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

Gallup Pro-life/choice

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
Author
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
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
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
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 3:32pm
Chewp, using hypotheticals is the only way you can arrive at any conclusions about morality. I don't think you're getting it.
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 3:40pm
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:



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"
 
No.
 
These hypotheticals are not for the purpose of plotting actual courses of action, but to narrow in on distinctions.


Quote 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.
 
No decisions are based on these hypotheticals - they are illustrations. 
 
 
As with some other folks here, I am frankly rather surprised at the resistance here.  This type of manipulated hypotheticals is an extremely common tool used to explore complex issues.  This is not new - this method of mental and moral exploration has been around for thousands of years.
 
You might as well be suggesting that counting apples with numbers is useless because you can't eat numbers.  Like numbers, these hypos are representative, not actual.  They are a tool to allow focused thought and conversation.

"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
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 6:19pm
I have a slight beef with peter's logic here, not for it being hypothetical.

In the case of aborting to save the mother's life, we're dealing with a lifeform whose existence threatens the existence of the mother. Since that lifeform itself has a low chance of survival, we see abortions as a sad, but justifiable means to save at least one of their lives.

In the case of the second option, the newborn would survive perfectly well if the mother died. In that instance you are putting more value on the mother's life then the newborn's life. Also, since the newborn is virtually defenseless, your preying on something weaker then you.

The moral issues with the second situation over the first isn't because its a baby vs. fetus, its because you're saying its life is worth less then the mother's life in the second situation. In the first situation, you're weighing the odds of each life and making a purely logical choice.  If the same conditions existed for the baby and the mother, where the baby was most likely going to die anyway, I think the situation would be much different.
  
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
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 6:39pm
Darur, why would the fetus have to die because the mother will? I am pretty sure it is possible for the fetus to live in a situation that the mother may die.



Que pasa?


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 6:43pm
Holy crap, I agree with the Canadian.

Seriously, the situation  was completely tailored to fit one side of the argument.

What if, hypothetically, everyone who agrees with abortion will get herpes? Maybe you'd better change your tune, because you're going to get herpes.


Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 6:51pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Darur, why would the fetus have to die because the mother will? I am pretty sure it is possible for the fetus to live in a situation that the mother may die.





I'm no doctor, but to my understanding, most times when medical complications may arise for the mother, they often pose complications for the baby as well. 

I am certain there are many situations as well where the baby could be delivered fine while the mother dies, which then changes the perspective for that situation and puts it closer to the second option peter offered.
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
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 6:54pm
The point of the argument Reb isn't to say abortion is a good thing.

The point was to show that the same people who say that fetuses are actual human living beings and shouldn't be killed are very against the killing of a child to save a mother. This is while they say that abortion can only happen if the mother is in danger.

From this it shows that they do in fact actually believe that a fetus is <born human. Nothing more.
Que pasa?


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 7:05pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

The point of the argument Reb isn't to say abortion is a good thing.

The point was to show that the same people who say that fetuses are actual human living beings and shouldn't be killed are very against the killing of a child to save a mother. This is while they say that abortion can only happen if the mother is in danger.

From this it shows that they do in fact actually believe that a fetus is <born human. Nothing more.


I know the argument wasn't in favor of abortion being good, I just worked my impossible hypothetical situation to fit my argument.

See what I did there?

 


Edited by Reb Cpl - 21 May 2009 at 7:05pm


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 7:08pm
It is not an impossible hypothetical situation.

It is a question on whether you actually believe that a fetus is the same a human that is already born.

Que pasa?


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 7:25pm
Darur - excellent distinction.  Will get back to that.
 
Reb - your hypothetical is not illustrative.  What if abortions lead to herpes?  I don't understand the question.  So what?  Abortion either does or does not lead to herpes, and I fail to see the relevance.
 
Now, if you take the same hypothetical and restate it slightly like this:  If you now support broad abortion rights, would it affect your view if abortion led to herpes?
 
Still not a great hypo, but now it is illustrative - it hones in on the reasons for supporting or not supporting abortion.
 
That's the point I am trying to get at, as illustrated by this meta-hypo.  My 2-part hypo was intended to create an illustration of a very specific issue (although, as Darur pointed out, not as specific as I had intended), not intended to be realistic in the least.
 
There are times when a hypothetical must be realistic, but other times hypos must simply be very specific.  It all depends on what you are doing with your hypo.
 
And again, this is an extraordinarily common rhetorical tool, used in virtually every scholarly discipline.

"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
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 7:29pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

It is not an impossible hypothetical situation.




lol wut?

So, then I call on you to answer Linus's challenge, name one instance in the medical world where killing an already born child would save the life of a mother.

MY point is that if you're going to base decisions and 'rational' arguments on hypothetical situations that are woven from impossible, implausible and ridiculous instances, then you really aren't any better than the "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" neo-cons that you're always claiming to be smarter than.




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 7:31pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Darur - excellent distinction.  Will get back to that.
 
Reb - your hypothetical is not illustrative.  What if abortions lead to herpes?  I don't understand the question.  So what?  Abortion either does or does not lead to herpes, and I fail to see the relevance.
 
Now, if you take the same hypothetical and restate it slightly like this:  If you now support broad abortion rights, would it affect your view if abortion led to herpes?
 
Still not a great hypo, but now it is illustrative - it hones in on the reasons for supporting or not supporting abortion.
 
That's the point I am trying to get at, as illustrated by this meta-hypo.  My 2-part hypo was intended to create an illustration of a very specific issue (although, as Darur pointed out, not as specific as I had intended), not intended to be realistic in the least.
 
There are times when a hypothetical must be realistic, but other times hypos must simply be very specific.  It all depends on what you are doing with your hypo.
 
And again, this is an extraordinarily common rhetorical tool, used in virtually every scholarly discipline.


Now you're just spinning colorful words in an attempt to cover up what was perhaps the weakest argument I've ever heard you make. Its okay, you're human too. LOL


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 7:38pm
It's not even a weak argument.

Also, I did say "it isn't an impossible hypothetical situation" but I didn't really mean it was possible. Just poor hasty words.

Oh and maybe the mother needs blood.
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 8:01pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

It's not even a weak argument.Also, I did say "it isn't an impossible hypothetical situation" but I didn't really mean it was possible. Just poor hasty words.Oh and maybe the mother needs blood.


VAMPIRE MOTHER!
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 8:16pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:



Oh and maybe the mother needs blood.


And there are no matches on earth except for the newborn?

There you go again.


Yes, I'm just being a pain in the ass now. Baby is asleep, its affording me a precious few minutes of free time.


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 8:19pm
Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:



Oh and maybe the mother needs blood.


And there are no matches on earth except for the newborn?

There you go again.


Yes, I'm just being a pain in the ass now. Baby is asleep, its affording me a precious few minutes of free time.


There I go again with what?

A RIDICULOUS thing I said, compared to the perfectly legitimate hypothetical example used to prove a point?
Que pasa?


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.140 seconds.