Palin's Abortion Stance - Page 2

aps · 09-18-08, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

My apologizes if the last sentence came off giving the wrong impression. I was not meaning that all those things were the reason, it was a way of saying there may be multiple possible reasons you may think it strange that she is both Pro-Life but CHOOSE to have the child, from it just seeming a foreign concept to wilfully spinning it to attack, but to many its not such a foreign concept. Wasn't meaning to say you WERE wilfully spinning it to attack, but stating it may very well be a possibility why you did it (I'm sorry, but your actions in the past few weeks at least made it a possiblity in my mind, but not a certainty, thus the "maybe" and the multiple options for why you may be confused by her choice).

I understand and respect your friends choice. I also understand and respect Palin's. Knowing about such in advance can help one prepare in case it is a situation where you have a special needs child (and I know you know this, becuase this exact same idea was stated to you in another thread a few weeks back when you used the same line). She does have a relative that ALSO has a special needs baby and maybe it was advised from them. Maybe she found out the greater possabilities for older women to have Downs babies and wavered for a moment, but in the end stuck with her principles. Maybe her husband urged her to get the check for some reason.

I respect your friends choice, but we are all not the exact same creature. We all do not act exactly the same. We are not robots. You can look at almost any other situation where someone has a strong principled stance against something and still find a situation where they would be stricken with the choice of sticking to their principles or taking the easy way out...theres no reason it should not apply here as well.

Thank you, thank you. I agree with what you have said. And I do understand the desire to know if your child has any issues.

Now, I don't know what kind of testing Sarah Palin underwent. My only surprise is that there is a risk of miscarriage in undergoing a CVS test and an amnio. I am surprised that she would want to take that risk (yes, it's a very small risk, but I have had friends refuse to take the test because of the risk). Nevertheless, I fully support her deciding to undergo testing so that she could mentally prepare herself for what was to come. I know I would want that.

As an aside, I underwent the CVS test to find out if my child had Down Syndrome. At that time, I did not want to have this child, and I wanted an excuse to abort him (I did not know the sex at that time). The results came back negative, and I just couldn't go forward with an abortion. However, now that I have had a baby, I could not undergo an abortion even if that baby had Down Syndrome. So I can relate to Sarah Palin's situation.

Anyway, yeah, so I have been more partisan lately, but it's for a good reason, damn it!

Agnapostate · 09-18-08, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frolicking Dinosaurs

I understand Plain's stance and will try to explain it.

Palin holds the belief that human beings have a soul that resides within the body and therefore their life is sacred. She believes that the soul comes into play at the moment of conception and that taking the life of a fetus at any stage of development is therefore murder of a human being - a crime in pretty much all cultures.

Animals do not have souls according to this belief system and can be killed without such a penalty because nothing sacred resides within them.

Christianity and Judaism both see humans as separate from animals. In addition to the presence of a soul, there is also the matter of God having created man in His own image and having given man dominion over the animals according to the account in the Bible (Genesis 1).

I know that she thinks that, actually. I used to be an evangelical Christian myself. I'm just wondering if she'll openly admit that her perspective is based on religious principles. I'm also challenging other right-wingers to defend her position from a secular perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

Pretty simple: Evolution.

Animals are a natural food source. Human fetuses are not a natural food source. Eating animals promotes the survival of the species, eating human fetuses does not. So our nature is such that killing animals has been traditionally beneficial for mankind, but killing fetuses has not been beneficial for mankind.

Logically speaking, this means that, in an evolutionary sense for humans, non-human (in general)< human (in general).

There is no legitimate way for a human to come to the conclusion Non-Human (in general) = or > Human (in general) using evaluational biology, Logic, or reason.

But unless a clear symbiotic relationship exists, the animal (in general), is always below human (in general), regardless of the developmental stage of the general human, from the human perspective.

Now, it is true that one could argue that the individual human can be < or = an individual non-human, but then we have to contend with our natural instinct that informs us that this is not the case.

