recedite wrote: » What's your cut-off point? A week after birth, a week before birth, a month before.... We're back to the same old chestnut; at what point does humanity begin, and when does a human get some human rights. Obviously we're not all going to agree on that.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » If a woman is pregnant and her life is in danger and if the fetus is viable then a scesarian can be performed. If its a 12 weeks lump of cells then an abortion should be carried out.
Kidchameleon wrote: » In our lifetime, we could well find ourselves in a situation where that 12 week lump of cells is viable...
amcalester wrote: » Why do you think either should be able to end it? Is it safe to assume both parties were aware of what was happening and agreed to it?
amcalester wrote: » If so, why should 1 get to unilaterally decide to take an action that the other doesn’t agree with or isn’t aware of?
Kidchameleon wrote: » Perhaps one of them just changes their mind. If it is just a lump of cells then whats the harm? Sure, the party that wants the fetus to develop will be disappointed but there will be no physical harm to them. That's the fascinating thing, we already have a similar scenario in that a woman can have an abortion without the consent of the father. I am not saying women should have to seek permission from fathers, I am merely pondering the scenario. Should men have some kind of say in these situations?
amcalester wrote: » No harm, except that they’ll be breaking an agreement. Contract law would apply here. They’re not similar at all.
Kidchameleon wrote: » As already stated, no contracts in this scenario. If one party wants to end the life of the lump of cells, whats the problem?
Kidchameleon wrote: » Using imaginary scenarios is a common tool of philosophical and intellectual discussion but if you wish, we will stop. It was not me who changed any goal posts, I gave a simple hypothetical scenario and rather than face the moral implications, other posters brought in contracts and aliens etc..The scenario sheds light on the weakness of the clump of cells safety net, I understand that it makes people uncomfortable. Going forward, try to be more honest with yourselves. Lastly, we live in a world that already contains artificial wombs. It is only a matter of time before the scenario I set out becomes reality.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » It really doesn't, people have answered your question for the said scenario and when you didn't like the answer you chose to shift the goalposts to make your question unanswerable.
Kidchameleon wrote: » Id love to discuss it further with you but its not going to happen here.
Cabaal wrote: » Statistically the chances of other life in the universe or even in our own Galaxy is actually pretty high. Many different species even on earth uses other species as hosts for their off spring so an alien species doing the same isn't all that crazy.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » That's your choice but we both know that in your scenario (wether you like it or not) that eventuality would be covered in a contract.
Calina wrote: » I find it difficult to understand why someonr who is prochoice regarding a woman and an abortion feels the need to move forward with thought experiments that seem designed to counter that decision.
Calina wrote: » we already allow IVF potentials not to complete in all cases as it were..
Calina wrote: » IMO the objective here is to force an admission that in this particular case a termination should not be allowed and then use that to imply it should not be allowed when the womb is inside a woman. For this reason it is clear why the poster constantly needs to assert they are prochoice. A good chunk of their recent posts have an objective of being anti-abortion. It is an interesting dichotomy.
Kidchameleon wrote: » Of course there would be but that is not the purpose of the imaginary scenario. Blatant sidestepping.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » So your imaginary scenario is fine and you expect us to reply to that yet you then dismiss a different imaginary scenario because?
Cabaal wrote: » So the purpose of imaginary scenario is to ignore all aspects of reality? :rolleyes: What good is your scenario if its not based in a little bit in reality? No business would provide such a service without a contract, for you to continue to claim no contract exists is as silly as me claiming aliens used humans as hosts. You might like to claim to know how a contract works, but its amusing to watch you claim no contract would exist in your imaginary scenario. This to me suggests you don't understand the importance or need for contracts.
Kidchameleon wrote: » Its amusing to watch you try to squirm out of the moral issue at hand
Cabaal wrote: » Hardly. The ability to take any action on the artificial womb silly example you've given would depending on what was laid out on the contract for the service. This contract would also determine WHO can make decisions. Accordingly your claim that somebody can walk off the street and make the decision is utter nonsense and false. The contract would be inline with the laws in the country the services are provided in as well. This is very obvious and basic stuff. For a person who claims they are pro choice I'd have to question the accuracy of your statement and I'd be more inclined to believe that you are making a false claim in this regard. Your posts simply do not support your claimed position as they come across as the normal pro-life moving the goalposts stuff we've all encountered before.
Kidchameleon wrote: » Well you got me there, well done. Off to mass now, bye.
Cabaal wrote: » So the purpose of imaginary scenario is to ignore all aspects of reality? :rolleyes: What good is your scenario if its not based in a little bit in reality?
Kidchameleon wrote: » The clue is in the title, it is an IMAGINARY scenario , it is not meant to be real. They have been used in philosophical discussion since the dawn of man. Their purpose is to strip a thought process down to its core components. have you ever read about Schrödinger's cat?
Calina wrote: » For them to work, they need an element of plausibility. Reductio ad absurdum is not always enlightening especially not in life or death discussions. Your artificial womb provided by a company which does not have governance is really not even close to Schrodinger's Cat in that respect. We had a big long discussion about how laws mattered here lately so context matters significantly. What is the context of a contract free service like this? It is either a completely libertarian world or absolute anarchy or some other such context. These discussions cannot be held in a black and white zone because the decisions in the real world are driven by the grey area of reality. That means sometimes the same decision may be right and sometimes it may be wrong. In that respect it aligns with Schrodinger in a way that your thought experiment does not. You are looking for an arbitrary decision where one may not always be wise.
Kidchameleon wrote: » Schrodinger's cat is a perfect example of a scenario the does not obey any laws, it is far more unreal than mine. Its purpose is to fuel intellectual thought & discussion. If Schrodinger himself came to the A&A forum and tried to make a point using his cat scenario, everyone here (except myself and one or two others it seems) would miss his point by spouting "but but but your cat cant be alive and dead at the same time, that so stuuuuupid! be real man!"
You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest.
