PZ Myers: "Utilitarian argument should be dead."

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
PZ Myers: "Utilitarian argument should be dead."

 In a short blog post today, biologist and blogger PZ Myers has made what I think is a genuinely profound observation, and I hope it doesn't get lost in the shuffle.

In the recent controversy involving a nine year old Brazilian girl who was raped and impregnated, the Vatican itself has made a ruling:  Fetuses come before people.  While this should come as no surprise, I think we should not just brush this aside as one more example of religious nuttery.  The Vatican has clearly and emphatically given us proof against one of the most powerful emotional appeals used by apologists -- Humans do not need religion to help provide comfort to people in need.

The utilitarian argument is often the last refuge of the defeated in an argument about religion.  There are many people who seem to believe more in belief in god than in god himself.  They think that religion is some kind of cement holding humanity together against its own nature.  This incident provides a stark rebuttal to the notion.

In case you missed it, a nine year old Brazilian girl was raped by her step father, and became pregnant.  Doctors, fearing for her life, performed an abortion.  In retaliation for this act of kindness, the Brazilian arm of the Catholic Church excommunicated the mother and the doctors involved in the procedure.  The Vatican has since upheld the decision.

The utilitarian argument doesn't hold water.  Humans are empathetic without religion.  When you superimpose dogma onto an ethical dilemma, you subvert the process of normal human empathy and kindness.  Every sane person in the world knows that the responsible thing to do in this situation was save a nine year old girl from living her entire life as the caretaker for living proof of a heinous crime commited against her.  As empathetic, rational humans, we can instantly see that a nine year old victim of sexual abuse cannot hope to be a sufficient mother.  The step father is certainly not a suitable surrogate caretaker.

Let me make this abundantly clear:  The only reason there was any debate about this kindness is religious dogma.  Without the unscientific, irrational dogma held by the church, human kindness would have won the day unopposed.  Any religious dogma is -- by definition -- not rational and scientific.  If it was, we wouldn't call it religious dogma.  It would be science (and not dogmatic, by definition).

Myers said it very eloquently:  "The utilitarian argument that religion at least provides comfort to people in need ought to be extinct now."


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Every

Hambydammit wrote:

 Every sane person in the world knows that the responsible thing to do in this situation was save a nine year old girl from living her entire life as the caretaker for living proof of a heinous crime commited against her.  As empathetic, rational humans, we can instantly see that a nine year old victim of sexual abuse cannot hope to be a sufficient mother.  The step father is certainly not a suitable surrogate caretaker.

Unfortunately she wouldn't have even made it to be called "Mom."  The article I read said she was pregnant with twins and her 9 year old uterus just didn't have the capacity for a single birth much less carrying twins.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Ah.  Thanks, Shelley...

 Ah.  Thanks, Shelley... of course, that just makes the argument that much more compelling.... sweet.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
A glaringly bright example

A glaringly bright example of how every day religion digusts me.  That there are repurcusions for this child and the mother and the doctors involved despite the imaginary sentence of the Vatican should be abundantly clear.  Rather than somehow reducing suffering, the Vatican, the Catholic religion, has increased it to uphold a dogma that is clearly at odds with what is the most moral action to take.  It is only fortunate that the child underwent the abortion at all, rather than have to suffer unduely and perhaps fatally in order to carry, maybe not to term, the product of her horrid abuse.  As if the psychological trauma of the experience weren't great enough, the Vatican would rather have had her suffer further before her possible death and because she cannot now do that, it has pronounced an imaginary sentence that will have real world effects on her life and others'.  What better refutation of the utilitarian argument could there be -and at what cost?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
If the policy is to

If the policy is to excommunicate the women who had the abortion and the "accomplices" why didn't they excommunicate the father? Clearly he was the biggest accomplice.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Further hypocricy

And for the rapist step-father?

Silence.

Religion does not provide morality: it deforms morality.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Actually, I don't think it

 Actually, I don't think it was complete silence for the father.  One of the articles (I forget which one) I read had a follow up post from a reader who linked to the Church's statement that the step-dad's sin was bad, but not worthy of excommunication.

So, the moral of the story:  Sexually abusing children?  Not great, but ok.  (We knew that about Catholics anyway, right?)  Saving a child's life after she's been sexually abused?  Very, very naughty.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
I'ts the church

It's more or less the ignorant trying to pass off as if they actually have some knowledge, and that they know better, after all they have the authority of god to tell others what to do, how to do it, no need to actually know anything of anything, they have god.

The issue with latin america is that the catholic church still has a strong hold for the most part, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, El Salvador, Mexico, pretty much most of the countries in central/south american still are under the catholic churches influence, now they are losing influence, to the evangelical side, but still they have a big pull on society in general. Now some of it is due to tradition, some of it due to ignorance, and of course some of it is just plain old power grab, if your on the churches side you can be in power.

