespect for Nubiwan intended, I will not address it here.
Some on the other thread have sometimes mixed the other two ideas (majority and might) as if they are interchangeable, but I believe they are distinct and separate.
It is possible for the majority to have an idea of morality that is different from the idea put forward by a mightier minority. If the mighty minority succeeds in putting its ideas in the forefront, are they by definition moral until such time as the oppressed majority overthrows their ideas, at which point the new ideas become, by definition, the new morality? Of course, if 'might' and 'majority' happen to coincide, then it is a happy day for morality which is then both popular and well-enforced.
Along those lines, if there is a person or group with the physical ability to impose its morality when the prevailing morality differs, is it obligated to do so? Is the failure to use 'might' an immoral act or an abdication of moral authority?
In this light, are catacylsmic events such as World War II simply morality's evolution? In another, more substantive, sense, is morality simply evolution in intellectual/emotional guise? Genes that promote the species are favored and prosper--so, too, for morals?
So are morals, then, merely those codes which best provide for the continuation of the species? The individual?
And now the REAL question, and the reason I've posted on this thread instead of the "Is there Evil?" thread:
If you subscribe to the idea that the source of morals is either the majority or the mighty, and if you have ANY belief regarding abortion, why invest any effort in rationalizing your opinion? If you are pro-choice, would it not be just as effective to say, "Abortions should be legal because we've MADE them legal" (since Roe v. Wade is, IMO, a form of 'might') or "Abortions should be legal because most of us think so." Use the obverse for pro-life arguments.
Or even more convincingly, should one side or the other say "Abortion rights are good/bad because they contribute to the viability of the species"?
And finally, my disclaimer:
I have written this off the top of my head with no revision except for obvious spelling and grammar errors, so forgive any glaring flaws (not that you can't point them out, as I'm sure you will). I recognize that these points have been discussed in some form in other threads, but not, I think, in this context, and I feel it important to reconcile philosophical ideas with practical application. I also recognize that this idea has certainly been discussed outside this board by greater philosophers than I; but since I'm not them, please forgive any sophomoric statements and use it as an opportunity to educate me. As I said at the beginning, I'm reviewing some significant opinions. As such, keep in mind that none of what I have said is intended as an attack or criticism, but as an avenue to learn something (meaning for ME to learn something), and nothing I have said is said flippantly.
That's it. Sorry it rambles, but I'm leaving it as is anyway.
Thoughts? Attacks?
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 08/23/2001 07:48:19 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 09:23:38 [Permalink]
|
First of all, I took quite a while to respond to this post. It was well thought out and I had to think about the questions Garette had for a long time. There is nothing in this post that I would characterize as being sophmoric. I will attempt to answer the questions put forth to the best of my ability.
Second, I use some terms a little differently than others. I will define two terms here that will come into play later in this response.
1) Morals -- a set of behaviors that you expect others to abide by but not nessassarily expect yourself to abide by.
2) Ethics -- a set of behaviors that you expect yourself to abide by but not nessassarily expect others to abide by.
quote:
2. I have always been of the opinion that there is an immutable 'core' morality, though it may be unknowable in its totality. I have also believed that separate from this immutable core, there are (and have been) changeable (possibly fungible) 'add-on' morals to suit the society that created them. Further, I have believed and observed that moral intent can lead to immoral actions and immoral intent can lead to moral actions.
The opinion that I am in danger of discarding is this second one about morality. Over in the "Is There Evil?" thread, three major ideas regading the source of morality have been posited:
1. God
2. Majority opinion
3. The mighty
I would suggest here a fourth item. A well orginized, vocal minority coupled with an apathetic majority. Such seems to be the case for American politics. Although I can see a case for saying that being well orginized makes them powerful in the face of an apathetic majority. I tend to think of Kings, Senators, Presidents, and large Corporations when the term the mighty comes to mind.
quote:
Some on the other thread have sometimes mixed the other two ideas (majority and might) as if they are interchangeable, but I believe they are distinct and separate.
It is possible for the majority to have an idea of morality that is different from the idea put forward by a mightier minority. If the mighty minority succeeds in putting its ideas in the forefront, are they by definition moral until such time as the oppressed majority overthrows their ideas, at which point the new ideas become, by definition, the new morality? Of course, if 'might' and 'majority' happen to coincide, then it is a happy day for morality which is then both popular and well-enforced.
Along those lines, if there is a person or group with the physical ability to impose its morality when the prevailing morality differs, is it obligated to do so? Is the failure to use 'might' an immoral act or an abdication of moral authority?
Good point here. I believe that situational ethics come into play at this point. The powerful minority must weigh how important thwarting majority opinion is to an end. Any time morality is in question, the subject tends to be highly emotionally charged. The powerful minority may be pulled down by the majority through boycott, rebellion, or public ridicule.
quote:
In this light, are catacylsmic events such as World War II simply morality's evolution? In another, more substantive, sense, is morality simply evolution in intellectual/emotional guise? Genes that promote the species are favored and prosper--so, too, for morals?
