Ethics of Abortion

[Phi for All]

Ooh, phi, you've reached 10,000 posts. Congrats. Well, the facts he gave were sort of random, and didn't really express one idea or another. The post is titled ethics of abortion, not factual and opinionless discussion of abortion. No one goes into the politics section not expecting bickering and strongly biased opinions. Nowadays, politics involve very few facts, so I find it fitting. Factual discussion about factual things, biased discussion of biased things.

This is one of the biggest problems with the abortion issue, people trying to form ethical stances based on few facts. It's insane. This adherence to "life begins at conception" is completely untenable. It's more in line with a personal moral value, but fails miserably when you attempt to make it law and enforce it.

 

I think it's extremely selfish thinking. Some people assume birth control means sluts doing whoever they want, or think welfare goes only to lazy people who could work if they really wanted to. People who oppose making abortion available seem more interested in a potential life than they are in the actual, here-and-now life of the mother, and they're usually the ones who demand that every baby gets born and then don't want to pay taxes that go to any welfare or education for all those kids. They're also usually the same people who don't really give a crap that lots of innocent brown people get killed every day with their tax money.

[mooeypoo]

You know, when people are talking about something controversial, most people add their own strongly biased ideas. How about some strongly biased ideas? Facts are fun, but arguments more so. There is no one right or wrong answer.

You skipped my questions. And then dismissed John's points without really relating to any single one of them.

[chilled_fluorine]

Read up. The point about women merrily going around to get abortions is a strawman, and quite honestly it's a seriously offensive one. How many women do you think WANT to get an abortion? Do you seriously think this is part of a pregnancy prevention plan a woman sits and considers? Do you imagine women scheduling an abortion and then a meeting at a pub for drinks?

The fact is, abortion is a humiliating painful procedure very very few women want (if at ALL). The question most of the time is whether the woman NEEDS an abortion, not whether she merrily wants one.

 

And if that's your condition, then how about you go and ask the people who actually WORK around women who have abortions and see what the leading reasons are? Did you ever research this, or are you just spitting out what you were fed by other people in "authority" since any abortion is sinful?

 

Most reasons for abortion are medical. Would you prevent a woman from having an abortion on a pregnancy that might be extremely dangerous for her health and/or the baby's? Really?

 

But fine, let's move to other questions and considerations. If live begins at conception, what happens to twins? Do their soul splits (they don't start off at twins, they start off as 1 fetus and then split after a couple of weeks) -- are we lacking souls or does it miraculously manifest itself when the split happens?

 

Would you sue women who have natural abortions for manslaughter?

 

And if you're for using birth control, how does that fit with thinking life starts at conception? Pills or chemical birth control literally "kills" the eggs. Is that not murder?

 

Women don't want to have abortions, but they think it's in their best interest, so they do it. Not all abortion is "sinful". I'm not religious. There are morally wrong things, but no sins to me. I have seen the figures. If it was likely the woman would die, no, I wouldn't stop it. Most reasons for abortion are not medical. You know I don't think souls exist, right? I'm not a Christian. Or anything, really. An egg is different than a fertilized one. An unfertilized egg has no potential for life. Not for manslaughter. Too many people would end up in jail for the rest of their lives.

[mooeypoo]

Women don't want to have abortions, but they think it's in their best interest, so they do it. Not all abortion is "sinful". I'm not religious. There are morally wrong things, but no sins to me. I have seen the figures. If it was likely the woman would die, no, I wouldn't stop it. Most reasons for abortion are not medical. You know I don't think souls exist, right? I'm not a Christian. Or anything, really. An egg is different than a fertilized one. An unfertilized egg has no potential for life. Not for manslaughter. Too many people would end up in jail for the rest of their lives.

Evidence? "They think" ... who? How many women thinks that?

 

You ignore evidence that's given to you and then you use unsupported bunk-claims to state you're right. You're not in a preaching forum, chilled_fluorine, you're in a science forum, and we require you do not needlessly generalize and that you substantiate your claim *even in the politics forum*. Read our rules.

