Abortion

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 133
#31
gugigor
gugigor's avatar
Debates: 41
Posts: 51
0
1
7
gugigor's avatar
gugigor
0
1
7
-->
@Benjamin
here is the problem. Not all humans are equal. When you commit a crime you inherently remove some of your liberties. Similarly, even if you unintentionally intrude on someone, that does not give them an obligation to protect you.

Imagine abortion was like so instead.

Your mother accepts a deal from the devil with unclear conditions. The devil gives her 98% success (contraception rate) in exchange for pleasure. She risks it and unfortunately gets bad luck. Now the devil puts you as a baby inside a void, a different dimension. He develops you such that you do not even have your entire body until 13 weeks. He says your mother has to give you life, nutrients for 9 months while you are unconscious and that you only have 20% chance to make it out alive (fertilization rate). In addition, most times it will not be painful to remove you from the void. It just so happens that the devil will kill you once you are removed. 

Now then, will you force your mother to take care of you during the first 13 weeks, where you are not even fully you? What if the doctor says her life may also be in danger, just as proportional as your life is in danger? We only need to exceed 20% chance possibility to justify beating the devil. What if your mother runs out of money? You certainly would hate your mom for the rest of your life for expelling you from family to live with a richer household. Or forced to live in poverty and suffering. 
#32
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
There are a few things I disagree with in this post, but the fact that you're already talking about definitions showcases just how much the usage of these terms matters. Wasn't it you who said: "We will discuss WHO are humans later, so no need to bring up fetuses yet"? Yet, your argument is that it clearly comes pre-defined, i.e. that what is human is absolutely known. You're essentially trying to cut off debate over what a fetus is now. I agree in the sense that there is a biological basis for understanding what is and is not human, but I guess it depends on the kind of discussion you want to be having. If you want this to be purely biologically-driven, then stick with human. It'll make my stance a lot easier to prove. If you want to include any philosophic arguments, or clearly delineate between an individual human being and an individual human cell, then I'd suggest going with person. I feel like that gives you a much simpler inroad to explaining your position than the one you went with in the previous forum, but I guess you disagree. I'm not sure why you would reduce any human being to not being an individual, but I guess if you want to cover for a point that none of us are going to make, then go with human.
Topic's author
#33
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
It’s a purely scientific determination
Well, the same problem applies to a person. If x regards y as not being a person he can kill y - But that is not ethics, rather it is just subjective (or statical) opinion. An objective, (aka scientific) way to solve the problem is more accurate in its classifications and thus better. We would never click a button to kill something that had a 50% percent chance of being our children, and a 50% chance of being a mouse - even with a million dollars as a reward. Therefore, a scientific definition is better, we must strive to minimize the chance of judging incorrectly. The law of "innocent until proven guilty" also applies here. If there is any uncertainty around your choice to pull the trigger, then you should not do so. As is an idiom in Norway: "it is better than 10 guilty t freed than for 1 innocent to be punished". 




 I believe that the usage of the term “human” could refer to any subset of life from individual skin cells up to individual persons.
I understand your concern. But it also applies to the term person. Person: A human being regarded as an individual.[1-same as above]

So unless you know what a "human being" is, you cannot decide what a person is. Instead of solving the problem, using the term "person" only deepens the problem. That is because we would have two layers of uncertainty instead of one:
a) what is a human being 
b) which human beings are persons.

I see no difference between the two terms, so a change to the words would be a semantic's problem rather than a real solution.


Conclusion: changing the word "human" for "person" cannot solve any of the complications, it just adds a new layer of semantics.


Topic's author
#34
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Yet, your argument is that it clearly comes pre-defined, i.e. that what is human is absolutely known.
Every single thing can be accurately defined by science. However, the absolute answer of science depends on how we define a "human". There is still room for discussion.

In point 2 I just wanted to assure that we are not applying a relativistic model for value, namely that different adults or even adults and children have a different value.


