Abortion

[निताइ dasa]

Great example. I will discuss the coma example first. I would argue that if a person can recover from a coma, then the person continues to exist as a person through the coma (similar to deep sleep). For me at least the argument is easier to understand through the example of a computer. Does the monetary value of my laptop decrease when its in a shutdown mode compared to when it is powered on? The answer is "no" because all that makes the laptop valuable (computing power etc.) continues to exist as semiconductor connections in its hardware when it is in a non-powered state, and will resume its operation potency when it is powered on. However the same laptop becomes valueless if its motherboard has been completely destroyed, as its precisely those connections that has been irretrievably lost. I would argue that a person in a recoverable coma is someone whose turn on switch is not working for some reason but all that makes him a person continues to exist in him; while a person in an unrecoverable coma is one with so much brain damage that all that made him a person has been destroyed in his brain. The first person remains a person, while the second one has ceased to remain a person and therefore loses his rights as such. [The question of how to differentiate the two states is a question for medicine, I am talking from perfect knowledge vantage point.]

The early term fetus example is interesting, because, since the neural connections has not been laid out yet, there exists no person there in the body yet. But if the growth process continues, they will be laid in and there will emerge a person there. If the body is the garment, and the psycho-physical complex is the one owning and wearing the garment in the current life, then I would argue that an early term fetus is a half-made cloth which is still in the process of being woven in the weaver's shop (the mother's womb). It is undoubtedly true that the half made pieces of silk will eventually become a beautiful saree that will enhance the beauty of a wonderful person, if it continues to be woven by the weaver's loom. But it seems to me that as long as the dress remains but partially made and unowned pieces of silk, the right to decide whether to continue the weaving or not remains with the weaver.

I think the question of deprivation comes in only when someone loses something one already has or owns. An early term fetus has not yet become the garment of any Atman, and it does seem that the weaver (the mother) who is making the dress has the right to decide whether to weave or not till the time the locus becomes developed enough to become such a garment. The life that one has should be created out of love, and not through unwilling enforcement...just as an idol for your God should be made by a devout potter through the mode of Bhakti and not through forced child labor. A life that begins without such love and acceptance is a cursed one, not blessed. Would you agree?

Hmm thank you for this interesting perceptive. I really like your views on this. I disagree slightly of course, but your example is very thought provoking.

As for the cloth example, its interesting, because I would only define moral action as that which is willed consciousally .The fetus is being created without the mother's will (i.e it is occurring by natural processes, which are dependent on the mother) where as the action of abortion,(which is routed within the mother's will) would stop the process.So in this instance I would not say the mother is the weaver. Therefore stopping the process would constitute a violation of its right. Yes, I agree if the mother was willfully weaving,then it would be permissible to stop weaving, but here I don't think such is the case. I think the distinction between action and inaction is quite controversial here (I would say that absence of action itself is not an action but..there are others who disagree). Another objection is that clothes don't have any intrinsic rights, so can we really use it a suitable analogy to human beings.

I think the question of deprivation comes in only when someone loses something one already has or owns. An early term fetus has not yet become the garment of any Atman

I think we might differ here theologically. The Bhagavatam says the Atma enters into the body during conception,but I am not sure what Nyaya or Sankhya would say on this. As for the deprivation I have thought about this objection...and the paper I quoted does argue further...but imagine this example

let us say, I had a lottery ticket and with it I won 1 million dollars but I did not cash it in yet. Now someone comes along and exchanges the winning ticket and instead gives me $2 because according to her that was "what the ticket was worth". Would that constitute stealing or an unfair exchange? This is why I do not totally discredit the argument from derivation.

The life that one has should be created out of love, and not through unwilling enforcement...just as an idol for your God should be made by a devout potter through the mode of Bhakti and not through forced child labor. A life that begins without such love and acceptance is a cursed one, not blessed. Would you agree?

It is certainly an elevated principle, and certainly such a life created out of love is better, but I would not call a hated life cursed intrinsically. The fetus can still grow up to become a wonderful member of society, they can learn to live, eat, love, be loved and enjoy the pleasures of life. If one hates the child, give her away to adoption. I feel for that at least quite a lot, and that is why I take this position. Restraining of our personal desires must be shown, if the very capacity of desire of another is at risk. It was very nice discussing with you though Sayakji Nitaibol!

 

[sayak83]

Hmm thank you for this interesting perceptive. I really like your views on this. I disagree slightly of course, but your example is very thought provoking.