But really the church should not have say in things it has no understanding, and if it were me I would ask them to show me god, to prove he is real beyond any doubt, not faith, if not, to keep their mouths shut has they have nothing to stand on but old traditions and lots of ignorance.....actually I have said that to a few priests in argentina.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
*Braces for the deafening

*Braces for the deafening silence from the pro-life extinction crowd*

 

Isn't it funny how you'll never hear 'pro-life' advocates weighing-in on cases like this (well, the moderate ones who don't want to look totally insane, anyway)?

I think so.

 

I mean, from their perspective, the doctors just traded two innocent lives for one, right? Wasn't that a terrible decision, then? Isn't the Vatican right to condemn them?

 

...Hello? Pro-lifers?

 

Hm.

Must be out until the next high-profile teen pregnancy hits the press. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

 

Isn't it funny how you'll never hear 'pro-life' advocates weighing-in on cases like this (well, the moderate ones who don't want to look totally insane, anyway)?

I'll take that as a challenge. Eye-wink

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I think so.

Sticking out tongue

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I mean, from their perspective, the doctors just traded two innocent lives for one, right? Wasn't that a terrible decision, then? Isn't the Vatican right to condemn them?

Not quite. Without a mother to provide life and safety, the children are dead anyway. The mother was immature, incapable of providing a safe environment(she's too young biologically), and clearly the sexual encounter was not consensual. Her life was in danger, and the children's lives by extension. An abortion can save one life. Nothing will see three deaths. Now if you wanted an illogical theists response, you might have to wait a bit longer.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...Hello? Pro-lifers?

HI! Sticking out tongue

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Hm.

Must be out until the next high-profile teen pregnancy hits the press. Sticking out tongue

> >

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
While looking up this issue

While looking up this issue on Catholic sites, I only found it referenced in one major spot. Even the Vatican news page didn't seem to want to talk about it. One interesting development was that some Catholics seem to believe that they don't have the facts on this case as it is being distorted by the "evil" media. So, now it's a conspiracy theory, too.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:  Kevin R

Vastet wrote:

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I mean, from their perspective, the doctors just traded two innocent lives for one, right? Wasn't that a terrible decision, then? Isn't the Vatican right to condemn them?

Not quite. Without a mother to provide life and safety, the children are dead anyway. The mother was immature, incapable of providing a safe environment(she's too young biologically), and clearly the sexual encounter was not consensual. Her life was in danger, and the children's lives by extension. An abortion can save one life. Nothing will see three deaths. Now if you wanted an illogical theists response, you might have to wait a bit longer.

But aren't you pro-life people fond of adoption?  

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...Hello? Pro-lifers?

 

 

Well, Kevin, as a pro-lifer I can say since the mother was in danger, than yes, this is acceptable.

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Vastet

Tapey wrote:

Vastet wrote:

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I mean, from their perspective, the doctors just traded two innocent lives for one, right? Wasn't that a terrible decision, then? Isn't the Vatican right to condemn them?

Not quite. Without a mother to provide life and safety, the children are dead anyway. The mother was immature, incapable of providing a safe environment(she's too young biologically), and clearly the sexual encounter was not consensual. Her life was in danger, and the children's lives by extension. An abortion can save one life. Nothing will see three deaths. Now if you wanted an illogical theists response, you might have to wait a bit longer.

But aren't you pro-life people fond of adoption?  

 

How do you adopt a corpse? Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Tapey

Vastet wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Vastet wrote:

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I mean, from their perspective, the doctors just traded two innocent lives for one, right? Wasn't that a terrible decision, then? Isn't the Vatican right to condemn them?

Not quite. Without a mother to provide life and safety, the children are dead anyway. The mother was immature, incapable of providing a safe environment(she's too young biologically), and clearly the sexual encounter was not consensual. Her life was in danger, and the children's lives by extension. An abortion can save one life. Nothing will see three deaths. Now if you wanted an illogical theists response, you might have to wait a bit longer.

But aren't you pro-life people fond of adoption?  

 

How do you adopt a corpse? Sticking out tongue

Same way you adopt a living child, but I think you may end up wanting a refund. However I conceed to your point. 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, Kevin, as a

Quote:
Well, Kevin, as a pro-lifer I can say since the mother was in danger, than yes, this is acceptable.

But why?

Isn't your position, as a pro-lifer, that the fetus deserves status as a living thing?

 

If that's the case, why is it better to end the life of two innocent victims rather than one?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Not quite. Without a

Quote:
Not quite. Without a mother to provide life and safety, the children are dead anyway. The mother was immature, incapable of providing a safe environment(she's too young biologically), and clearly the sexual encounter was not consensual. Her life was in danger, and the children's lives by extension. An abortion can save one life. Nothing will see three deaths. Now if you wanted an illogical theists response, you might have to wait a bit longer.

And this is what's known as 'cognitive dissonance'.