For example:

A human with a major genetic defect causing mental retardation that would be passed down form generation to generation is actually far more of a danger to the species as a whole (if he/she breeds) than a dog would be.

The scenario is that the individual Dog is attacking and trying to kill this particular human. You are given a weapon with which you can either be guaranteed to kill the dog or you can do nothing and allow the human to die. Time is of the essence, so you have no other options but to use the weapon that would kill the dog, or you can not use the weapon and essentially kill the human through inaction. Neither organism is a threat to you or will become a threat to you and you do not have any experience with either of them.

Mind you, the human has about even less self-awareness and rationality than the dog due to his/her disability. It has an equal capacity to feel pain though.

Now, don;t ask what you yourself would do in the hypothetical, ask what you think the majority of people would do if they were in the hypothetical. The species as a whole would generally pick the human over the dog. This implies something greater than pure logic guiding the choice.

My argument is that the majority would choose the human in instinctually and without logic, based on an ingrained evolutionary desire to protect that which is similar and thus promote th species overall survival rate as a whole.

So the answer to the question "How is it that Palin opposes killing fetuses but supports killing nonhuman animals who have a greater level of self-awareness, rationality, and a greater capacity to feel pain than a fetus does?" is actually "because she's supposed to feel that way".

Hell, I'm pro-choice and I'd much prefer to see a million dolphins slaughtered than see one single human fetus aborted. More to the point, if I could prevent all unwanted pregnancies now and forever, and eliminate the need for abortion to exist by killing off all of the world's dolphins, I would do it in a second.

Yes, I've encountered this argument quite a bit when I've raised this subject. I will give you the same response I gave them.

To rely entirely on a definition of "biologically natural standards" to determine human behavior is a poor system in a civilized society. While it is certainly enlightening to call attention to behaviors that are both biologically natural and socially beneficial, and to practice those behaviors for our own benefits, I don't feel that this analysis falls into this category.

For instance, competition within a species is also biologically natural. We could not use this as justification to legalize the assault or murder of other humans. The most visible manifestation of a behavior that is both biologically natural and socially harmful is that of rape: Why Men Rape

Obviously, rape is not socially beneficial or justifiable, though it is biologically natural. I fear the analyis you applied may fall into the trap of the naturalistic fallacy.

At any rate, I doubt Palin believes in evolution.

Pitwolfy · 09-18-08, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aps

Thank you, thank you. I agree with what you have said. And I do understand the desire to know if your child has any issues.

Now, I don't know what kind of testing Sarah Palin underwent. My only surprise is that there is a risk of miscarriage in undergoing a CVS test and an amnio. I am surprised that she would want to take that risk (yes, it's a very small risk, but I have had friends refuse to take the test because of the risk). Nevertheless, I fully support her deciding to undergo testing so that she could mentally prepare herself for what was to come. I know I would want that.

As an aside, I underwent the CVS test to find out if my child had Down Syndrome. At that time, I did not want to have this child, and I wanted an excuse to abort him (I did not know the sex at that time). The results came back negative, and I just couldn't go forward with an abortion. However, now that I have had a baby, I could not undergo an abortion even if that baby had Down Syndrome. So I can relate to Sarah Palin's situation.

Anyway, yeah, so I have been more partisan lately, but it's for a good reason, damn it!

Maybe it was an age thing being that Sarah Palin is 44. I know that when I was pregnant with my second child at 38, my doctor sent me to a specialist for a 3-D ultrsound. When I got there, I was put into a room and a genetics specialist came in with a chromosome chart and started listing all of the possible things wrong with the baby. Then she opened a scheduling book and wanted to know when I could be in for my amnio. I was caught completely off guard and it was very upsetting. But nobody ever asked me if I wanted that, it was just assumed. I never did get it, though.

The whole thing was really scary.

Tucker Case · 09-18-08, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnapostate

Yes, I've encountered this argument quite a bit when I've raised this subject. I will give you the same response I gave them.

