Legalise abortion

Turtwig · 10-12-2009 03:58AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Malty, welcome back! I'm still waiting on you to clarify what you meant by 'the will to survive'.

I can't quite find the post now, but ARGHHH questioned whether pro-choicers thought the foetus itself would choose self annihilation. This is a falsely loaded emotional appeal. The answer is obvious. If the foetus didn't want to be alive then it wouldn't be around to answer the question, meaning there is only one possibility : the foetus would opt to choose survival. The question itself has implicitiy implied the answer. This is not a valid argument to make, nor is it helpful to the debate. It applies fully developed human attributes to something that clearly doesn't have them, a naturalistic fallacy of sorts.

My reply was simply to state one attribute that the foetus would need in order to make such a decision - which hopefully you now understand that such a measure of will would ultimately be meaningless. Either it has the will to live, or it hasn't. Eitherway, the question becomes meaningless.

drkpower wrote: »

The fact that all modern societies essentially agree with me rather than Nozz that doesnt necessarily make me right, but it makes it more likely!

drkpower wrote: »

The majority of states accord some rights to the embryo/foetus; therefore they clearly believe there is more complexity to the accrual of rights than merely conciousness/sentience. Fairly straightforward, no?!

You have made the case that because numerous people in the world have thought along the same lines as you then it's more probable that you are correct. If you can explain how this is so then I'm all ears, because frankly I don't think the number of people behind an argument affects it's probability of being true or false.

drkpower · 10-12-2009 10:50AM

Malty_T wrote: »

I You have made the case that because numerous people in the world have thought along the same lines as you then it's more probable that you are correct. If you can explain how this is so then I'm all ears, because frankly I don't think the number of people behind an argument affects it's probability of being true or false.

What i said was that it was persuasive support, which, of course, it is:

And I dont use precedent as a reason; I use it as persuasive support. The fact that all modern societies essentially agree with me rather than Nozz that doesnt necessarily make me right, but it makes it more likely!

And to suggest that the fact that the bulk of the world's societies come to a certain view is not support for a certain argument is ridiculoius. As I said, it doesnt necessarily make it right, but it is support for that argument. For instance, the irish courts will not make a certain decision because another country's courts have come to that view, they will make their own decision, but they would consider it as support for that position and may be swayed by it.

That is particularly so where a moral/ethical issue such as the proper conferral of rights is concerned, where there is unlikely to be any independently verifiable right or wrong answer. For who decides what rights are conferred on humans other than humans ourselves? So, patently, the prevalent view throughout society is a very significant issue.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-12-2009 11:36AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't want to point out the obivious flaw in this, but in the case of brain damage (caused by whatever means) these things are destroyed and thus also NOT PRESENT.

This is not a flaw for the position I actually espouse. Read again what I am espousing:

Once the faculty develops the person gets rights and holds on to them until death do they part and in some cases even after death in retrospect which is why we respect wishes such as burial wishes, organ donar wishes (or lack of), and inheritance of assets etc etc.

So your "flaw" is actually wholly contained and dealt with within my position by definition. These are people too, regardless of the damage they have suffered and we have no idea at all what the subjective experience of being them is like.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you don't want someone to question your opinion, don't give it.

Since this is not what I said I do not know what you mean. Please re-read what I wrote and find that I never said I do not want anyone to question my opinion. I said I do not want to pander to people asking ME why someone ELSE holds THEIR opinion. If you want to know this: Ask them.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-12-2009 11:39AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, if we are talking about brain activity, then I have to question what you mean. Originally you spoke of consciousness, then sentience and now brain activity. Which one is it?

Do not over simplify what I said in order to make it look like I have not answered you. I did not just refer to brain activity, but very specifically to the brain activity that is connected to holding beliefs, having ideas and expressing opinions and to the sense of "self" all of which have been studied at the level of the brain at this point. These things are what are inextricably linked to the "person" and our notion of "rights".

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-12-2009 11:44AM

drkpower wrote: »

I am very glad to hear that that you are only claiming that it is your view that conciousness/sentience is the only basis of rights. That's fine. You are, of course, wrong. Rights are in actuality and should be properly assigned based on other criteria also, membership of the human species being one such important criteria. Every society assigns this entity a variety of rights, from a little to a lot.