As for the cloth example, its interesting, because I would only define moral action as that which is willed consciousally .The fetus is being created without the mother's will (i.e it is occurring by natural processes, which are dependent on the mother) where as the action of abortion,(which is routed within the mother's will) would stop the process.So in this instance I would not say the mother is the weaver. Therefore stopping the process would constitute a violation of its right. Yes, I agree if the mother was willfully weaving,then it would be permissible to stop weaving, but here I don't think such is the case. I think the distinction between action and inaction is quite controversial here (I would say that absence of action itself is not an action but..there are others who disagree). Another objection is that clothes don't have any intrinsic rights, so can we really use it a suitable analogy to human beings.



I think we might differ here theologically. The Bhagavatam says the Atma enters into the body during conception,but I am not sure what Nyaya or Sankhya would say on this. As for the deprivation I have thought about this objection...and the paper I quoted does argue further...but imagine this example

let us say, I had a lottery ticket and with it I won 1 million dollars but I did not cash it in yet. Now someone comes along and exchanges the winning ticket and instead gives me $2 because according to her that was "what the ticket was worth". Would that constitute stealing or an unfair exchange? This is why I do not totally discredit the argument from derivation.



It is certainly an elevated principle, and certainly such a life created out of love is better, but I would not call a hated life cursed intrinsically. The fetus can still grow up to become a wonderful member of society, they can learn to live, eat, love, be loved and enjoy the pleasures of life. If one hates the child, give her away to adoption. I feel for that at least quite a lot, and that is why I take this position. Restraining of our personal desires must be shown, if the very capacity of desire of another is at risk. It was very nice discussing with you though Sayakji Nitaibol!

Great discussion as always. I need to run now. But a lottery ticket that has already won is identical to the cash I get in its exchange. The more interesting case is, suppose a pickpocket steals a wallet containing a lottery ticket. It happens that, a month later, the lottery results were announced and that particular ticket happened to win a million dollars. Should the thief be punished for stealing $20 which was the worth of all things in the wallet when he stole it, or $1 million and twenty which became the cost of all stuff in the wallet when he was caught?
Brain teaser that.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Great discussion as always. I need to run now. But a lottery ticket that has already won is identical to the cash I get in its exchange. The more interesting case is, suppose a pickpocket steals a wallet containing a lottery ticket. It happens that, a month later, the lottery results were announced and that particular ticket happened to win a million dollars. Should the thief be punished for stealing $20 which was the worth of all things in the wallet when he stole it, or $1 million and twenty which became the cost of all stuff in the wallet when he was caught?
Brain teaser that.

Same here, sleep time.
Haaha sometimes I swear, this discussion create more questions than answer (which is not a bad thing but...)

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That lottery thing really slayed me. Intriguing.

Still....

I don't have a robot if all the parts are just lying there on the floor. A zygote is just the parts in the box. An embryo is the parts being built. A fetus is the robot but without the AI completely installed and booted. Only when the robot is complete is it a robot that can think in whatever terms it was supposed to, anyway. A remote-controlled toy is not a robot because WE control it, not itself.

The Constitution is clear that to be a citizen you have to be born (or naturalized, which is just being born somewhere else and moving here).

The bible is clear that it is with first breath outside the womb that counts as being "alive".

The ability to feel pain means nothing to me. It is not a requisite to being considered a person, as there are living humans without this ability, plus we harm plenty of nonhumans, both animal and plant, with the ability to "detect damage" (aka: "feel pain").

The ability to suck a thumb means nothing. A fetal elephant can suck its trunk. So what?

I have seen many arguments for protecting zygotes and embryos and fetuses, but they are all wildly inconsistent and many times, even hypocritical (why don't we protect all creatures that can feel pain or why do we accept the humanity of humans with neurological disorders that prevent them from feeling pain?).

Birth is a concrete event. We don't have to guess about its status. It either happened or it didn't. I'm fine with birth being the "start" of a person's life. However, if the child will not be coming out with the ability to have a life (missing a brain, or will die just hours after birth, etc), I do not find it moral to drag that life into existence just so we can have baby pictures for a few minutes. Sometimes we have to accept that life just wasn't cut out for the one to come. It sucks, but it is what it is.

 

[निताइ dasa]

That lottery thing really slayed me. Intriguing.