To rely entirely on a definition of "biologically natural standards" to determine human behavior is a poor system in a civilized society. While it is certainly enlightening to call attention to behaviors that are both biologically natural and socially beneficial, and to practice those behaviors for our own benefits, I don't feel that this analysis falls into this category.

For instance, competition within a species is also biologically natural. We could not use this as justification to legalize the assault or murder of other humans. The most visible manifestation of a behavior that is both biologically natural and socially harmful is that of rape: Why Men Rape

Obviously, rape is not socially beneficial or justifiable, though it is biologically natural. I fear the analysis you applied may fall into the trap of the naturalistic fallacy.

At any rate, I doubt Palin believes in evolution.

I'm not guilty of the naturalistic fallacy because I was simply stating that which is natural. I'll explain more later.

But first, since you made the really poor choice to wander carelessly down the path of calling another persons statements fallacy, I'm going to point out a few fallacies you may have been unaware of that are riddled in your first post.

Now, let me state clearly that you should not try and read any moral arguments into my statements. I am not the one making moral judgments and pretending they are logic. In fact, check out my post again. I actually never make any moral claims, just biological ones.

But I digress. Lets look at your logical flaws in detail. First, I'll begin with sound logic:

P1 Pro-lifers believe that the willful and purposeful killing of an innocent human is murder.
P2 Pro-lifers believe that murder is wrong
P3 Pro lifers believe that a fetus is an innocent human
P4 Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder.
C1.0 Therefore Pro-lifers think abortion is wrong

Now one could remove P2 and adjust the word murder in P1 and P4
to be "wrong" and "willful and purposeful killing of an innocent human" respectively, but this complete logic illustrates the concept better because it clearly states that certain actions will not be construed as murder by the pro-lifer. These actions include, but are not limited to, Self-defense, war, accidents, the death penalty, etc.

These premises do not conflict with reality.

Now here is your logic:

P2.1. Pro-lifers believe that all forms of killing are wrong (fallacy)
P2.2. Hunting is killing
C2.0 therefore pro-lifers think hunting is wrong.

The most obvious fallacy is "arguing from a fallacy" since premise one is fallacious and observably so because the majority of pro-lifers support killing in certain circumstances. Thus the logic cannot be what you claim it to be.

Now it's possible that you came to your conclusion by affirming the consequent as follows:

If Sarah Palin is against all forms of killing, then she would be pro-life.
Sarah Palin pro life.
Therefore she is against all forms of killing

That is equally fallacious because it does not contain an "if and only if" statement. There are other ways that she can be pro-life, as illustrated with the accurate logical deduction I;ve described above.

Next, there is the begging the question/fallacy of many questions inherent in the statements regarding the portion of your question relating to "self-awareness, rationality and capacity to feel pain".

The begging the question is related to whether or not these qualities have any valid relationship to the value of the life being taken.

Is rationality important in determining the value of one life over the other?

You have assumed that these qualities are the end all and be all of the value of life, but that assumption is unsupported and unsupportable, as shown by my previous post, which was targeting that fallacy as false. The value, biologically, is not determined, by the described factors.

Instead of just pointing out every single fallacy you jam packed into about 30 words of nonsense, I played along and actually answered you question, but it was not to your liking. Instead of attempting to bolster your fallacious reasoning, you attempted to paint my statement as fallacious by simply naming a fallacy.

But since I was not making an argument about right or wrong. i never said it was morally correct for Palin to feel that way. I said she was [naturally] supposed to feel that way. (The naturally was implied because I called the behavior "instinctual and without logic" in the sentence just prior). By supposed, given the context, anyone should deduct that I mean biologically, not subjectively or morally.

I also illustrated how I feel on the matter, which, again, I've already said was purely instinctual and without logic. I didn't say that my feeling on the matter were morally correct.