What does the consent or lack thereof have to do with the fetus's right to life? What does the fact that they would have had a rough time growing-up with no mother have to d with their right to life?

 

Gee, looks like I didn't have to wait around for a theist to get baited before getting irrational nonsense afterall. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Let me make sure I have

 Let me make sure I have Pineapple's position straight:

1) A fetus is a human with the same rights as a person

2) Except when the mother was raped.

3) Except when the mother might die, even if there are other people who could raise the child in the event of the mother's death

4) Except (presumably) when the child might be born without, say... a spine.  (Pardon me if I presume too much, but I'm guessing you would allow abortion if the fetus... err... person... is going to be horribly disfigured and have a miserable life.)

I just want to make sure I've got the premises straight.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on any count.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:4) Except

Hambydammit wrote:

4) Except (presumably) when the child might be born without, say... a physical spine.

Fixed...

 

You know how Pineapple can be >.> hehe

What Would Kharn Do?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
First Kevin, do you even

First Kevin, do you even know what cognitive dissonance is? It's when an attitude conflicts with our behaviour or another attitude.

 

[edit]

and worse yet for you, it's only when the person becomes AWARE that their behaviour/attitude is in conflict.

[/edit]

 

 

Vaset said that one death is better than three hence no cognitive dissonance for the attitude of the death/value of a fetus.

 

Hambydammit wrote:

1) A fetus is a human with the same rights as a person

 

I prefer the term developing human, but yes it should have as many rights we can grant.

 

Quote:

2) Except when the mother was raped.

 

Yes

 

Quote:

3) Except when the mother might die, even if there are other people who could raise the child in the event of the mother's death

 

 

Yes, because it's either the fetus or the mother. It's like a 15 car crash is better than a 16 car crash. Still a tragedy, but could be lessened.

 

 

Quote:

4) Except (presumably) when the child might be born without, say... a spine.  (Pardon me if I presume too much, but I'm guessing you would allow abortion if the fetus... err... person... is going to be horribly disfigured and have a miserable life.)

I just want to make sure I've got the premises straight.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on any count.

 

 

 

Depends on the disability. The criteria I use if it's a life threatening disability than yes, but if not, it wold depend on the disability, and if it is relativly easy to overcome,.

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Quote:2) Except when

Quote:

Quote:

2) Except when the mother was raped.

 

Yes

 

This is what makes your argument, as well as Vastet's, qualify as cognitive dissonance. On one hand, a fetus obviously deserves all of the rights a human being who is fully developed should have.

On the other hand... well, obviously it does not.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Not quite. Without a mother to provide life and safety, the children are dead anyway. The mother was immature, incapable of providing a safe environment(she's too young biologically), and clearly the sexual encounter was not consensual. Her life was in danger, and the children's lives by extension. An abortion can save one life. Nothing will see three deaths. Now if you wanted an illogical theists response, you might have to wait a bit longer.

And this is what's known as 'cognitive dissonance'.

Not even close.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.

My views are not contradictory to themselves. I've weeded out the vast majority of conflicts within my mind and morality. That's why I eventually ended up on the side of pro-life. Before then, I was conflicted. But that was quite awhile ago.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What does the consent or lack thereof have to do with the fetus's right to life?

The fetus cannot live without the mother. It's physically impossible. Maybe in a few years we'll have technology capable of replacing the womb, but for now we do not. Therefore the fetus must be considered after the mother, because without the mother neither fetus nor mother exists. It's efficiency and damage control, not cognitive dissonance. :P 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What does the fact that they would have had a rough time growing-up with no mother have to d with their right to life?

How do you grow up when you are dead because your mother died while you were still in the womb?

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Gee, looks like I didn't have to wait around for a theist to get baited before getting irrational nonsense afterall. Sticking out tongue

Try again. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Kevin R Brown

Quote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What does the consent or lack thereof have to do with the fetus's right to life?

The fetus cannot live without the mother. It's physically impossible. Maybe in a few years we'll have technology capable of replacing the womb, but for now we do not. Therefore the fetus must be considered after the mother, because without the mother neither fetus nor mother exists. It's efficiency and damage control, not cognitive dissonance. Sticking out tongue

You dodged the question. None of the above has anything to do with consent at all.

So, again:

 

What does consent or a lack thereof have to do with the fetus's right to life?

 

EDIT: Oh, and babies most certainly can be born successfully and survive even if the mother dies at birth, chuck.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:You

Kevin R Brown wrote:

You dodged the question.

No I didn't. Your question dodged the issue. I brought you back on track.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
 None of the above has anything to do with consent at all.

Consent is irrelevant in this particular case. It's simply an additional factor at most. It is not what I made the determination on.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

So, again:

 

What does consent or a lack thereof have to do with the fetus's right to life?

Again, irrelevant. This is about simple numbers, not consent. 3 dead, or 2 dead. 2 is always preferable to 3.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:EDIT:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

EDIT: Oh, and babies most certainly can be born successfully and survive even if the mother dies at birth, chuck.