The sarcasm in your post aside, which I have cut out as it demeans no one except yourself, I still think that just saying "You are wrong" is not exactly a killer argument.

I think it is arrogance, and nothing else, to suggest that "Being a member of the human species" is a basis for rights. What is so special about that in and of itself? All that means is that our evolved chain of DNA is slightly different to that of our nearest evolutionary cousins. Big deal. What is it that makes a small shift in binary coded DNA so special in one case and not in the other? Taxonomy appears to me to be no basis on which to base anything of the sort.

Again I repeat that if it was not for this part of us that holds beliefs, opinions, ideas etc there would not BE a notion of rights to discuss in the first place. People here keep suggesting I am some how elevating this faculty in order to make my argument sound. There would not BE rights without it. It elevates itself inescapably therefore and I am forced to go with that whether I like it or not.

And if it is NOT that that we are assigning rights to... what the hell ARE we assigning it to? Bones? Feet? DNA strands that we have subjectively decided are more important than other DNA strands? I honestly can not see what else we assign rights to OR a basis for doing it and no one so far on this thread has shown one except to just declare by fiat "IF it is human, then it gets them"

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-12-2009 11:55AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

ok so you're cut off point for conciousness is 16 weeke?

Yes, it would be if asked.

metrovelvet wrote: »

1. What is consciousness?

In this context? I would define it as that part of us which holds the sense of self, has ideas, holds opinions on things and can view ideas and hold belief positions on them.

These things are not just known but are measured and experimented on at the level of the brain such as in the example science paper I linked to yesterday where the Neural Correlates of belief were measured and compared.

metrovelvet wrote: »

2. How is it signified to an observer?

An observer does not know what the subjective experience of another is in this sense.

metrovelvet wrote: »

3. How is its absence measured in utero under 16 weeks?

As in the science papers and positions mentioned above, we know the activity that correlates with these aspects of self in the brain. Up to 16 weeks this activity is not only absent, but the generators of them are absent.

To repeat the radio analogy therefore: We know how to look for the radio waves, but those waves are not just absent, the transmitter is not just switched off, but in fact the transmitter has not even been built yet.

drkpower · 10-12-2009 12:00PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There would not BE rights without it. It elevates itself inescapably therefore and I am forced to go with that whether I like it or not.

The foetus aged 26 weeks or the child aged 3 months may possess your ill-defined notion of sentience or conciousness, but left to their own devices, they would and could never come up with a system of rights either. So there could BE no rights without something else, without something more than which a 26 week/foetus 3 month old possesses. So why do they deserve protection?

You go 'inescapably' down that route simply because you fail to listen and understand that sentience/conciousness is not the only issue to consider. You try and simplify a problem that is not capable of simplification. Its that simple.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-12-2009 03:40PM

drkpower wrote: »

The foetus aged 26 weeks or the child aged 3 months may possess your ill-defined notion of sentience or conciousness, but left to their own devices, they would and could never come up with a system of rights either. So there could BE no rights without something else, without something more than which a 26 week/foetus 3 month old possesses. So why do they deserve protection?

You go 'inescapably' down that route simply because you fail to listen and understand that sentience/conciousness is not the only issue to consider. You try and simplify a problem that is not capable of simplification. Its that simple.

The faculty itself exists independent of the ability to use it. You have NO IDEA what the subjective experience of a baby is. If you say you do you are lying, if you think you do you are imagining.

So what their notion of rights or fairness is you are purely imagining. What they think, feel, desire... this is all guess work on your part.

However that ASIDE, the faculty exists in them and it is that faculty which comes up with the notion of rights and there is no evidence of it existing in any other creature anywhere else. It alone out of every part of us is capable of coming up with this idea. I see no problem with stating therefore it is TO this faculty that we assign those rights, regardless of the targets ability to utilize said faculty.

Otherwise what ARE we assigning it to? Taxonomy? Protein that just happened to get lucky and become the DNA we think is special? Human Flesh? Limbs? Organs?