Now, if you'd like to try and support your implied but as of yet unsupported claims that:

A. The value of life should be determined by degree of self-awareness, rationality, and capacity to feel pain of the organism instead of the particular species which that organism happens to belong to

B. Pro-lifers are logically unable to reject that statement

Now, the bitch is, you cannot argue theoretically to support your question. You have to prove these two things unequivocally for Palin to be logically inconsistent,as you also claimed without evidence.

All in all, I have serious doubts regarding your ability to do this.

Agnapostate · 09-19-08, 12:18 AM

Are you joking? I know fully well why the contradiction exists. Palin regards humans as being created in the image of God and having eternal souls, unlike nonhuman animals. I simply don't believe she'll plainly state that in an election debate.

I never asserted that "prolifers" opposed all forms of killing. I know fully well that "prolifers" who belong to the Christian Right typically support the death penalty because it is a destuction of the destroyers of innocent life, whereas they regard abortion as the mere destruction of innocent life. Hence, they regard a ban on abortion and the practice of the death penalty as the upholding of human life.

I am aware of their justification for the conclusions they draw. I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistency between supporting hunting and opposing abortion.

Perhaps this article could summarize my feelings more effectively:

Peter Singer: Abortion, the dividing lines | Herald Sun

Quote:

FOR a woman who does not want to have a child, pregnancy and birth is a severe hardship.

To force anyone to endure an avoidable hardship of that kind is contrary to our general belief in promoting individual freedom and choice. Such a denial of freedom could only be justified if there was a very compelling reason for it.

Opponents of abortion think there is a very compelling reason for denying freedom in these circumstances. They regard abortion as murder. Killing an embryo or fetus, they say, takes an innocent human life.

Defenders of a woman's right to choose sometimes challenge this claim. They deny that the embryo or fetus is a human life. The abortion debate then focuses on the question, "When does a human life begin?"

I think this is the wrong question to ask. In a strictly biological sense, the opponents of abortion are right to say that abortion ends a human life.

When a woman has an abortion, the fetus is alive, and it is undoubtedly human – in the sense that it is a member of the species homo sapiens. It isn't a dog or a chimpanzee.

But mere membership of our species doesn't settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life. As long as the abortion is carried out at less than 20 weeks of gestation – as almost all abortions are – the brain of the fetus has not developed to the point of making consciousness possible.

In that respect, the fetus is less developed, and less aware of its circumstances, than the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner.

That is why the fetus is "innocent". It doesn't have the capacity to do anything wrong – or anything right.

Even when the fetus does develop a capacity to feel pain – probably in the last third of the pregnancy – it still does not have the self-awareness of a chimpanzee, or even a dog.

When this is pointed out, some opponents of abortion respond that the fetus, unlike the dog or chimpanzee, is made in the image of God, or has an immortal soul. They thereby acknowledge religion is the driving force behind their opposition.

But there is no evidence for these religious claims, and in a society in which we keep the state and religion separate, we should not use them as a basis for the criminal law, which applies to people with different religious beliefs, or to those with none at all.

Other opponents say the fetus has the potential to become a person, that is, a thinking, rational being, like ourselves, and the dog or chimpanzee do not have that potential. But why should mere potential give a being a right to life?

The world already has more than six billion people. We are heading for more than nine billion by 2050. The more people there are, the greater the pressure on the Earth's environment and the greater the difficulty in giving them all even a minimally decent life. Do we really want every potential person to become an actual person?

In fact, with modern medical technology, the argument from potential rapidly leads to absurdity.

Scientists have shown, in many different species, including monkeys, that it is possible to clone an animal by taking the nucleus of an ordinary cell, and implanting it in an egg from which the nucleus has been removed.

There is no biological reason to suppose that this would not work for human beings. This means that billions of our cells have the potential to become an actual person.

Yet no one thinks that we have an obligation to "save" all these cells and turn them into people.

Arguably, the fetus first becomes a being of moral significance when it develops the capacity to feel pain, some time after 20 weeks of gestation.