 

And now try to do better, please. None of these claims above has even the most remote hold on what actually goes on with women who consider (and go through) having an abortion. There is research out there, there are statistics out there, there are tests out there. You can find them if you care to. Then again, that would require you give in to the SLIGHTEST most TINIEST possibility you MAY find out you MIGHT have something a LITTTTTTLE bit on the (shriek) wrong here.

 

Not much to debate if you just decided what you want to decide and came over here to preach regardless of evidence, though. If tht's the case, I suggest we end the thread right here.

 

Which is it?

[Phi for All]

An egg is different than a fertilized one. An unfertilized egg has no potential for life.

Are you willing to execute a woman for choosing to abort a baby she doesn't want? Some states will do that if "life begins at conception" is made the law of the land. Some states would execute a woman if she exercises too strenuously and miscarries. Where is your right to privacy-small-non-intrusive government philosophy now?

 

Did you know that, around the world, abortion rates don't vary substantially between countries where abortion is legal and where it's illegal? This shows us some very important things. Women would rather face death sometimes than have a child they don't want. It also shows us that women will choose abortion whether it's legal, monitored and safe or it's illegal, unmonitored and dangerous. If you're pro-life, why don't you value the lives of these women? Why should a potential for life trump an already living and viable human?

 

If you still maintain that this potential for life is enough to grant personhood to a blastocyst, please keep in mind that a few skin cells or a piece of dandruff contains the potential to be cloned as a human being. Potential for life is a stupid reason to restrict the rights of anybody.

[zapatos]

You know, when people are talking about something controversial, most people add their own strongly biased ideas. How about some strongly biased ideas? Facts are fun, but arguments more so. There is no one right or wrong answer.

You skipped my questions too.

[jeskill]

Great site john! I'm bookmarking that.

 

The pie chart is also informative: it states that only 1.5 % have an abortion after 21 weeks.

 

I bookmarked this article by Joyce Arthur some time ago, but I also found it informative. An excerpt:

 

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

 

The take-home message is, of course, you don't really know if you're personally pro-life until you have to personally make the choice.

Edited October 2, 2012 by jeskill

[mooeypoo]

I just want to point out that "pro-life" assumes that the pre-developed pre-embryonic cyst is "life", which is not all that clear, scientifically and medically and (as we can see) socially.

 

I get it that people use "pro life" or "pro choice", but for all intents and purposes, I am both. I'm pro choice, and very much pro the life that is already living.

[Phi for All]

I'm pro choice, and very much pro the life that is already living.

It should also be noted that the life that is already living is the one the cyst is completely dependent on. Its care can't be transferred like any other dependent entity. Without that particular woman's consent, the blastocyst can't survive. How could that possibly fit a moral or legal definition of life?

 

The word "abortion" is partly to blame in all this. It implies a failed plan, failure at something that was intentional, and nothing could be further from the truth. We should be calling it a prevention instead.

[chilled_fluorine]

Evidence? "They think" ... who? How many women thinks that?

 

You ignore evidence that's given to you and then you use unsupported bunk-claims to state you're right. You're not in a preaching forum, chilled_fluorine, you're in a science forum, and we require you do not needlessly generalize and that you substantiate your claim *even in the politics forum*. Read our rules.

 

And now try to do better, please. None of these claims above has even the most remote hold on what actually goes on with women who consider (and go through) having an abortion. There is research out there, there are statistics out there, there are tests out there. You can find them if you care to. Then again, that would require you give in to the SLIGHTEST most TINIEST possibility you MAY find out you MIGHT have something a LITTTTTTLE bit on the (shriek) wrong here.

 

Not much to debate if you just decided what you want to decide and came over here to preach regardless of evidence, though. If tht's the case, I suggest we end the thread right here.

 

Which is it?