Perhaps you need to read the original article and supporting information again. There was a statement that the child could not even bring the twins to term, let alone give birth to them. Considering her extremely low age, that is hardly surprising. She would have been dead long before giving birth. That's why the doctors performed an abortion.

Really, you aren't doing very well in trying to make me appear illogical, but you are doing wonders for yourself. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Oh - just for the sake of

Oh - just for the sake of completeness:

Quote:
Main Entry: cognitive dissonance
Function: noun
: psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes (as a fondness for smokingand a belief that it is harmful)

So - anyone care to explain how it is perfectly congruent to consider fetus's to have all of the rights of fully developed people and condemn their abortion, but also consider it prudent to abort any fetus's causing distress to their mother or impregnated into her with consent?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Oh -

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Oh - just for the sake of completeness:

Quote:
Main Entry: cognitive dissonance
Function: noun
: psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes (as a fondness for smokingand a belief that it is harmful)

So - anyone care to explain how it is perfectly congruent to consider fetus's to have all of the rights of fully developed people and condemn their abortion, but also consider it prudent to abort any fetus's causing distress to their mother or impregnated into her with consent?

To give you a hand at understanding my position better, I'm going to refer you to a different topic. Mostly because I don't feel like going through this again.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16819

I suggest reading my first post there especially. It has become my disclaimer on the subject.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Consent is irrelevant

Quote:
Consent is irrelevant in this particular case. It's simply an additional factor at most. It is not what I made the determination on.

Ah, okay. So you personally think that aborting a raped fetus in most cases is wrong, then?

Quote:
Perhaps you need to read the original article and supporting information again. There was a statement that the child could not even bring the twins to term, let alone give birth to them. Considering her extremely low age, that is hardly surprising. She would have been dead long before giving birth. That's why the doctors performed an abortion.

Really, you aren't doing very well in trying to make me appear illogical, but you are doing wonders for yourself. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
Again, irrelevant. This is about simple numbers, not consent. 3 dead, or 2 dead. 2 is always preferable to 3.

Ah, right. So, in your opinion then, if the mother had been able to carry the twins to term at her own peril, it then would have been wrong to abort the fetuses?


 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To give you a hand at

Quote:

To give you a hand at understanding my position better, I'm going to refer you to a different topic. Mostly because I don't feel like going through this again.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16819

I suggest reading my first post there especially. It has become my disclaimer on the subject.

Oh - so the game is to accuse me of inaccurately using a term while being dishonest about your position. You do feel, according to the post you brought up, that instances of rape and medical complications should permit abortions.

 

So, tht brings us right back to the question you're so determined to wriggle your way out from under:

 

What does consent have to do with the rights of the fetus?

 

EDIT: See, this is one area where I just have so much more respect for psychopathic fundamentalists. At least they're not pussies when it comes to admitting their prejudices against women & casual sex.

At least they're consistent. If pro-lifer moderates had even half a spine, they'd be telling me in this thread that every possible option should've been explored to save those two 'potential humans', whatever the cost to the 9 year old victim was.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Consent is irrelevant in this particular case. It's simply an additional factor at most. It is not what I made the determination on.

Ah, okay. So you personally think that aborting a raped fetus in most cases is wrong, then?

You're trying to make this tricky. In cases of rape, a man is stealing genes from a woman in order to force her to conceive his child. IF there was an alternative to abortion, I would take it. There isn't, so abortion is the way to go. As per my disclaimer.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Ah, right. So, in your opinion then, if the mother had been able to carry the twins to term at her own peril, it then would have been wrong to abort the fetuses?

As per above and my disclaimer, if abortion is the only option, and it is, then it will have to do. If, however, the future should give us the technology to allow a child to develop without the mother, then that would be the proper way to go. 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:

To give you a hand at understanding my position better, I'm going to refer you to a different topic. Mostly because I don't feel like going through this again.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16819

I suggest reading my first post there especially. It has become my disclaimer on the subject.

Oh - so the game is to accuse me of inaccurately using a term while being dishonest about your position.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
  You do feel, according to the post you brought up, that instances of rape and medical complications should permit abortions.

Did you read the why?

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

So, tht brings us right back to the question you're so determined to wriggle your way out from under:

 

What does consent have to do with the rights of the fetus?

And that brings me right back to accusing you of dodging the issue. Quit it. Sticking out tongue

Editted for an emoticon I meant to have within

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You're trying to make

Quote:
You're trying to make this tricky.

Oh, yes. So clever and deceptive of me to ask you a perfectly straightforward question three times in a row.

 

I don't suppose you'd consider the possibility that it's your faulty reasoning, rather than some mental sleight of hand on my part, that makes that particular question tricky for you to answer?

Quote:
In cases of rape, a man is stealing genes from a woman in order to force her to conceive his child. IF there was an alternative to abortion, I would take it. There isn't, so abortion is the way to go. As per my disclaimer.

