 |
Gallup Pro-life/choice |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 7> |
| Author | ||
choopie911 
Platinum Member 
Commie Canuck Joined: 01 June 2003 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 30712 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 21 May 2009 at 3:05pm |
|
That doesn't matter. Hypotheticals are making decisions on a real situation using impossible situations. What stops me from saying "well what if one abortion cured 10 cases of cancer" It doesn't matter, that doesn't happen, so why would it ever be used in a debate? Yes your examples are less extreme, but the point still stands, you cannot base a decision (especially one like abortion) on impossible circumstance...that's just foolish. You are making a decision about your real life opinions on fiction. |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
Benjichang
Platinum Member
I pwned Leroy Jenkins! Joined: 03 January 2004 Location: R'lyeh Status: Offline Points: 12519 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 2:17pm |
|
|
I'm actually really surprised at some of the criticism of PP's argument. Have any of you ever taken a course in Ethics? Try to imagine teaching an Ethics course (or having any meaningful discussion of ethics) using only real-world examples.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
Peter Parker
Member 
Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 998 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 2:15pm |
|
But planning for it isn't the purpose here. The problem with using real-world examples is that the real world is messy. Two real-world scenarios will be different in a myriad of un-identifiable ways, and it is therefore impossible to reach a specific conclusion about the underlying moral principles based on real-world examples.
Hypotheticals, on the other hand, allow you to establish two (or more) scenarios that are identical except for a single point, which is the point in question. By evaluating these two almost-identical scenarios you are able to evaluate the effect of that single point. This is an extraordinarily valuable exercise.
But hey - don't take my word for it. I challenge anybody to find any scholarly discussion of morality that does not use hypotheticals, many of which will be bizarrely unrealistic. A classic example, for instance, is the runaway train that can only be stopped by throwing a baby on the tracks. This is how structured morality discussions take place.
Dismissing hypotheticals here is not only silly but directly counterproductive.
|
||
|
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||
|
||
|
jmac3
Platinum Member
Official Box Hoister Joined: 28 June 2004 Status: Offline Points: 9176 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 2:13pm |
|
|
Wow I am surprised at the not liking of PP's hypothetical situation.
His point was that IF a mother had a disease that could be cured by killing a young baby then it wouldn't happen. Why wouldn't it happen? That is because it is a child. On the other hand Pro Lifers(Linus or one because I have seen him say it) say that if a pregnancy is in fact going to kill a mother, than an abortion is ok. The whole time this is said, they argue that a fetus is in fact a human life. If it is ok to kill one "human life" to save a mother, than why is it not ok to kill another? |
||
|
Que pasa?
|
||
|
||
|
choopie911
Platinum Member
Commie Canuck Joined: 01 June 2003 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 30712 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:39pm |
|
|
I agree, impossible hypothetical questions are kind of useless in this. It's just a way to push a debate the way you want to. It wouldn't ever happen, so why plan for it?
Car manufactures don't take impossible situations into account when building cars. How many "elephant trample proof" cars do you see? |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Hysteria
Platinum Member
Strike 2 - Language, 9/25 Joined: 02 February 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4364 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:28pm |
|
Except he is discussing the underlying morality of both situations, not the chance that they will actually happen. That's like discussing the morality of masturbation. Whether it happens or not has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. |
||
|
||
|
Linus
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10 Joined: 10 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7908 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:15pm |
|
|
It is not a fully grown argument because it has no basis in reality.
Again, your argument holds no water because it's unrealistic. You asked where the difference was. THAT is where the difference is. Edited by Linus - 21 May 2009 at 1:20pm |
||
|
||
|
||
|
Peter Parker
Member
Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 998 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:58pm |
|
It is not a jab - it is a fully-grown argument.
And yes, it is based in part in a hypothetical situation. That's how discussions of morality are conducted. Morality, by its very nature, consists largely of concepts that cannot morally be tested, and hypotheticals are therefore essential. Any legitimate discussion of morality involves a series of slightly-different hypotheticals, which allow you to hone in on the specific moral distinctions at hand - as I did here.