The Corinthian · 11-12-2009 04:02PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Once the faculty develops the person gets rights and holds on to them until death do they part and in some cases even after death in retrospect which is why we respect wishes such as burial wishes, organ donar wishes (or lack of), and inheritance of assets etc etc.

But that is an additional condition, a caveat, to the 'faculty being present'. By that logic no position will ever be false, because all we need do is add caveats to shore up its inadequacies ad infinitum et nausium.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do not over simplify what I said in order to make it look like I have not answered you.

You did. With multiple choice - that's the problem.

I did not just refer to brain activity, but very specifically to the brain activity that is connected to holding beliefs, having ideas and expressing opinions and to the sense of "self" all of which have been studied at the level of the brain at this point. These things are what are inextricably linked to the "person" and our notion of "rights".

Which would mean they lose those rights if they lose them - but that is covered by one of your 'exceptions to the rule' caveats.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The faculty itself exists independent of the ability to use it.

Neurologically? Is this proven?

Otherwise what ARE we assigning it to? Taxonomy? Protein that just happened to get lucky and become the DNA we think is special?

It appears more practical, if nothing else, than the rather fuzzy definition of sentience that you have proposed.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-12-2009 04:10PM

Another Zebra crossing of a post.

Your obsession with caveats and this notion that a position is somehow void if it is not black and white (as I said before even in murder we have numerous caveats and sub-clauses so I guess we should allow murder huh) aside, I still do not know what you even mean here.

My position from the start has been exactly that. The person gets rights once this faculty develops and holds on to them from then on. Again you seem to be calling my whole argument a caveat to itself as this has been what it has been since the start.

The Corinthian · 11-12-2009 04:35PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your obsession with caveats and this notion that a position is somehow void if it is not black and white (as I said before even in murder we have numerous caveats and sub-clauses so I guess we should allow murder huh) aside, I still do not know what you even mean here.

No, you said that killing someone can be classified in different ways, and indeed it can. However premeditated murder is still premeditated murder. If it is not premeditated then the definition does not apply.

I also have never suggested that your definition should be black and white. Sometimes you need caveats, because frankly I don't think any of us probably have the right answer and are just trying to find the best one.

However, I have criticized the insistence to stick by a position that requires multiple caveats for what appears to be the sake of it. In science such theories are abandoned because it becomes obvious that they do not stand up.

My position from the start has been exactly that. The person gets rights once this faculty develops and holds on to them from then on. Again you seem to be calling my whole argument a caveat to itself as this has been what it has been since the start.

I've emboldened your definition for greater clarity.

To begin with, unless you accept that someone can be a person without 'this faculty', the use of the term is at best redundant, if not a tautology.

Secondly, your definition does not appear to limit itself to homo sapiens. I'll assume it is implied, rather than being a pedant over it.

Next you have presented an inadequate definition of 'this faculty'. You've fudged your way around numerous terms and at this stage we appear to have narrowed it down to the neurological development of part of the human brain. Is this correct? I'd rather not address this if not. And if not, what do you mean?

Finally, I am at a loss as to why this is any better a criteria for defining rights than possession of an independent genome. At least the latter is far easier to define or even verify.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-12-2009 04:51PM

So your caveat therefore is to split things into pre-meditated and not. The not is further split into crimes of passion, self defence and so on. Even pre-meditated has sub definitions of degree etc. There just is not simple rule for ANY of our complex morals and why you feel other people suffer from that when they do not is beyond me and even if they do I do not see it as being relevant. Its a lovely world you paint where every moral or legal issue should have one simple caveat free solution to it, but lovely as it is, it is no more than pure fantasy.

And yes my definition DOES apply to homosapiens in that we are the only species that has this notion of rights or apparently even the ability to form them. However I did ask you in the thread much earlier to name me another species that has concepts like “Right to life” but I appear to be still waiting.

Then again I also asked you to name me another source of the notion of “rights” other than the human mind and I am still waiting for that. Further I asked for another part of the human brain that holds these concepts, beliefs and ideas other than those we already know about and which I have identified as being entirely absent in the fetus. Still waiting for that too.

Any one of the three things I am waiting for would of course force me to re-evaluate my position entirely.

