Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Gallup Pro-life/choice

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

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?


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.



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.
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 2:15pm
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

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?
 
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?
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?


Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
Hysteria View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - Language, 9/25

Joined: 02 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4364
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hysteria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:28pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

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.


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.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:58pm
Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:

You're basing a jab at pro-lifers on a hypothetical argument?


 
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?
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:53pm
Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:

You're basing a jab at pro-lifers on a hypothetical argument?


Isn't that how reasoning works?
Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:49pm
You're basing a jab at pro-lifers on a hypothetical argument?




Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.]

Characterized by, or of the nature of, an hypothesis; conditional; assumed without proof, for the purpose of reasoning and deducing proof, or of accounting for some fact or phenomenon.

 
(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?
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:22pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Curious to see where you are headed on this....
 
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.
 
 
Curse you and your logic.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 11:17am
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

Yes, there is a difference between a child and a fetus, of course there is.

 
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?
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:36pm
Yes, there is a difference between a child and a fetus, of course there is.

Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:21pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

[You're confusing the second option with something that happens in real life.

It doesn't.
 
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?
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:15pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Curious to see where you are headed on this....
 
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.
 


You're confusing the second option with something that happens in real life.

It doesn't.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:06pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Curious to see where you are headed on this....
 
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?
Back to Top
Frozen Balls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1, filter dodge, 1.28.10

Joined: 14 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5865
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Frozen Balls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 8:41pm
Can a fetus go on facebook?

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT

/debate over, victorious cries from FB

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.