#35
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
Well, the same problem applies to a person. If x regards y as not being a person he can kill y - But that is not ethics, rather it is just subjective (or statical) opinion. An objective, (aka scientific) way to solve the problem is more accurate in its classifications and thus better. We would never click a button to kill something that had a 50% percent chance of being our children, and a 50% chance of being a mouse - even with a million dollars as a reward. Therefore, a scientific definition is better, we must strive to minimize the chance of judging incorrectly. The law of "innocent until proven guilty" also applies here. If there is any uncertainty around your choice to pull the trigger, then you should not do so. As is an idiom in Norway: "it is better than 10 guilty t freed than for 1 innocent to be punished". 
...I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this is in any way responsive to my point. My point was that scientific understanding of what something is doesn't necessarily yield how society should view that thing, yet your entirely argument is built on the premise that society should view the unborn in a specific way. The scientific basis for viewing the unborn is just a warrant on the way to that conclusion. That's where I see the problem in your definition: you're basically saying to take societal perception out of the equation by limiting this to a debate about biology, and then adding it back later without recognizing the clear gap. Maybe you think your Point 1 automatically gets you there, but I assure you that it doesn't, and as I see it, the major problem we're going to encounter in this discussion is that we're going to remain lost in these weeds rather than getting at discrete questions regarding the status of the unborn in society and whether or not it should be altered.

Moreover, just because people can have personal opinions about something doesn't necessarily make those opinions the right ones for a society to impose or allow. Pointing out that there are differences of opinion doesn't mean that there is no perspective that is more valid for a society to utilize. If we are concerned about judging incorrectly, then that concern should absolutely include moralistic arguments. Excluding them in favor of a purely scientific analysis simply because it's more straightforward is just oversimplifying what is a very complex problem. I don't see why I should accept your definition simply because there's less uncertainty to it; if anything, I would say that the word "person" giving us more wiggle room is both beneficial to this debate and more accurate to the realities of this topic.

I understand your concern. But it also applies to the term person. Person: A human being regarded as an individual.[1-same as above]

So unless you know what a "human being" is, you cannot decide what a person is. Instead of solving the problem, using the term "person" only deepens the problem. That is because we would have two layers of uncertainty instead of one:
a) what is a human being 
b) which human beings are persons.

I see no difference between the two terms, so a change to the words would be a semantic's problem rather than a real solution.


Conclusion: changing the word "human" for "person" cannot solve any of the complications, it just adds a new layer of semantics.
Well, then we have a difference in our understanding of these definitions. If you see no difference between the two terms, then I don't know why you're fighting this, but if you do actually see this as a problem solely built on semantics, then you're clearly not understanding my point. There's value in opening up the discussion to issues of what makes a human being and why that is distinct from just having the qualities of being human. I would argue that this is anything but semantic, though. Knowing when a human starts is one question. Knowing when a human being starts is a separate question because it regards how society should view that human. The term "person" applies a philosophical lens that the term "human" does not. If you want to exclude philosophical discussion just because you don't like the inherent discussion of these terms that comes with that, then you're excluding a large portion of the abortion debate on the grounds that it's too difficult to have. Abortion is a thorny subject, and we shouldn't try to smooth it out to make things simpler when the reality is anything but. 

But, again, if you want to use the term human, go ahead. It will focus this debate entirely on biology, and that's my expertise. I'd be happy to engage with questions of what makes a human and how we can delineate. I think it's actually more detrimental to your argument to use the term because a lot of the strength of the pro-life stance resides on the philosophical side of the debate, but if you want to drop that out and try to make the connections to what society should do based solely on biology, then I wish you luck.
#36
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
Every single thing can be accurately defined by science. However, the absolute answer of science depends on how we define a "human". There is still room for discussion.

In point 2 I just wanted to assure that we are not applying a relativistic model for value, namely that different adults or even adults and children have a different value.

Science does absolutely answer "how we define a 'human.'" That's not where the room for discussion lies if you choose to use that term here, but I don't want to get into that too deeply here. If this is what you want, have at it, though I think you're only hurting your argument in the process.
Topic's author
#37
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@gugigor
Your argument is a fallacy of false equivalence.