The Corinthian · 11-12-2009 05:07PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So your caveat therefore is to split things into pre-meditated and not.

No. You're attempting a straw man argument. We are looking at a basic definition. In this killing someone is pretty clear cut and never changes.

Similarly, if there are caveats to my position they occur after the definition of the 'person'. Just because they are a person, this does not automatically mean that they have a right to life, after all - just as if you kill someone does not automatically mean you are guilty of premeditated murder.

And yes my definition DOES apply to homosapiens in that we are the only species that has this notion of rights or apparently even the ability to form them. However I did ask you in the thread much earlier to name me another species that has concepts like “Right to life” but I appear to be still waiting.

As best as I know, no other speices shares our moral framework. Don't you thing though that it is a bit arrogant to expect them to do so?

So long and thanks for all the fish, might make more sense to them.

Then again I also asked you to name me another source of the notion of “rights” other than the human mind and I am still waiting for that.

Actually there's lots of them. I've offered one, unless you've not been paying attention.

Additionally, 'human rights' have been applied on the basis of race, religion and even gender throughout history.

Further I asked for another part of the human brain that holds these concepts, beliefs and ideas other than those we already know about and which I have identified as being entirely absent in the fetus. Still waiting for that too.

I'm sorry, but it is for you to back up your position, not me. I believe your criteria to be as subjective as using race or religion, so where you 'find' it is frankly irrelevant to me.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-12-2009 05:13PM

So no, you can not name a single law that doesn’t have sub clauses and caveats etc. I really envy you this simplistic world you live in, but it certainly is not the real world the rest of us are in as ALL our complex moral problems have complex answers to them.

Though I think the caveat you add that the caveats are ok so long as they occur WHEN you want them to (such as after the definition of the person) is exceedingly ironic. Caveats are ok for you and no one else, so long as they occur where YOU want them. Lovely. Glad you’re not in power I have to say.

Glad to see however we agree no other species shares our moral frame work. That is the first step on the path to understanding my position. The second is to ask yourself since it only exists in us, what PART of us is it giving them? You have not named a single other source of them. Rocks? Gods? Trees? I am still waiting for one.

Then when you get the answer to that one, ask yourself what generates that part of us.

And if you find the part that generates that anywhere in the fetus < 16 weeks I will happily re-evaluate my position for you and admit I was wrong this whole time. I would hate to hold any non-falsifiable positions after all.

How about I give you the weekend to come up with one...

The Corinthian · 11-12-2009 05:30PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So no, you can not name a single law that doesn’t have sub clauses and caveats etc.

You managed to completely ignore my point. How do you do that?

Though I think the caveat you add that the caveats are ok so long as they occur WHEN you want them to (such as after the definition of the person) is exceedingly ironic. Caveats are ok for you and no one else, so long as they occur where YOU want them. Lovely.

Actually, my definition of a person requires no caveats. If we expand the question as to whether they then deserve rights (or not), then caveats can be required, which is why I will not fall on one side or the other of the question. But the initial argument is pretty self contained, unlike yours.

Glad you’re not in power I have to say.

Try not to rely too much on ad hominem attacks.

Glad to see however we agree no other species shares our moral frame work. That is the first step on the path to understanding my position. The second is to ask yourself since it only exists in us, what PART of us is it giving them? You have not named a single other source of them. Rocks? Gods? Trees? I am still waiting for one.

You ignored, or perhaps did not understand, my rebuttal. What's so special about our moral framework? Dolphins may have their own and we are simply not able to comprehend it.

Then when you get the answer to that one, ask yourself what generates that part of us.

Are you so sure that people generate their own moral framework, or that it is imprinted upon them?

And if you find the part that generates that anywhere in the fetus < 16 weeks I will happily re-evaluate my position for you and admit I was wrong this whole time. I would hate to hold any non-falsifiable positions after all.

Details of that 'part' and what it 'generates' please. You're speaking in far too many vagaries.

metrovelvet · 11-12-2009 05:31PM

This discussion is reminding of driving around the cartesian city of Montpellier. Painfully rational city, but you spend many many kilometres getting nowhere.

drkpower · 11-12-2009 08:46PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However that ASIDE, the faculty exists in them and it is that faculty which comes up with the notion of rights and there is no evidence of it existing in any other creature anywhere else.