I have many more examples up my sleeve...mwahahahah

I have seen many arguments for protecting zygotes and embryos and fetuses, but they are all wildly inconsistent and many times, even hypocritical (why don't we protect all creatures that can feel pain or why do we accept the humanity of humans with neurological disorders that prevent them from feeling pain?).

I mirror the sentiment. Both sides seem to be arguing from emotional appeal most of the time (which is not a bad thing but...), but their definitions are quite inconsistent. People really need to think critically about this issue, I think, instead of following the status quo.

 

[निताइ dasa]

The Constitution is clear that to be a citizen you have to be born (or naturalized, which is just being born somewhere else and moving here).

also, I would argue that a right to government protection, espeicially basic human rights, don't have to apply to only citizens. Say a refugee comes into a country, and gets murdered, do you think their right to life was forfeited, simply because they were not a citizen of that state?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Don't shift the goalposts. You said that you could demonstrate that the Moon is not made of cheese. Go for it.

You shifted them by pursuing a debate over something that most people accept already, which is a waste of debate time. However,

1. I rely on trusted observers who say the moon isn't cheesy.

2. I have reason to trust the eyewitnesses regarding Jesus. You have reason to trust modern science regarding counter-claims to Bible doctrines. However, science cannot disprove miracles as miracles are merely things outside our typical inductive observation.

3. It is supercilious of you to debate statements that most reasonable people accept in light of the facts:

a. That the moon is not cheese--most people worldwide now believe this, based on the evidence

b. Likewise, most people, in light of all the available facts and data, disbelieve macro-evolution, believe God exists, believe God judges human sin, etc.

Let's not waste more time. You have a bias against the available data. If you really believe the moon is made of cheese, why would I debate God, Heaven and Hell with you?

 

[McBell]

You shifted them by pursuing a debate over something that most people accept already, which is a waste of debate time. However,

1. I rely on trusted observers who say the moon isn't cheesy.

2. I have reason to trust the eyewitnesses regarding Jesus. You have reason to trust modern science regarding counter-claims to Bible doctrines. However, science cannot disprove miracles as miracles are merely things outside our typical inductive observation.

3. It is supercilious of you to debate statements that most reasonable people accept in light of the facts:

a. That the moon is not cheese--most people worldwide now believe this, based on the evidence

b. Likewise, most people, in light of all the available facts and data, disbelieve macro-evolution, believe God exists, believe God judges human sin, etc.

Let's not waste more time. You have a bias against the available data. If you really believe the moon is made of cheese, why would I debate God, Heaven and Hell with you?

Appeal to numbers fallacy
What most people think/believe is not evidence of anything other than what most people think/believe.

Remember, at some point in time "most people" believed the world was flat, that tomatos were poisonous, spontaneous generation, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You shifted them by pursuing a debate over something that most people accept already, which is a waste of debate time.

It's a useful exercise to show that the standard you ask for when rejecting Jesus is unreasonable, since even beliefs that you reject as obvious delusions don't meet it.

However,

1. I rely on trusted observers who say the moon isn't cheesy.

But any "trusted observers" you could rely on could have only seen a very small part of Moon's surface. None have seen its core.

How many "trusted observers" would I have to produce who said "I visited Jerusalem and never saw Jesus while I was there" before you will accept that Jesus was never in Jerusalem?

2. I have reason to trust the eyewitnesses regarding Jesus. You have reason to trust modern science regarding counter-claims to Bible doctrines. However, science cannot disprove miracles as miracles are merely things outside our typical inductive observation.

As we're illustrating right now, there are lots of false things that science can't disprove. This is why our threshold for believing in something is when there's good evidence that the thing is true, not merely a lack of evidence that the thing is false.

3. It is supercilious of you to debate statements that most reasonable people accept in light of the facts:

a. That the moon is not cheese--most people worldwide now believe this, based on the evidence

Appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy.

b. Likewise, most people, in light of all the available facts and data, disbelieve macro-evolution, believe God exists, believe God judges human sin, etc.

Come again?

Let's not waste more time. You have a bias against the available data. If you really believe the moon is made of cheese, why would I debate God, Heaven and Hell with you?

I don't believe that the Moon is made of cheese. I just believe that you can't demonstrate that it isn't made of cheese.

I also believe that when something isn't disproved but there's no good evidence for it being real, the proper course of action is to not accept that the thing exists.

 

[sayak83]

Hmm thank you for this interesting perceptive. I really like your views on this. I disagree slightly of course, but your example is very thought provoking.

