The "hosts of others" I speak of are the scientists and academics who agree with the reasoning of these people. Notice the institutions that have been associated with these names. Vanderbelt, MIT, Princeton,...-- these are not just of fringe quacks these people are teaching at the top universities around the county. I don't want to sound paranoid. There are just as many who argue against these views, like bioethicist Hadley Arkes. I know I provided a small sample of names but I know there are many within the academic realm who adhere to this thinking.
Abortion...
by Lostreality 215 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
SixofNine
GenericMan, I'm not finding Stephen Pinker argueing for infanticide anywhere either. Could you provide a (direct) quote.
-
GenericMan
I'm not saying that its the sole argument against abortion. What I said is that many arguments in favor of abortion are flawed in that they allow infantcide to be logically possible.
-
GenericMan
"GenericMan, I'm not finding Stephen Pinker argueing for infanticide anywhere either. Could you provide a (direct) quote." I apologize, in Pinker's case, he said that as far as biologists are concerned, birth is as insignificant as any other event. Nevermind I have to correct myself.
-
Odrade
Hmmm, I said that you were using this argument to support your position against abortion, not that it was your SOLE support. Out of context again. What a great philosopher. Aren't the greatest philosophers committed to intellectual honesty? Maybe you are not really interested in the philosophy portion, but rather the sophomoric portion.
I wonder how many other ideas (including those of scientists) you have taken out of context and twisted by quoting only an elipsed fraction of the true intent? Well, we've already seen one of your three...
-
Cassiline
The violinist argument is just nonsense. One could equally argue that abortion is a good idea because "the next Hitler" was prevented from being born. Wouldn't aborting him have been a *good thing*? ... See what a poor argument it is?
Simon I do not believe that this is what is being said. His argument IMO ( or what I focus on) is the choice one may not make in being pregnant when they do become so. He even argues that even someone who is born who will not make anything out of their lives are not to be automatically aborted if you will.
What if you attended a symphony concert, and then the following morning when you awoke found yourself connected by a machine to the solo violinist from the concert that night? Suppose the doctors present explained to you that you are the only chance for survival that this man has, and that he will have to be connected to you for nine months, or he will die. Would you not find this a terrible impingement upon your rights? Would you not feel that this imposition was too much to ask? Would you not insist that you be disconnected from the violinist?
I would oppose the unjustified killing of an unborn child even with the certainty that he would amount to little in the course of his life.
-
Cassiline
My arguments are not an appeal to religious belief. It is plausible to be against abortion and not be religious. My argument is about fairness. It is not fair for one child to die and for another to live based on the choices of their parents. It is not fair for one child to die and for another to live based on the choices of their parents.
Is it fair to ask a women to put her own life at risk or die because she has found herself pregenant if she did not make the choice to become so?
Cassi
-
GenericMan
Odrade said in two posts:
1st Post
"It's one thing to debate philosophically the idea and impact of infanticide. It's another thing to say that pro-choice individuals are in favor of it. Your insistence that this is a legitimate argument NOT to support the right to choose is unbelievably misguided. Not one person in this thread has even insinuated they support infanticide. If you went down to planned parenthood, (which is a pro-choice organization) and asked if they supported infanticide, they would probably call the police. In fact many of us have said that although we support the right to have safe abortions in certain circumstances, we do not support third trimester abortion unless death is imminent for mother or fetus. This is the age when the fetus becomes viable, with medical support. How can you translate that into a possiblility of argument for infanticide?
An academic discussion of a philosophical question does not necessarily mean the parties are in favor of the argument, and even if there are a few that are... well, there are indeed people who hold ridiculous and extremist views that the vast majority of the population would find repugnant. Using these extreme ideas to support your argument is nothing even close to good scholarship, and only displays your reactionary attitude to a very legitimate discussion."
2nd Post
"Hmmm, I said that you were using this argument to support your position against abortion, not that it was your SOLE support. Out of context again. What a great philosopher. Aren't the greatest philosophers committed to intellectual honesty? Maybe you are not really interested in the philosophy portion, but rather the sophomoric portion."
I wonder how many other ideas (including those of scientists) you have taken out of context and twisted by quoting only an elipsed fraction of the true intent? Well, we've already seen one of your three..."
I never said that all pro-choicers argue in favor of infantcide. What I meant was that alot of arguments in favor of abortion are flawed because they can also be used as arguments for abortion. I was not attempting to provide a knock-out argument against abortion. Heres what I said in another post:
"I believe Roe vs. Wade to be an atrocity because Judge to it upon themselves to separate personhood from humanity. If the unborn are considered human but not people then when does a human become a person? Alot of arguments for abortion are also arguments for infantcide. What if we decided to define a person as having an IQ over 70? Then alot of humans would not be considered people."