And again, what does this have to do with the fetus's human rights? The fetus remains an innocent bystander, right? It didn't do anything wrong at all. So why shouldn't the rape victim carry it to term? Why does the fetus lose it's rights as a result of what was done to it's mother bya 3rd party?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
You're trying to make this tricky.

Oh, yes. So clever and deceptive of me to ask you a perfectly straightforward question three times in a row.

You did not. You changed it with every post, or changed the angle of approach, which changes the question.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
 

I don't suppose you'd consider the possibility that it's your faulty reasoning, rather than some mental sleight of hand on my part, that makes that particular question tricky for you to answer?

I don't suppose you would do the same with my response? Didn't think so. So no.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
In cases of rape, a man is stealing genes from a woman in order to force her to conceive his child. IF there was an alternative to abortion, I would take it. There isn't, so abortion is the way to go. As per my disclaimer.

And again, what does this have to do with the fetus's human rights?

If you aren't going to read my disclaimer, then you have no position to argue from anymore.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
 

The fetus remains an innocent bystander, right? It didn't do anything wrong at all. So why shouldn't the rape victim carry it to term? Why does the fetus lose it's rights as a result of what was done to it's mother bya 3rd party?

Same as above.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:EDIT:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

EDIT: See, this is one area where I just have so much more respect for psychopathic fundamentalists. At least they're not pussies when it comes to admitting their prejudices against women & casual sex.

Oh yeah, I have a prejudice. Against stupid idiots who refuse to use protection. Not against women, and not against casual sex. I have a prejudice against irresponsibility.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

At least they're consistent. If pro-lifer moderates had even half a spine, they'd be telling me in this thread that every possible option should've been explored to save those two 'potential humans', whatever the cost to the 9 year old victim was.

What options? Answer that while you get off your high horse, which is actually below sea level.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Hey, y'know - this is

Hey, y'know - this is actually a pretty fun exercize. Smiling

I think I'm going to try and find a question people cannot at all answer more often, as each dodge is amusing to watch.

 

Again (we're at ask #5, for those of you at home who need help keeping score):

 

What bearing does a mother being raped have on the rights of the innocent fetus that allegedly deserves full human rights as a potential human?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Hey,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Hey, y'know - this is actually a pretty fun exercize. Smiling

I think I'm going to try and find a question people cannot at all answer more often, as each dodge is amusing to watch.

 

Again (we're at ask #5, for those of you at home who need help keeping score):

 

What bearing does a mother being raped have on the rights of the innocent fetus that allegedly deserves full human rights as a potential human?

And you dodge again. What's that, 7 now? I stopped counting.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Against stupid idiots

Quote:
Against stupid idiots who refuse to use protection.

...And what about the 'stupid idiots' whose protection failed?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I have yet to hear of a case

Now I know you didn't read my disclaimer.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And you dodge again.

Quote:
And you dodge again. What's that, 7 now? I stopped counting.

My questions to Vastet:

Quote:

What does the consent or lack thereof have to do with the fetus's right to life?

Quote:
What does consent or a lack thereof have to do with the fetus's right to life?

Quote:
What does consent have to do with the rights of the fetus?

Quote:
And again, what does this have to do with the fetus's human rights? The fetus remains an innocent bystander, right? It didn't do anything wrong at all. So why shouldn't the rape victim carry it to term? Why does the fetus lose it's rights as a result of what was done to it's mother bya 3rd party?

Quote:

What bearing does a mother being raped have on the rights of the innocent fetus that allegedly deserves full human rights as a potential human?

 

Every single response Vastet has had to this question, since the beginning of the thread:

 

Quote:
The fetus cannot live without the mother. It's physically impossible. Maybe in a few years we'll have technology capable of replacing the womb, but for now we do not. Therefore the fetus must be considered after the mother, because without the mother neither fetus nor mother exists. It's efficiency and damage control, not cognitive dissonance. Sticking out tongue

(Nope. Nothing to do with the question at all.)

 

Quote:
Consent is irrelevant in this particular case. It's simply an additional factor at most. It is not what I made the determination on.

Quote:
Again, irrelevant. This is about simple numbers, not consent. 3 dead, or 2 dead. 2 is always preferable to 3.

(Addresses the question, but dishonestly, as he implicitly states that consent is 'irrelevant'...)

 

Quote:
You're trying to make this tricky. In cases of rape, a man is stealing genes from a woman in order to force her to conceive his child. IF there was an alternative to abortion, I would take it. There isn't, so abortion is the way to go. As per my disclaimer.

(...And then when he realizes how crazy that sounds, he backpedals)

 

Quote:
...You changed it with every post, or changed the angle of approach, which changes the question.

(Go back and read my five questions at the top of this post. See if they seem particularly different to you)

 

Quote:
If you aren't going to read my disclaimer, then you have no position to argue from anymore.