As for the cloth example, its interesting, because I would only define moral action as that which is willed consciousally .The fetus is being created without the mother's will (i.e it is occurring by natural processes, which are dependent on the mother) where as the action of abortion,(which is routed within the mother's will) would stop the process.So in this instance I would not say the mother is the weaver. Therefore stopping the process would constitute a violation of its right. Yes, I agree if the mother was willfully weaving,then it would be permissible to stop weaving, but here I don't think such is the case. I think the distinction between action and inaction is quite controversial here (I would say that absence of action itself is not an action but..there are others who disagree). Another objection is that clothes don't have any intrinsic rights, so can we really use it a suitable analogy to human beings.

But the very question is whether the fetus has intrinsic rights before it's brain has developed to the point where a psycho-physical entity called the person can emerge in it. The argument being made is that the body of the fetus (and the body of all persons) gain secondary rights because a psycho-physical entity called the "self" or "person" who is the primary holder of intrinsic rights has emerged within it and has claimed ownership of the body. Before such an emergence, the fetus belongs to the creator, the body of the mother, all of whose processes are owned by the person in that body, the mother.

Without such intrinsic rights of an early term fetus, a mother can choose to stop her body processes from continuing to nurture the fetus, just I can choose to shave off my beard, which I also did not consciously will to grow while I was sleeping.

I think we might differ here theologically. The Bhagavatam says the Atma enters into the body during conception,but I am not sure what Nyaya or Sankhya would say on this.

I don't know. Sankhya should not consider such an early correspondence between Atma and the body, because the point there is that the individual purushas are somehow resonating with those aspects of prakriti that form the buddhi, manas and citta thereby rendering them with the sense of the lower self. None of these things (buddhi, manas or citta) are present in the prakriti conglomerate of an early fetus, far less at the point of conception.

It is certainly an elevated principle, and certainly such a life created out of love is better, but I would not call a hated life cursed intrinsically. The fetus can still grow up to become a wonderful member of society, they can learn to live, eat, love, be loved and enjoy the pleasures of life. If one hates the child, give her away to adoption. I feel for that at least quite a lot, and that is why I take this position. Restraining of our personal desires must be shown, if the very capacity of desire of another is at risk. It was very nice discussing with you though Sayakji Nitaibol!

Even with abortion, lots of children grow up in orphanage homes without getting adopted. Worse in many developing countries lots of orphans simply live on streets. What is it like to grow feeling like nobody wants you. If a mother feels incapable of caring for her child, is there good reason for her to believe that she is not consigning her baby to a life-time of rejection (or even abuse) from orphanage to orphanage by giving him/her up for adoption? The sad fact is today, society is unable to take care of its children when for whatever reason, the parents are incapable of doing so by themselves. Even monkeys, in their group, can do this better than us. Can there be such societies where it would be ridiculous to consider abortion unless a mother's life is threatened, yes. Is this such a society, no.

Great discussion though. Thanks.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Before such an emergence, the fetus belongs to the creator, the body of the mother, all of whose processes are owned by the person in that body, the mother.

I would dispute this, premise
.

Even with abortion, lots of children grow up in orphanage homes without getting adopted. Worse in many developing countries lots of orphans simply live on streets. What is it like to grow feeling like nobody wants you. If a mother feels incapable of caring for her child, is there good reason for her to believe that she is not consigning her baby to a life-time of rejection (or even abuse) from orphanage to orphanage by giving him/her up for adoption?

Yes, the whole situation is really the worst of a bad situation. That is why instead of fighting against the legality of abortion, we should try and implement laws which do give support to mothers and children who are unwanted. Unfortunately this issue is becoming more and more prominent due to the serialization of society today. When sex was restricted in marriage, then such situations were very rare, where the child could not be supported, but now...it truly is a bad situation However simply on principle I cannot support it as moral, sorry.

Nice discussion, yes!

 

[sayak83]

I would dispute this, premise
.


Yes, the whole situation is really the worst of a bad situation. That is why instead of fighting against the legality of abortion, we should try and implement laws which do give support to mothers and children who are unwanted. Unfortunately this issue is becoming more and more prominent due to the serialization of society today. When sex was restricted in marriage, then such situations were very rare, where the child could not be supported, but now...it truly is a bad situation However simply on principle I cannot support it as moral, sorry.

Nice discussion, yes!