 When you commit a crime
You show that you do not understand the law. One cannot be convicted for crimes if another person controlled your arm and pulled the trigger. You cannot refuse to be conceived either - so "infringing" on another person by being conceived is a ridiculous statement to make. Additionally, NO, your moral value doesn't drop. If I kill the one that stole my tv that is just as immoral as killing a stranger. Ethics are universal, but you are talking about another part of the social contract - the law and the state. Obviously, an act by a judge is not bound by ethics, it is bound by the law. So your example is not valid.

Spare your abortion arguments for later - right now we are discussing the general problem.

Topic's author
#38
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Why do you think that I will only talk about biology? I will take on philosophy as well. 


But first, let us forget the semantics and just call all adults a part of the group "x" ( it can mean a person or a human or whatever )

There are only two alternatives:
  • All x have an equal value by simply being humans - a dualistic view [1]
  • All x have different values based on individual traits - a relativistic view [2]
I hope you will agree that every one that is x, has equal value. This would mean that a man is not more valuable than a woman, and an adult is not more valuable than a child, and a jew is not less valuable than an "arian". If you read my first post, you see that I only wanted to prove that everyone that falls into the category x has equal value - regardless of their non-x traits. Do you disagree with such a claim? If not, we can proceed to point 3 and talk about the definitions of x.




#39
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
Why do you think that I will only talk about biology? I will take on philosophy as well. 
Because apparently the entire point of selecting "human" over "person" is to simplify the debate by selecting an entirely scientific definition on which to base everything we discuss. If the whole case hinges on a scientific definition that necessarily excludes any discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of how society views individuals, then yes, that's reducing the debate to biology alone. If you're bringing in philosophy, I'd like to see how that meshes with your choice of terminology here. Maybe I'm wrong and you'll find some way to do it, but I can practically guarantee that I'll be pointing to the discrepancy between this definition and some of your points later.

There are only two alternatives:
  • All x have an equal value by simply being humans - a dualistic view [1]
  • All x have different values based on individual traits - a relativistic view [2]
I hope you will agree that every one that is x, has equal value. This would mean that a man is not more valuable than a woman, and an adult is not more valuable than a child, and a jew is not less valuable than an "arian". If you read my first post, you see that I only wanted to prove that everyone that falls into the category x has equal value - regardless of their non-x traits. Do you disagree with such a claim? If not, we can proceed to point 3 and talk about the definitions of x.
Now you're starting to move beyond this portion of our discussion. I don't want to get into the specifics of my views yet because they are not pertinent to the discussion at hand. However, I would modify the first of those alternatives to saying "All x have an equal value by simply being persons" or "...by simply being human beings". On another note, I don't like the use of "individual traits" here, largely because the use of the term "humans" implies that biological traits are the basis for that classification as well, though for other reasons as well. You can argue that all human beings share those traits, and therefore that it is not individualized, but you can't argue that the basis for awarding the classification of "human" is entirely derived from a collection of traits that meet the scientific definition of Homo sapien. So, I guess the answer to your question is that, yes, I do disagree with this pair of alternatives. I think you're framing a false dichotomy that... honestly, isn't even really a dichotomy. It's just a comparison of two different sets of traits as a means to classify what is and is not part of x and, therefore, worthy of equal value.

The reason I'm hung up here is that I feel this is at the core of your argument and I don't want to be arguing this later. I'd like to be able to set this aside and focus on the key differences between our views, but I'm seeing a lot of discrepancies between our views in just this set of assumptions. Maybe that's just me parsing your language to a degree that I shouldn't be, but I've often gotten hung up here in past discussions over abortion, and I feel this is one area where we should be able to find common ground: what factors should and should not be considered when it comes to the value of the unborn? If the only factor that is important to that determination is their humanity, then inherently, your argument is that their physical characteristics should decide that they are worthy of rights. If that's the argument you want to go for, then by all means, go ahead, but don't try to frame this as a dichotomy between selecting traits and not selecting traits because that's not what this is. It's a dichotomy between selecting all the traits that scientists define as uniquely Homo sapien and arguing that they are sufficient to award basic human rights, and selecting a more specific set of traits to examine what makes one worthy of basic human rights. If you're fine with that comparison, then we can move on, but in doing so, you accept that this a debate between humanity as assigned by biology and personhood as further narrowed down by other factors. Hence my problem with defining this solely based on the definition of "human." 
Topic's author
#40
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
I am overwhelmed by the sheer amount of text you wrote.