You still dont get it!
You seem to think that this faculty just exists in the brain and that therefore when that faculty appears at x weeks, the entity is deserving of protection. But the faculty that 'comes up with the notion of rights' is far more than one single part of the brain. Insofar as it is understood (and it is understood not that well), it is the interaction between different parts of the brain, hormonal influences (some of which are produced by organs in and out of the brain) as well as the influence of external factors.

So, tell me, when does that faculty exist?

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-12-2009 10:59AM

Bit of a let down given how much time I gave you. You still seem to be living in this wonderful world I wish I could join you in where everything is black and white and somehow “caveats” are enough to negate a position, even though the one I espouse here has thus far required none of them anyway.

After that you simply offer that dolphins MAY have one but we do not know it. Great, go do the research, but I do not base arguments or points on might be’s but on what we know actually is. Get more data, such as the concept of rights in dolphins, and I promise I will re-evaluate my position immediately to accommodate the new data. Until then however I am unlikely to be moved on what data you MIGHT find if you look hard enough.

Until then we know exactly which part of us generates this consciousness/sentience and we know at what point of the development of a foetus it is not only not operating in but is not even present in. I have linked you to more than 1 peer reviewed piece of science showing how we know these things and how people measure things like Belief at the level of the brain. So far I am the only one in this thread to even use actual peer reviewed science, though this is not too surprising on a thread where the level of science is such that some people think our gravity comes from the spinning of the earth and was so sure of it that they derided me for even suggesting the majority of people do not know where gravity comes from.

I can quote more if you like and you will also find papers on anaesthetics incredibly interesting in this regard too as we know how they work and how they disrupt consciousness because we DO know what part of the human brain gives us such things. I would highly recommend reading, for example, about how Gamma Coherence in Dendritic Gap Junctions are a huge part of giving humans what we call sentience. Gamma synchronicity is a direct precursor of consciousness as we know it * and I repeat my analogy to Radio from before where my position on this thread is not based on finding the transmitter of such things, or of finding it switched off, but that the transmitter itself is not even built yet…

*E. Roy John PhD, Leslie S. Prichep PhD - 2005

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-12-2009 11:03AM

drkpower wrote: »

You still dont get it!
You seem to think that this faculty just exists in the brain

Strange I would think so when no one here has shown any other source of it aside from the brain?

drkpower wrote: »

So, tell me, when does that faculty exist?

We do not know exactly. This is why, and I have said this numerous times before, I do not base my position on when it exists, but when we can be sure it does not.

There are several precursors to it, that it simply does not operate without. Now once they are present I have NO IDEA when the whole system "boots up" for want of a better word.

This does not mean, at all, that I can not identify a point in time when it simply is not present. I repeat for the umpteenth time my analogy to radio. If I look at a transmitter I have no idea merely by looking at it if it is transmitting or not. I simply can not tell. However if the transmitter is not even built yet and someone says "Well how do you KNOW the radio waves aren't there anyway?" then I feel quite within my rights to laugh at them.

Similar, once the precursors to human consciousness are in place I have no idea what the subjective experience of that entity is. I just do not and I would never pretend to like some people on the thread have already.

However given all those precursors that we know are required are not just not operational, but not PRESENT, I really do not see what the issue is with the rather safe conclusion that consciousness is not present.

The Corinthian · 22-12-2009 10:11AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Bit of a let down given how much time I gave you. You still seem to be living in this wonderful world I wish I could join you in where everything is black and white and somehow “caveats” are enough to negate a position, even though the one I espouse here has thus far required none of them anyway.

If you think that I have been exposing a "black and white" view then I'm afraid you've misunderstood, or simply have not paid attention.

I have criticized your position simply on the basis that it requires a complex combination of exceptions and clauses to hold together, which flies in the face of the principle of Occam's Razor. I've not suggested that the 'truth' should be "black and white" or, for that matter, that we are even in possession of the 'truth', only that we can only judge one to be the best available one.