(I read the disclaimer. In fact, this whole line of questioning comes from confirming his position on rape and abortion via his disclaimer. This is, again, just another way of avoiding having to give an answer to a simple question).

 

Quote:
And you dodge again. What's that, 7 now? I stopped counting.

(...And now I'm dodging, apparently. Goodness knows what, given that I haven't even been asked anything).

 

Anyway, it's been a slice Vastet, and I've had more or less exactly the conversation I expected to have given your mental faculties. Feel free to continue shaking your fist and pretending that you've kicked my ass all over cyberspace; I honestly was only really interested in baiting Alison into this topic, and while this was an enjoyable little side-affair, I'm done with it.

 

*Waits for our fruity deist to throw the ball*

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Quote:3)

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


Quote:

3) Except when the mother might die, even if there are other people who could raise the child in the event of the mother's death

 

 

Yes, because it's either the fetus or the mother. It's like a 15 car crash is better than a 16 car crash. Still a tragedy, but could be lessened.

Pineapple I don't understand how this follows from your perspective.  It's 1 for 1 and Mom already had a life.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
And you dodge again. What's that, 7 now? I stopped counting.

My questions to Vastet:

Pointing out your irrelevant statements and showing how you ignored my responses do not help your case. They prove mine further.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

(I read the disclaimer.

No, you did not. You proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt with the last post you made, which I specifically addressed in my disclaimer. So now you aren't just dodging, you're lying too.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
 In fact, this whole line of questioning comes from confirming his position on rape and abortion via his disclaimer. This is, again, just another way of avoiding having to give an answer to a simple question).

The answer is apparently beyond you, even though it's been spelled out ad absurdum.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
And you dodge again. What's that, 7 now? I stopped counting.

(...And now I'm dodging, apparently.

If the shoe fits...

Kevin R Brown wrote:
 Goodness knows what, given that I haven't even been asked anything).
\

 

I already told you what you were dodging. Reading comprehension failure now too? Look again.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Anyway, it's been a slice Vastet, and I've had more or less exactly the conversation I expected to have given your mental faculties.

*snort*

Any time you grow a brain and some balls, feel free to bring it up again. 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
 Feel free to continue shaking your fist and pretending that you've kicked my ass all over cyberspace; I honestly was only really interested in baiting Alison into this topic, and while this was an enjoyable little side-affair, I'm done with it.

Funny how you didn't mention that, and left it wide open. Well, since you can't respond to my logic and reality, feel free to live in your own little world.

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:What

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What does the consent or lack thereof have to do with the fetus's right to life?

 

It's different for rape because in certain cases, I think the mother's rights should trump, that is in the case of danger to the mother or rape.

 

Is the fetus of a rape victim, a developing human like the other cases? Yes, however, in the case of rape, the woman is probably going through enough already.


Like I said in this case, the mother's rights trump, mainly because it was by no action of her own. Like I said in the last abortion topic, when there is consent, the mother has a responsibility to the life she creates.

 

So what about the fetus and it's rights?

 

Trumped by the mother since she did not have any say in the matter. Like I said, it is a developing human, not a full one.

 

 

shelleymtjoy wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


Quote:

3) Except when the mother might die, even if there are other people who could raise the child in the event of the mother's death

  

Yes, because it's either the fetus or the mother. It's like a 15 car crash is better than a 16 car crash. Still a tragedy, but could be lessened.

Pineapple I don't understand how this follows from your perspective.  It's 1 for 1 and Mom already had a life.

 

 

I don't neccesarly think that taking a life to save one is all that moral unless you have to choice. In this case, it's between the baby or the mother. The mother already has social standing, a husband, friends, etc... the baby doesn't really have any of those things. It would of course be better of if they both survived, but if it's one or the other, then it's best to save the mother.

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It's different for

Quote:
It's different for rape because in certain cases, I think the mother's rights should trump, that is in the case of danger to the mother or rape.

 

Is the fetus of a rape victim, a developing human like the other cases? Yes, however, in the case of rape, the woman is probably going through enough already.


Like I said in this case, the mother's rights trump, mainly because it was by no action of her own. Like I said in the last abortion topic, when there is consent, the mother has a responsibility to the life she creates.

 

So what about the fetus and it's rights?

 

Trumped by the mother since she did not have any say in the matter. Like I said, it is a developing human, not a full one.

 

...So the fetus has it's rights suddenly stripped-away because the mother is 'going through enough already'. So as long as a parent is significantly stressed, in your opinion (since they have a larger share of relationships than their child), they should have the ability to strip any rights from their children?

Your final statement only undercuts you whole argument, as it seems to recognize that potential people are not worthy of the same number of rights as developed people.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:...So

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...So the fetus has it's rights suddenly stripped-away because the mother is 'going through enough already'. So as long as a parent is significantly stressed, in your opinion (since they have a larger share of relationships than their child), they should have the ability to strip any rights from their children?