Remind me again, why would a woman have an abortion if it wasn't in her best interest? Remember, there really isn't any way to prove an ethical stance right or wrong. We can provide a compelling argument, but that is just about all. The "evidence" you were referring to can't prove my opinions about abortion's ethics to be right or wrong. I'm not afraid of being wrong. I preach because I am given so many opportunities to. If we had a factual conversation, which I am completely open to, then we couldn't get anywhere on a matter of opinion.

[mooeypoo]

Remind me again, why would a woman have an abortion if it wasn't in her best interest?

You're moving the goal post now. "Her best interest" wasn't the issue previously, was it. "WANTS TO" is different than "in her best interest".

 

A woman with advanced breast cancer might have it on "her best interest" to have a masectomy. I don't see many women who "want to". Difference clear now? Please stop moving the goal post.

 

 

Now, if you want a reminder about why it may be for women's best interests', read people's posts. There were quite a number of examples given (SUPPORTED by real cases, surprise).

 

That said, you're making claims to support your position that are either turning out to be an exaggerated falsehood, or they turn out not to support your position. When that happens (more than once now) you turn around and Red Herring your way through the debate by pointing a finger at others.

 

Let me make it simple: Even if I cannot support *my* position, that doesn't remove the responsibility you have from supporting yours.

 

Remember, there really isn't any way to prove an ethical stance right or wrong. We can provide a compelling argument, but that is just about all.

Not so, clearly, since your attempt to support your position are clearly untrue (READ the actual papers!) which means that there's nothing to support your position. If you can come up with real actual supported claims, we can argue on opinions.

 

Check this bit of logic:

"It's my opinion that all men are grumpy because shaving is scary. Who in their right mind would put a knife next to their necks!"

 

How about this:

"It's my opinion that all american people all murderers because they kill children in iraq."

 

.... would you truly argue that "you can't argue on opinions" ? Really? When all evidence show these are absolutely ridiculous claims?

 

The "evidence" you were referring to can't prove my opinions about abortion's ethics to be right or wrong. I'm not afraid of being wrong. I preach because I am given so many opportunities to.

Let me make this clear: Preaching is against the forums' rules. While the staff has been patient in trying to let you know in more than one moderation note, gentle nudge and hint, this gentleness will not continue.

 

Stop preaching. Start debating. Can you?

 

If we had a factual conversation, which I am completely open to, then we couldn't get anywhere on a matter of opinion.

 

If you could show how your opinion is supported by facts -- that is, how your interpretation of the situation results in the opinion you hold -- then you'd be right. In fact, I know quite a number of arguments on "your side" that would do just that, while still being well grounded in actual reality. Instead, you choose to guess and be condescending to a situation you clearly have not a half a clue about, and even more clearly from your writing, that you don't care to check.

 

I suggest you read my and John's posts again, and look up ACTUAL statistics and papers about abortions and the reasons for them. You're guessing, and while guessing might be fun, it's by far not an evidence. We're not in a guessing forum, we're in a science forum, which requires substantiation of claims. Even the politics and religion forums.

 

I'm getting tired repeating myself.

 

~mooey

[chilled_fluorine]

You're moving the goal post now. "Her best interest" wasn't the issue previously, was it. "WANTS TO" is different than "in her best interest".

 

A woman with advanced breast cancer might have it on "her best interest" to have a masectomy. I don't see many women who "want to". Difference clear now? Please stop moving the goal post.

 

 

Now, if you want a reminder about why it may be for women's best interests', read people's posts. There were quite a number of examples given (SUPPORTED by real cases, surprise).

 

That said, you're making claims to support your position that are either turning out to be an exaggerated falsehood, or they turn out not to support your position. When that happens (more than once now) you turn around and Red Herring your way through the debate by pointing a finger at others.

 

Let me make it simple: Even if I cannot support *my* position, that doesn't remove the responsibility you have from supporting yours.

 

 

Not so, clearly, since your attempt to support your position are clearly untrue (READ the actual papers!) which means that there's nothing to support your position. If you can come up with real actual supported claims, we can argue on opinions.