We should be concerned about the capacity of fetuses to suffer pain in late-term abortions. On the rare occasions when such abortions are necessary, they should be performed in a way that minimises the possibility of suffering.

Admittedly, birth is in some ways an arbitrary place to draw the line at which killing the developing human life ceases to be permissible, and instead becomes murder.

A prematurely born infant may be less developed than a late-term fetus. But the criminal law needs clear dividing lines and, in normal circumstances, birth is the best we have.

Tucker Case · 09-19-08, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agnapostate

Are you joking? I know fully well why the contradiction exists. Palin regards humans as being created in the image of God and having eternal souls, unlike nonhuman animals. I simply don't believe she'll plainly state that in an election debate.

What contradiction? I don't believe in human souls (I'm an atheist) yet I have been arguing that no logical contradiction exists. I've been asking you to support the claims with real logic, not fallacy.

Quote:

I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistency between supporting hunting and opposing abortion.

So why don't you show me, using a clear logical deduction like the one I gave in my last post (the P1, P2 stuff), exactly what that inconsistency is. You aren't pointing anything out out. You are using fallacy upon fallacy to try and allude to one that I've shown does not actually exist.

Quote:

Perhaps this article could summarize my feelings more effectively:

Peter Singer: Abortion, the dividing lines | Herald Sun

That was not more effective in fact it was just as fallacious if not more so.

I have enough of your fallacies to contend with without adding all of his fallacies on top of it. Just look at my previous post and apply it to your "source". He's guilty of all of those and then some.

But just so you know, adding more to the dung to the dung heap will not prove your premises.

I've also given an example of the natural reasons why people associate human as > that non-human on a level quite distinct from what you have claimed without support.

You have never addressed my statements using pure evolutionary biology to explain why people can logically come to the conclusion that human > animal. And your source does not address these points.

The question relates directly to a false dilemma where a logical inconsistency is alleged. I have given a valid description of the logic that could be used by the person in question that:

A. Does not use your false premises regarding degree of self-awareness, rationality, and capacity to feel pain to determine the value metric

B. Does not evoke theology

C. Never makes a moral comment on the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of the deducer's conclusion.

So, like I said in my last post:

If you'd like to try and support your implied but as of yet unsupported claims that:

A. The value of life should be determined by degree of self-awareness, rationality, and capacity to feel pain of the organism instead of the particular species which that organism happens to belong to

B. Pro-lifers are logically unable to reject that statement

You have to prove these two things unequivocally for Palin to be logically inconsistent, as you claim she is being. I challenge your claims.

You can refute my given logic or you can support your own. it will probably be easier to try and attack my logic because supporting yours looks impossible without layering more fallacy on top of the old, used up fallacies.

Tucker Case · 09-19-08, 02:13 AM

Let me clear this up, If you want to go after palin for her styance on abortion, do so. I disgree with her stance on abortion myself. If you want to go after her becasue you worry that she lets her faith intrfere with her duties, so be it.

But don't make unsubstantiated claims bassed on false premises if you don't want someone to call you on it. teh Irony is that you said "I'm also challenging other right-wingers to defend her position from a secular perspective."

The question never asked to defend her postion, it asks "How is it that Palin opposes killing fetuses but supports killing nonhuman animals who have a greater level of self-awareness, rationality, and a greater capacity to feel pain than a fetus does?"

Which assumes that the two stances cannot coexist without contradiction.
They can and they do. I've given a reason why they can coexist. A purely secular reason why and you rejected it and then responsed with irrelevant comments because you somehow failed to recognize that you never asked a morality based question. You asked a logical question.

In essesne: "How can these two seemingly opposing priciples logically coexist without contradiction?"

I gave you the logical answer. Your personal bias is the only thing that causes you to reject it without bothering to try and understand it.

Realize that my argument is totally independent of beliefs.

It does not try to argue for or against abortion at all in any way.

It simply points out that the two priciples can coexist without contradiction and why.

Nothing more, nothing less.