I am not the right wing nut job that you portray me to be. I am attempting to share my own views based on what I've read so far. I aspire to become a philosopher, but I am not claiming to be one already. I resent that you portray me as intellectualy dishonest, since one of the biggest reasons I want out of the organization is because of their intellectual dishonesty. As for the Pinker quote, it was a mistake that I regret-- I have no intent of misleading anyone. Please, do not indulge in calling me sophmoric or dishonest. I have never called anyone names in this topic and I expect likewise.
-
GenericMan
Cassi said:
"Is it fair to ask a women to put her own life at risk or die because she has found herself pregenant if she did not make the choice to become so?"
Becoming pregnant is not the same as discovering the existence of a tumor or a wart on your thumb. You are begging the question why is there only one life at stake instead of two?
-
Cassiline
Becoming pregnant is not the same as discovering the existence of a tumor or a wart on your thumb.
As was my argument earlier it very well can be. Again why should a woman be asked to support a life if she made no conscience choice to engage in the act that made her pregnant?
You are begging the question why is there only one life at stake instead of two?
Good question, there are many who disagree with you at what point a fetus does indeed become a life or a person. I rather like this argument here:
Bodily Sovereignty
If the zygote/embryo/fetus is a person from the moment of fertilization, then we are dealing with two bodies of two persons: the body of the zygote/embryo/fetus and the body of the woman in which it resides throughout pregnancy. Presumably, then, both the woman and the fetus would each maintain a separate and equal right to the sovereignty and integrity of their own bodies. The zygote/embryo/fetus would have the right not to have its body invaded or infringed, and so would the woman!So, we must consider where the infringement occurs. If the woman is the owner of her own body (as the zygote/embryo/fetus is of its tiny, embryonic body), then her rights to control that body and protect its integrity would certainly not be less than that of the zygote/embryo/fetus.
During the 1980s, there was a court case in Ohio. Two brothers had become estranged over the years. One of them was stricken with a kidney failure and required ongoing dialysis in order to survive until a donor match could be found. It was determined that his estranged brother was an excellent match, but the brother refused to offer one of his kidneys. The ailing brother sued the healthy brother in court, claiming that Mr. Healthy did not need two kidneys to live, and had no right to deny Mr. Sick -- a fully-endowed human person -- the "right to life." Needless to say, the courts held that Mr. Healthy had the right to control his own body and could not be forced to have his body used to keep Mr. Sick alive if he did not agree. It would be a beautiful CHOICE if he were to voluntarily offer the gift of life, but as a legal matter it could not be FORCED.
Similarly, even if the embryo is human, it still would not have the right to force the mother to use her body to keep it alive against her will. If the decision to give birth is what she wants, then "life" is a "beautiful choice." But it is her choice; she cannot legally be forced into it.
Likewise, if a person with a rare genetic type needs a blood transfusion or bone marrow transplant and finally finds that rare, perfect match, but the owner of the organs doesn't want to donate, no reasonable person would say that the one who wants the organ has the right to demand that a specific person donate his/her organ, even to save the life of an ACTUAL human. The day is fast approaching when everyone's DNA will be identifiable, and could be stored in data banks. Maybe someday men will start getting phone calls informing them that their DNA has been identified as a suitable match for someone who needs a kidney and wants one of theirs ... wants to FORCIBLY use their bodies to keep someone else alive, whether they agree or not. The day that men's bodies can be used to forcibly keep others alive, controversy over abortion will end. Organ donation is a beautiful choice, and I (voluntarily) carry my organ donation card with me at all times, but it is my CHOICE, just as pregnancy can be a beautiful CHOICE when it is voluntarily CHOSEN. But neither choice can rightly be forcibly coerced.
A reader, Tommy, writes to suggest an even more poignant and relevant scenario: "A one week old infant is diagnosed with Leukemia and the infant needs a bone marrow transplant. After checking available donors it is determined that only the child's FATHER has a good match. The father says "NO!" ... Should the state be able to compel the Father of the baby (with threats of fines and prison) to submit and have some of his bone marrow extracted to save his baby's life?" Should a male parent be subject to the same demand that he be forced to use his body to keep his child alive? What if he didn't want the pregnancy in the first place? What if he is estranged from the mother (and the baby, too)? What if he has religious objections to any kind of transfusion? Aside from the moral issue, should the state hold the father to the same standard as the mother? Should any exception be allowed? No state that outlawed abortion prior to Roe v. Wade had an equivalent requirement that the father have the same obligations as the mother (except financial, of course).