I've rejected your position on this basis, even before questioning its initial axiom (that we should define a person on their capacity for sentience) in the same way that theories are often discarded in science once it becomes evident that they require too many exceptions to the rule to make them work.

The alternative I gave is simpler and requires few if any caveats. You can question the basic axiom (that we should define a person on their being a genetically distinct homo sapian) but that is another discussion and genuinely could be found flawed too.

In short, both of our positions could be flawed in the end, however yours have more flaws based upon it's over reliance on caveats.

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-01-2010 01:06PM

Well if you think that positions are void or weakened by requirements for clarifications or caveats then one can be forgiven for thinking you are seeking some kind of black & white solution. I can think of very few of our moral laws or legal laws that do not require such things. On top of this considering my position has thus far required none at all, I really am losing track of where it is you actually ARE claiming to come from.

I am not aware of what this “complex combination of exceptions and clauses to hold together” you are referring to actually is nor do I see what it has to do with Occams Razor which is a linguistic tool rather than any principle of proof.

The position I espouse if very simple and exception and clause and caveat free.

1) Rights come from the human mind and appear to exist no where else as a concept or a thing.

2) Since without this faculty there would be no rights, and since we do not appear to assign rights to anything else (DNA, Limbs, Bones, Organs etc) I think it not a leap to say it is TO this faculty we assign rights.

3) Therefore when this faculty arises first in the human foetus I believe these rights are attributable to the foetus, regardless of the level of efficiency a single example of that is running at. Since this does not even START to form, let alone appear in some interim state, until around 20 weeks, I base my opinion on abortion on a safe cut off of 16 weeks.

Where there is a caveat, exception, or clause in there I simply do not know. You keep referring to them in a general sense, but not once actually pointed out what one of them is.

The Corinthian · 05-01-2010 01:28PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well if you think that positions are void or weakened by requirements for clarifications or caveats then one can be forgiven for thinking you are seeking some kind of black & white solution. I can think of very few of our moral laws or legal laws that do not require such things. On top of this considering my position has thus far required none at all, I really am losing track of where it is you actually ARE claiming to come from.

Where did I say a position should have no caveats?

I am not aware of what this “complex combination of exceptions and clauses to hold together” you are referring to actually is nor do I see what it has to do with Occams Razor which is a linguistic tool rather than any principle of proof.

Occam's Razor is a linguistic tool now?

1) Rights come from the human mind and appear to exist no where else as a concept or a thing.

This is an initial premise. Let's accept this for the time being.

2) Since without this faculty there would be no rights, and since we do not appear to assign rights to anything else (DNA, Limbs, Bones, Organs etc) I think it not a leap to say it is TO this faculty we assign rights.

Follows from 1). Grand.

3) Therefore when this faculty arises first in the human foetus I believe these rights are attributable to the foetus, regardless of the level of efficiency a single example of that is running at. Since this does not even START to form, let alone appear in some interim state, until around 20 weeks, I base my opinion on abortion on a safe cut off of 16 weeks.

This is where things become shaky as you fail to give a clear definition of what these qualities are if you are meant to measure them. The mind of a newborn bares little cognitive similarity to a seven year old, let alone an adult, after all - they've not reached the 'age of reason' as it were. Is it that they have the potential to develop such a mind, and if so, why are they excluded prior to this point given the equally have such a potential?

Where there is a caveat, exception, or clause in there I simply do not know. You keep referring to them in a general sense, but not once actually pointed out what one of them is.

Two caveats that you omitted that spring to mind are:

Once rights are gained they cannot be lost even if what defines them is lost (e.g. injury, senility).
Even if a human does not possess some or all the qualities (e.g. the mentally handicapped, infants) required to attain these rights, they may be included.

I would add a caveat on animals (e.g. dolphins, higher primates) who posses such qualities too, but I note you have added human to your definition.

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-01-2010 04:31PM

Another Zebra crossing of a post I see. It is all but unreadable. Suffice to say that yes, Occams razor is not a principle of any merit, but more a linguistic guide. It essentially says that if X works without Y then just work with X. For example since no one has any evidence for a god, and everything appears to work without god, then we can proceed without the notion of god. This, of course, proves nothing about the actual existence of said entity and it would be laughable to present it as evidence for that.