Your final statement only undercuts you whole argument, as it seems to recognize that potential people are not worthy of the same number of rights as developed people.

 

Kevin, I already said that a mother is entitled to more rights than a fetus. However, that does not give her the right to do with it what she wants. A mother also has rights over her 2 year old child, but that does not give her right to trample on the 2 year old.

 

Rape is an extreme circumstance that must be dealt with accordingly.

 

 

 

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: It's

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

It's different for rape because in certain cases, I think the mother's rights should trump, that is in the case of danger to the mother or rape.

 

Is the fetus of a rape victim, a developing human like the other cases? Yes, however, in the case of rape, the woman is probably going through enough already.

 

Like I said in this case, the mother's rights trump, mainly because it was by no action of her own. Like I said in the last abortion topic, when there is consent, the mother has a responsibility to the life she creates.

 

So what about the fetus and it's rights?

 

Trumped by the mother since she did not have any say in the matter. Like I said, it is a developing human, not a full one.

 

Don't you think there's a difference between consenting to sex and consenting to carrying a pregnancy to term? Does engaging in any action that has potentially unwanted consequences automatically mean you consent to living with those consequenses without attempting to mitigate them, or does this only apply to sex? For example, if I open my window and a burglar comes in does that mean I consented to being robbed and I have to let him walk away with my stuff?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:However, that does not

Quote:
However, that does not give her the right to do with it what she wants.

And there it is.

 

I think my job here is done.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Don't you think

Gauche wrote:

Don't you think there's a difference between consenting to sex and consenting to carrying a pregnancy to term?

 

Yes, there's a difference, but more of the former increases the chance of the latter. Just because a women didn't want to get pregnant doesn't mean she should abort the pregnancy.

 

Quote:

Does engaging in any action that has potentially unwanted consequences automatically mean you consent to living with those consequenses without attempting to mitigate them, or does this only apply to sex? For example, if I open my window and a burglar comes in does that mean I consented to being robbed and I have to let him walk away with my stuff?

 

No, but if you engage  in an activity [sex, leaving window open] with a risk [getting pregnant, well for females at least, getting robbed.] there's a chance that could happen.

 

I'm not saying it's "good" you got pregnant or robbed, but you can decrease the risks. Like I said above, the fact that you don't want to be pregnant or get robbed, doesn't mean you have responsablities related to them.

 

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
However, that does not give her the right to do with it what she wants.

And there it is.

 

I think my job here is done.

 

 

What job?

 

Care to enlighten a fruity basket case Deist?

 

 

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Gauche

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Don't you think there's a difference between consenting to sex and consenting to carrying a pregnancy to term?

 Yes, there's a difference, but more of the former increases the chance of the latter. Just because a women didn't want to get pregnant doesn't mean she should abort the pregnancy.

There are many reason why a woman may not want to get pregnant though.  I'm trying to establish that consenting to the first thing cannot necessarily be seen as tacit consent to the second thing. Don't you agree?

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Gauche wrote:

Does engaging in any action that has potentially unwanted consequences automatically mean you consent to living with those consequenses without attempting to mitigate them, or does this only apply to sex? For example, if I open my window and a burglar comes in does that mean I consented to being robbed and I have to let him walk away with my stuff?

 

No, but if you engage  in an activity [sex, leaving window open] with a risk [getting pregnant, well for females at least, getting robbed.] there's a chance that could happen.

And there are ways to mitigate both circumstances. You could shoot robber and call the police, and you could get an abortion. Why is it okay to do one but not the other?

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I'm not saying it's "good" you got pregnant or robbed, but you can decrease the risks. Like I said above, the fact that you don't want to be pregnant or get robbed, doesn't mean you have responsablities related to them.
But you said a woman does have responsibility. There are other possible unwanted consequenses to sex besides pregnancy. If a person contracts a disease are they allowed to mitigate that? If a person loses a friend because of sex are they allowed to try to get their friend back?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Consent is irrelevant in this particular case. It's simply an additional factor at most. It is not what I made the determination on.

Ah, okay. So you personally think that aborting a raped fetus in most cases is wrong, then?

I'm not what you'd call pro-either/or at all, I hold pretty much the same position as Vastet (ie given the state of of the world as regards to how we deal with our own and other people's sexuality - it's a right fine mess - abortion is a lesser category of moral dilemma that runs consequent to the appalling protection failures of our societies) but I personally don't label myself pro-life as he does, I'm not sure where we depart from each other about that, but anyway...

That said, Yes I personally feel aborting a rape foetus is wrong in probably the majority of cases basically because there are other preventative measures available for educated adult victims of rape (see emergency contraceptives).

On the other hand the very young among us are a different matter, for them to have conceived after having been raped reflects a failure on our part, not theirs, it is not within their means to have prevented the pregnancy any other way and in the case that they are particularly young and underdeveloped, as with the girl in the article, it puts their lives at risk as well.