Now you're starting to move beyond this portion of our discussion.
No. I am returning to the start of point 2.

 I don't want to get into the specifics of my views
Ok, I understand.

Simple question: is a man and a woman equally valuable? (assuming that the man is smarter, has a more developed personality and is kinder - all other things being equal)

In other words: is moral value a yes or no question or is it a variable?
#41
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
Simple question: is a 13-year-old boy equally valuable to a 67-year-old lady?

In other words: is moral value a yes or no question or is it a variable?
Again, you're oversimplifying, and now you're doing so from yourself. If your argument is that "if you are born into the world alive, you are warranted the same human rights as any human throughout their lives," then the answer is yes. The argument that "all humans have equal value" has far broader application.
Topic's author
#42
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
Again, you're oversimplifying
That's the core of any ethical discussion.

Tell me the answer, do you regard two adults that are quite different to have the same moral value.
Topic's author
#43
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Please answer with a yes or no - I will regard a long answer as a NO. 
#44
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
I am overwhelmed by the sheer amount of text you wrote.
...It's 3 paragraphs, all focused on the same issue and almost all with the same point, just further explicated.

Simple question: is a man and a woman equally valuable? (assuming that the man is smarter, has a more developed personality and is kinder - all other things being equal)

In other words: is moral value a yes or no question or is it a variable?
Again, seems overly simplified, not to mention tangential to our discussion. There is nothing inherent to the differences between the male and female sexes that should reduce their value as human beings. Being smarter, more developed, or better to others doesn't increase or decrease your access to human rights.

As for answering the second question, that seems entirely separate. I'd say that all moral value is a yes or no question. It's setting a bar and saying that if you reach said bar, you obtain said moral value. That's true regardless of your position on this topic. There are very few people who would argue that moral value is so completely variable that there isn't a yes/no dichotomy at play in awarding said value.


#45
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: you're oversimplifying the issue. There's a difference between setting an issue down to the core principles that underpin a disagreement and oversimplifying it to the point that you're excluding large swaths of points that affect those disagreements. If you think me giving you long answers means that you can simplify my points away, then I don't know why you've bothered asking us to provide feedback on each of these points in the first place. A "yes" or "no" answer would neuter any meaningful points that could be made.
Topic's author
#46
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
I am sorry for oversimplifying things. But once we get the facts on the table - first then can we have a meaningful debate.


Topic's author
#47
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
...It's 3 paragraphs
Yet in this discussion, a single sentence can carry enormous weight.



Being smarter, more developed, or better to others doesn't increase or decrease your access to human rights.
I assume by "access to human rights" you mean moral value? Because they basically have the same definition: "entitlement to moral treatment"




There is nothing inherent to the differences between the male and female sexes that should reduce their value as human beings.
Let us say that personA has moral value because he has enough of x - let's say personhood. What if PersonB has more of x, is he not more valuable?


 I'd say that all moral value is a yes or no question.
I agree. So during the entire life of a person, his moral value is constant.
#48
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
I am sorry for oversimplifying things. But once we get the facts on the table - first then can we have a meaningful debate.
If these assumptions underpin everything we discuss going forward, then they affect that meaningful debate.

Yet in this discussion, a single sentence can carry enormous weight.
I am verbose and probably could have explained my issues in fewer words, but I don't think the length made my points any less clear or important to cover.

I assume by "access to human rights" you mean moral value? Because they basically have the same definition: "entitlement to moral treatment"
Frame it however you want, it's the same meaning in this context.

Let us say that personA has moral value because he has enough of x - let's say personhood. What if PersonB has more of x, is he not more valuable?
Not making that argument. Like you said, it's a yes/no circumstance. It either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, they are not accorded the same value. If it does exist, in any amount, then it does accord them said value.