So are morals, then, merely those codes which best provide for the continuation of the species? The individual?
In this case, morals evolve with the society. The static or changing nature of morals are what best serves the society. Instead of being codes to best preserve the individual or species, it best preserves the society and order of that society. What is war, anyway, but the morally acceptable form of murder to bring about a societal change.
quote:
And now the REAL question, and the reason I've posted on this thread instead of the "Is there Evil?" thread:
If you subscribe to the idea that the source of morals is either the majority or the mighty, and if you have ANY belief regarding abortion, why invest any effort in rationalizing your opinion? If you are pro-choice, would it not be just as effective to say, "Abortions should be legal because we've MADE them legal" (since Roe v. Wade is, IMO, a form of 'might') or "Abortions should be legal because most of us think so." Use the obverse for pro-life arguments.
Or even more convincingly, should one side or the other say "Abortion rights are good/bad because they contribute to the viability of the species"?
As morals serve only the society and order of that society, I don't believe you can make the arguement of betterment of the species. Personal ethics may disagree with societal morals and it is the conflict of these which drive societal and personal change. It is for that reason that rationalizing any decision in order to present it to others is nessassary.
quote:
And finally, my disclaimer:
I have written this off the top of my head with no revision except for obvious spelling and grammar errors, so forgive any glaring flaws (not that you can't point them out, as I'm sure you will). I recognize that these points have been discussed in some form in other threads, but not, I think, in this context, and I feel it important to reconcile philosophical ideas with practical application. I also recognize that this idea has certainly been discussed outside this board by greater philosophers than I; but since I'm not them, please forgive any sophomoric statements and use it as an opportunity to educate me. As I said at the beginning, I'm reviewing some significant opinions. As such, keep in mind that none of what I have said is intended as an attack or criticism, but as an avenue to learn something (meaning for ME to learn something), and nothing I have said is said flippantly.
That's it. Sorry it rambles, but I'm leaving it as is anyway.
Thoughts? Attacks?
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 08/23/2001 07:48:19
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 10:29:11 [Permalink]
|
I think you left the "Individual" off the list. I can have "morals" that no one else on the entire earth shares, but they are still valid morals. No one else may agree with them, but does that matter?
Only if you think morals are absolute, which I don't.
I'm not sure if you are defining a line between morals and laws here, though. One can argue that "I think abortion should be illegal, because I believe life begins at conception, and it is immoral to end a life." This is a valid moral argument, even if the majority or the mighty, or even a vocal minority disagree with it.
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 10:36:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you left the "Individual" off the list. I can have "morals" that no one else on the entire earth shares, but they are still valid morals. No one else may agree with them, but does that matter?
What do you mean by "valid" in this usage? If your wife just had a baby and you decide that you have too many children already so you are going to bash the head of the new baby in so that the rest of the family can have more food is that valid? To you and your family yes, perhaps. I mention that because it really happens and is accepted in some places on Earth. Abortion is not always easy to come by, eh. This is behavior that increases the families chance at survival...is this wrong?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 10:46:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What do you mean by "valid" in this usage?
Valid, as in "meets the definition of the word 'morals'". Not that it is right or wrong, or in the best interests of this or that.
quote:
If your wife just had a baby and you decide that you have too many children already so you are going to bash the head of the new baby in so that the rest of the family can have more food is that valid?
To use this to clarify what I meant above, you are using the word "valid" differently than I meant it. You are asking if it is "right". And you answered appropriately, in my opinion. It depends on the situation, and on individuals' opinions on what is right and wrong, and what is the greater good, etc.
Very complicated stuff...
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 10:56:43 [Permalink]
|
Heh, yes it is very complicated. I think we should refer everyone to the Politics Forum for examples on differing ideas of morality 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 11:32:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Personal ethics may disagree with societal morals and it is the conflict of these which drive societal and personal change. It is for that reason that rationalizing any decision in order to present it to others is nessassary
I almost agreed, but find that I have to ultimately disagree. The rationalization is only necessary if one of the parties debating the issue does not subscribe to the theory that morality (maybe I should say ethics--I'm not sure) has as its source either might or majority. If both have this opinion, then rationalization is extraneous and irrelevant. Or am I missing something?
(I'll get to other points as my brain wraps around 'em).
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2001 : 11:36:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you left the "Individual" off the list. I can have "morals" that no one else on the entire earth shares, but they are still valid morals. No one else may agree with them, but does that matter?
Only if you think morals are absolute, which I don't.
Well, that last sentence is why I asked these questions.
I left "Individuals" off the list for two reasons:
1. They weren't posited on the other thread as a source.
2. I don't see them as a source of morality because if they are, the implication is that there are NO societal or species-wide morals which, I think, leads back to the idea of might making right. Still off the top o' me head, though, so could be wrong, eh?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