We can't morally protect the rights of such unborn, regardless of their innocence because to do so is to cause suffering and death to another innocent. The only way to protect the rights of the innocents involved is to do all we can to prevent the second one from entering the equation to begin with, with better practices and ideals in our fundamental social structures.

And, incidentally, that is the main reason why I don't call myself  "Pro-life", as far as I am concerned the pro-life movement does absolutely nothing at all to further the more pressing moral agenda, in my opinion. Which is, fixing the social protection failures that become these tragic circumstances.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: What

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

What bearing does a mother being raped have on the rights of the innocent fetus that allegedly deserves full human rights as a potential human?

None. Rape causing pregnancy has no bearing on the rights of the foetus, but it generally has radically disproportionate bearing on the rights of the rape victim, as such intervention is justified and should happen as early as possible in pursuit of a humane outcome. If that means an abortion, and under most circumstances it probably shouldn't, then we bite the bullet and provide one. If it makes us uncomfortable to do that there is always tomorrow to prevent it happening again, pity parties are just an obstruction.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Since I have time for more

Since I have time for more than a few one liners now, and Kevin felt it so necessary to pull out a bunch of quotes:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

*Braces for the deafening silence from the pro-life extinction crowd*

 

Isn't it funny how you'll never hear 'pro-life' advocates weighing-in on cases like this (well, the moderate ones who don't want to look totally insane, anyway)?

I think so.

 

I mean, from their perspective, the doctors just traded two innocent lives for one, right? Wasn't that a terrible decision, then? Isn't the Vatican right to condemn them?

 

...Hello? Pro-lifers?

 

Hm.

Must be out until the next high-profile teen pregnancy hits the press. Sticking out tongue

This is Kevin baiting any pro-lifers that happen to be viewing on a false premise. He's not really interested in discussing this particular subject, he wants to brow beat them into submission by changing the subject as soon as he has someone.

Kevin's only response to my response is to accuse me of cognitive dissonance. He has nothing to back this up, so he doesn't post anything to back this up. Instead, he changes the subject. Which was his intent all along. He also starts tossing in ad hominem attacks, hoping his opposition will completely lose it's cool and fall apart. Little does he know...

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
Not quite. Without a mother to provide life and safety, the children are dead anyway. The mother was immature, incapable of providing a safe environment(she's too young biologically), and clearly the sexual encounter was not consensual. Her life was in danger, and the children's lives by extension. An abortion can save one life. Nothing will see three deaths. Now if you wanted an illogical theists response, you might have to wait a bit longer.

And this is what's known as 'cognitive dissonance'.

What does the consent or lack thereof have to do with the fetus's right to life? What does the fact that they would have had a rough time growing-up with no mother have to d with their right to life?

 

Gee, looks like I didn't have to wait around for a theist to get baited before getting irrational nonsense afterall. Sticking out tongue

And so he's dodged the very subject he invited people to discuss, and switched to a discussion on consent. Which had nothing to do with anything. Now I admit I was thrown at first, and tried to answer him with the thought that my disclaimer was in this topic, because I didn't enter the discussion for a debate. My views were arrogantly challenged by someone who didn't know what he was talking about, so I responded to them. I wasn't expecting or intending it to stretch into a debate, so while my responses attempted to address what he was looking for, he'd already proven his intent was deception. So I was unwilling to fall into another trap. As such, I tried to keep the subject on topic.

Vastet wrote:

No I didn't. Your question dodged the issue. I brought you back on track.

But Kevin refused to stay on track. At about this time I realized that my disclaimer wasn't in this topic, so Kevin couldn't understand the position I was coming from, and I realized that he'd need to read it before he could understand my position. So I posted a link to my disclaimer on the subject.

Which Kevin has proven twice now that he never read, since it directly covered contraception, amongst other things.

After which the discussion was pointless, and degenerated further.

And now, considering Kevin never really wanted an honest discussion on the subject in the first place, I'm done with it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:There are many

Gauche wrote:

There are many reason why a woman may not want to get pregnant though.  I'm trying to establish that consenting to the first thing cannot necessarily be seen as tacit consent to the second thing. Don't you agree?

 

Yes.


Gauche wrote:


 And there are ways to mitigate both circumstances. You could shoot robber and call the police, and you could get an abortion. Why is it okay to do one but not the other?

 

Because the fetus is a developing human. The robber is has the potiental of shooting/stabbing you, however the fetus is showing no aggression towards you.

 

 

 

Gauche wrote:

But you said a woman does have responsibility. There are other possible unwanted consequenses to sex besides pregnancy. If a person contracts a disease are they allowed to mitigate that? If a person loses a friend because of sex are they allowed to try to get their friend back?

 

 

Yes they should mitigate the disease, and try to get the friend back. None of those would end a life, [well except for the disease virus, but the virus is endangering the human]

 

When there is another life involved, decisions should be more carefully considered.