I agree. So during the entire life of a person, his moral value is constant.
If we're sticking with "person," then yes, I would agree to that.
Topic's author
#49
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
I would prefer if we use concentrated statements instead of paragraphs to fulfil the purpose of expressing a simple idea. Simply because that allows us to disagree and use logic. It would be impossible to take any of your paragraphs and say "this is wrong" since the paragraph is too large to be tested logically. At the very least summarize your points into precise statements that can easily be rebutted or changed by the opponent.

Sorry this should have come 2 minutes earlier.
Topic's author
#50
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
during the entire life of a person, his moral value is constant.
If we're sticking with "person," then yes, I would agree to that.
It's settled then. Age is not a factor with regards to moral value. 

Since age is already a major factor in other traits, I would extend that to every other trait like sex, strength, mental capacity and even psychology.

In other words, I claim that all "x" are equally valuable. I can quote the UN to support my claim:
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.
Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination. [https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]

#51
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
If the goal is to provide my stance on an argument, I will summarize it as best I can. If the goal is to challenge a supposition in your arguments, I can't guarantee that I can do that. Challenging an argument often requires more explication. If you do take issue with what I say, then you can respond in kind. Again, simplicity for its own sake seems problematic to me in this context. That being said, if you want me to distill my issues down to a single sentence, then I'll restate a point I made earlier:

The debate as a whole regards a dichotomy: selecting all the traits that scientists define as uniquely Homo sapien as sufficient to award basic human rights vs. selecting a specific set of traits that go beyond the scientific definition of Homo sapien as sufficient to award those human rights.

#52
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
during the entire life of a person, his moral value is constant.
If we're sticking with "person," then yes, I would agree to that.
It's settled then. Age is not a factor with regards to moral value. 
Age beyond exiting the womb is not a factor. On that we agree. Also, note the usage of "person" here in place of "human."
#53
gugigor
gugigor's avatar
Debates: 41
Posts: 51
0
1
7
gugigor's avatar
gugigor
0
1
7
-->
@Benjamin
Whiteflame's thought process can be explained like so.

1. All humans born deserve the same rights.
2. However, not all humans have equal value, depending on what they have accomplished or relations with other people

#54
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@gugigor
That latter point is inaccurate. I'm not arguing that value should change depending on accomplishments or relations. I haven't defined specifically how I view personhood, though that's actually besides the point here. My argument is that we shouldn't constrict this debate to solely being about biological humanity and how that affects access to human rights.
Topic's author
#55
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Age beyond exiting the womb is not a factor. Also, note the usage of "person" here in place of "human."
This to me seems like an indirect argument. You imply that a person is "a human being that has been born".



Age is never a factor with regards to value. An animal is never getting more valuable regardless of age, neither is a fetus.

Therefore, moral value is granted at the specific moment where a non-person thing becomes a person.

#56
gugigor
gugigor's avatar
Debates: 41
Posts: 51
0
1
7
gugigor's avatar
gugigor
0
1
7
-->
@Benjamin
right, in terms of my point of view. The fetus gains the moral value when it actually is born
#57
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 3,198
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Benjamin
Dude, you used the term "person" earlier, not me. And you're using it again here. Have you decided that you don't have any issue with the usage of "person" in place of "human" and, if so, why are we still discussing this?

I've now clarified several times what I mean by person, and no, that was not what I said. Separately, I said that a human that has been born into the world alive is deserving of the same rights as any other living human born before them. I didn't say that personhood doesn't extend at all into any portion of gestation. In fact, I'm leaving that door wide open so that you can argue that personhood applies before birth.
Topic's author
#58
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@gugigor
that's for later. Remember we talk about persons in general - and the specifics of each view is a later topic.
Topic's author
#59
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
I apologize if I insulted you or you felt personally attacked.


Topic's author
#60
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 91
Posts: 816
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@whiteflame
Conclusion:
Moral value is not granted on the basis of personal traits, but because you are a person. It is constant and granted exactly when a non-person-thing become a person.



Unless any further objections are raised I conclude point 2 and we can move on.