Actually calling on it as a principle to argue for a particular standpoint though is really funny. It is a tool, not a principle or a proof.

The mind of a newborn bares little cognitive similarity to a seven year old

Nor have I ever claimed it does or needs to. Quite the opposite in fact. You appear to be attacking my position based on something it does not claim. Care to re-try?

1. Once rights are gained they cannot be lost even if what defines them is lost (e.g. injury, senility).
2. Even if a human does not possess some or all the qualities (e.g. the mentally handicapped, infants) required to attain these rights, they may be included.

Erm they are not caveats. They ARE the actual position itself that I hold. How can my position be a caveat to itself? LOL. Care to re-try? As for Dolphins, I have seen nothing to suggest that they have a moral framework based on a notion of individual rights. Have you something to link me on for this or is it entirely irrelevant?

The Corinthian · 05-01-2010 05:51PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Another Zebra crossing of a post I see. It is all but unreadable.

Convenient if you are looking to avoid responding to the points made in it.

Suffice to say that yes, Occams razor is not a principle of any merit, but more a linguistic guide.

Except that it isn't. I even supplied a link.

It essentially says that if X works without Y then just work with X.

You need a lot of Y's though, ignoring any alternatives that would be significantly simpler.

Actually calling on it as a principle to argue for a particular standpoint though is really funny. It is a tool, not a principle or a proof.

Of course it is simply a tool and I have never claimed otherwise. Repeatedly I have said that the your need for caveats was indicative of an false position. I've never made any claim of proof.

Nor have I ever claimed it does or needs to. Quite the opposite in fact.

Where have you suggested the opposite? You outlined your position clearly enough that rights are attained with the development of the "human mind" (previously referred to as sentience and conciousness in this thread).

An infant is not capable of conceiving "rights" and as "without this faculty there would be no rights" then it logically should not have rights. Either that or you require a caveat.

Erm they are not caveats. They ARE the actual position itself that I hold. How can my position be a caveat to itself? LOL. Care to re-try?

I'm afraid they are. You ascribe rights to the faculty to conceive them - your points 1 and 2. Those two are examples of where a mind cannot conceive them - thus do not qualify for rights, unless you create a caveat that flies in the face of your initial assertions.

As for Dolphins, I have seen nothing to suggest that they have a moral framework based on a notion of individual rights. Have you something to link me on for this or is it entirely irrelevant?

It's a moot point as you included 'human' in your definition. If you do not limit your definition to homo sapians, then the debate becomes more complex as evidence exists pointing to higher intelligence in dolphins, although whether this translates to an understanding of 'rights' or not or an understanding of 'rights' that is alien to us is another matter.

AARRRGH · 06-01-2010 02:22AM

The Corinthian, it's difficult to read your posts. Maybe just write your arguments in paragraph format.

The Corinthian · 06-01-2010 07:53AM

AARRRGH wrote: »

The Corinthian, it's difficult to read your posts. Maybe just write your arguments in paragraph format.

At this stage in a thread, arguments become very difficult to follow regardless of the format, TBH.

AARRRGH · 06-01-2010 11:55PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

At this stage in a thread, arguments become very difficult to follow regardless of the format, TBH.

True. And at this stage argumenting is pointless as you're not going to convince each other.

chocgirl · 07-01-2010 02:16AM

I think it's amazing that we are still sticking out heads in the sand as a nation. Abortion is another rich/poor divide really. Those who have the means and support can avail of abortions abroad without any great difficulty. It's the less well off and most vulnerable who have no choice, they're having that baby whether they want it, or, can afford it. Sad state of affairs.

Putting personal feelings on abortion aside, this just can't be fair, think access should be there for everyone.

97i9y3941 · 07-01-2010 02:17AM

yes,and as i said the day of holy ireland is dead and gone...

metrovelvet · 07-01-2010 12:49PM

Another telling perspective. I recall a wealtht man making a considerable donation to planned parenthood in the US with the condition that ghe money only be used to subdidize black women seeking abortions.

Legalise abortion

Comments