Morality is principle-based, not fact-based. The facts are merely specific applications of those moral principles. Limiting the discussion to specific real-life scenarios will never get you to the underlying principles.
|
||
|
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||
|
||
|
Benjichang
Platinum Member
I pwned Leroy Jenkins! Joined: 03 January 2004 Location: R'lyeh Status: Offline Points: 12519 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:53pm |
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Reb Cpl
Moderator Group 
2010 Worst Luck award winner Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13868 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:49pm |
|
|
You're basing a jab at pro-lifers on a hypothetical argument?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
Linus
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10 Joined: 10 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7908 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:46pm |
|
|
Eclampsia. Look it up.
A real disease that can kill the mother if the baby is left in her. The average, prudent person bases their opinions on fact, not hypothetical situations. The difference between killing a fetus to make a mom live, and killing a 2 year old to make a mom live, is because the former one is a reality, the latter is a fictitious view from someone trying to win a debate. Edited by Linus - 21 May 2009 at 12:47pm |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Peter Parker
Member
Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 998 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:38pm |
|
|
Hypothetic \Hy`po*thet"ic\, Hypothetical \Hy`po*thet"ic*al\, a. [L. hypotheticus, Gr. ?: cf. F. hypoth['e]tique.] (emphasis added)
|
||
|
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||
|
||
|
Linus
Platinum Member
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10 Joined: 10 November 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7908 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:33pm |
|
|
Peter---
Name me one real disease where the only valid option at survival for a mother is killing her already born child. Because I can name one just off the top of my head where having the fetus in the mother is life threatening.... And that is where the difference lies. Edited by Linus - 21 May 2009 at 12:34pm |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Benjichang
Platinum Member
I pwned Leroy Jenkins! Joined: 03 January 2004 Location: R'lyeh Status: Offline Points: 12519 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:22pm |
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Peter Parker
Member
Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 998 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 May 2009 at 11:17am |
|
You may think so, but there are obviously millions of people who say that fetuses are nothing other than unborn children. My point is that even those who profess to hold this belief actually don't - the overwhelming majority of Americans (at least) do in fact accept a moral differential between a baby and a fetus, whether they admit it to themselves or not.
|
||
|
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||
|
||
|
choopie911
Platinum Member
Commie Canuck Joined: 01 June 2003 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 30712 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:36pm |
|
|
Yes, there is a difference between a child and a fetus, of course there is.
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Peter Parker
Member
Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 998 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:21pm |
|
Correct - because it is morally repugnant.
Exactly my point.
|
||
|
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||
|
||
|
ParielIsBack
Platinum Member
future target of fratricide Joined: 13 October 2008 Status: Offline Points: 3782 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:15pm |
|
You're confusing the second option with something that happens in real life. It doesn't. |
||
|
BU Engineering 2012
|
||
|
||
|
Peter Parker
Member
Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 998 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:06pm |
|
Here:
Scenario 1: Doctors abort fetus to save mother's life.
Scenario 2: Doctors kill young child to save mother's life.
Premise 1: The vast majority of people find scenario 1 morally acceptable, if unfortunate.
Premise 2: The vast majority of people find scenario 2 morally unacceptable.
Premise 3: If there is no moral difference between a fetus and young child, then Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are exactly the same.
Conclusion: The vast majority of people find that there is a moral difference between a fetus and a young child.
tl;dr: If you think abortions to save the mother are ok, then you don't think that fetuses are just unborn children, and you value fetuses less than children. A lot less.
|
||
|
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||
|
||
|
Frozen Balls
Platinum Member
Strike 1, filter dodge, 1.28.10 Joined: 14 June 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5865 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 May 2009 at 8:41pm |
|
|
Can a fetus go on facebook?
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT /debate over, victorious cries from FB |
||
|
||
|
||
Topic Options
Peter Parker wrote:|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 7> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.344 seconds.