Drinking is not moral, gambling is not moral, prostitution is not moral, eating meat is not moral, war is not moral. If one wants to avoid immorality, there is only one thing to do, flee to the Himalayas as Arjuna wanted to do at the eve of war. Now that would be truly immoral. The only right thing to do is to decide one's duty to oneself, others and society as best as one can, take up ones bow and act without illusions or moha as best as one can. This is earth, not heaven, what were you expecting!

 

[निताइ dasa]

Drinking is not moral, gambling is not moral, prostitution is not moral, eating meat is not moral, war is not moral. If one wants to avoid immorality, there is only one thing to do, flee to the Himalayas as Arjuna wanted to do at the eve of war. Now that would be truly immoral. The only right thing to do is to decide one's duty to oneself, others and society as best as one can, take up ones bow and act without illusions or moha as best as one can. This is earth, not heaven, what were you expecting!

Hahaha, at least we can strive to a moral ideal, make earth little bit like heaven... but I get your point.

 

[sayak83]

Hahaha, at least we can strive to a moral ideal, make earth little bit like heaven... but I get your point.

I mostly agree with you. in this

That is why instead of fighting against the legality of abortion, we should try and implement laws which do give support to mothers and children who are unwanted.

That is our task today. The next generation is free to decide how to think about abortion if we succeed.
In India, meanwhile sex selective abortion is such a problem that it may be advisable to stop abortion completely unless mother's health is an issue.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Appeal to numbers fallacy
What most people think/believe is not evidence of anything other than what most people think/believe.

Remember, at some point in time "most people" believed the world was flat, that tomatos were poisonous, spontaneous generation, etc.

Please, keep us this line of argumentation, by all means, if you are attempting to oppose my resolution:

The Moon is NOT made of dairy products.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's a useful exercise to show that the standard you ask for when rejecting Jesus is unreasonable, since even beliefs that you reject as obvious delusions don't meet it.

That isn't what occurred, and I would claim if you proposed the above that most people who (currently) reject Jesus, do so for sheer willfulness or moral deficiencies, rather than based on looking without emotions at the facts.

I am emphasizing that I accept as valid testimony scientists' data and conclusions regarding the composition of the Moon's surface, and good estimates of it's interior. I've read the entire Bible, more than once, and--this is critical--even before pursuing outside confirmations from science and philosophy, etc. I find the testimonies within honest, thoughtful, intelligent, and carefully stated. In other words, I find the lay authors and (for their day) scientific authors of the Bible quite reliable, too. So if you'd object, may I recommend you attempt to do so from fact, "this book is inconsistent" rather than a confirmatory bias as I've stated above, like "I don't like what the Bible people did and taught."

 

[McBell]

The Moon is NOT made of dairy products.

you have yet to show the above quoted claim to be true.
All you have done is made yet another claim : that lots and lots of people agree with the above quoted claim.

Agreement with a claim doe snot make the claim true.

 

[McBell]

, may I recommend you attempt to do so from fact,

so you can completely ignore it... ...again?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

also, I would argue that a right to government protection, espeicially basic human rights, don't have to apply to only citizens. Say a refugee comes into a country, and gets murdered, do you think their right to life was forfeited, simply because they were not a citizen of that state?

They were a citizen of SOME state. A fetus can't get to this country on its own. What country calls a zygote a citizen? Some women don't even know they're pregnant until the baby plops out. Do we mandate monthly pregnancy tests for all women (do the virgins too, since Mary, after all, proves that virginity ain't 100% effective)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am emphasizing that I accept as valid testimony scientists' data and conclusions regarding the composition of the Moon's surface, and good estimates of it's interior.

The fact that the Moon has accumulated a layer of dust and rock over billions of years doesn't exclude the possibility that it's cheesy below this layer.

And what "good estimates of its interior" are you referring to? How can they exclude the possibility of cheese without unsubstantiated inference about the qualities of this cheese?

Just for clarity: my definition for "cheese" is simply "pressed curds". I don't make any claims about what the characteristics of ancient space cheese might be, but I think it would be foolish to limit our thinking about "cheese" to terrestrial cheeses from cows, goats and similar animals, especially since they evolved long after the moon formed.

The core and mantle of the moon is under intense pressure, so I think it's a given that anything below the Moon's surface qualifies as "pressed" - one point for me. To win here, you would have to make a case based on valid justification that nothing within the Moon can be reasonably considered "curd". Can you?