 

Check this bit of logic:

"It's my opinion that all men are grumpy because shaving is scary. Who in their right mind would put a knife next to their necks!"

 

How about this:

"It's my opinion that all american people all murderers because they kill children in iraq."

 

.... would you truly argue that "you can't argue on opinions" ? Really? When all evidence show these are absolutely ridiculous claims?

 

 

Let me make this clear: Preaching is against the forums' rules. While the staff has been patient in trying to let you know in more than one moderation note, gentle nudge and hint, this gentleness will not continue.

 

Stop preaching. Start debating. Can you?

 

 

 

If you could show how your opinion is supported by facts -- that is, how your interpretation of the situation results in the opinion you hold -- then you'd be right. In fact, I know quite a number of arguments on "your side" that would do just that, while still being well grounded in actual reality. Instead, you choose to guess and be condescending to a situation you clearly have not a half a clue about, and even more clearly from your writing, that you don't care to check.

 

I suggest you read my and John's posts again, and look up ACTUAL statistics and papers about abortions and the reasons for them. You're guessing, and while guessing might be fun, it's by far not an evidence. We're not in a guessing forum, we're in a science forum, which requires substantiation of claims. Even the politics and religion forums.

 

I'm getting tired repeating myself.

 

~mooey

There is no "evidence" to support morality. It's just what feels right. Opinions are opinions. I could say "it is morally correct to put puppies in industrial blenders then drink the resultant juice while laughing", and you couldn't prove me wrong. Of course, some opinions sound more reasonable than others, but reason itself is a matter of opinion. I have no problem with abortion if the life of the mother is endangered by continuing the pregnancy. Because the woman has to go into the abortion clinic willingly, and people only do things willingly when they want to do them, the woman must want to have an abortion. If not she wouldn't be there. Surely the woman would know that it wouldn't be enjoyable, but she would think it was in her best interest, which is what made her willingly go to the clinic. The example you provided isn't really an opinion. Millions of Americans have indirectly conspired to murder Iraqi children, but not all have actually killed an Iraqi child. If you haven't killed, you aren't a murderer. Opinions, by definition can not be proven right or wrong. They can, however, be considered right or wrong in the opinions of most everybody. It is not a fact that nazi policy is wrong, it is just a very widespread opinion, and one I strongly agree with. I honestly don't think that opinions belong on a science forum. What we are discussing is not science. Unless this post gets much more interesting, I'll go back to the chemistry section. And to believe all this started from "you might have guessed I'm a republican".

 

 

 

[zapatos]

Because the woman has to go into the abortion clinic willingly, and people only do things willingly when they want to do them, the woman must want to have an abortion. If not she wouldn't be there.

Let's look at some examples.

 

Does the parent who tells the doctor to separate their conjoined twins, knowing one will die, do so because they want to?

Does the person who has to choose which of the two drowning victims he'll save, do so because they want to?

Did I tell the doctor I wanted him to stop treatment of my mother and instead ease her pain because I wanted to?

Did I punish my children because I wanted to?

Does a jury decide to be responsible for a man's death because they want to?

Does a soldier send his men into certain death because he wants to?

Does my brother still smoke after his heart attack because he wants to?

 

You seem to be incredibly naive.

[Phi for All]

There is no "evidence" to support morality. It's just what feels right. Opinions are opinions. I could say "it is morally correct to put puppies in industrial blenders then drink the resultant juice while laughing", and you couldn't prove me wrong.

That's unbelievably wrong. There is abundant evidence to support morality. Morals are determined by the society you're part of. They are absolutely NOT "just what feels right". Drink the puppies in the US and you're going to jail, or possibly an asylum (though there would be some PETA folks calling for lethal injection), no matter how right it feels to you. Drink the puppies in a the wildest parts of New Guinea and you may get a shoulder shrug and a request for a sample.

 

Of course, some opinions sound more reasonable than others, but reason itself is a matter of opinion. I have no problem with abortion if the life of the mother is endangered by continuing the pregnancy.

This is far from a typical "life begins at conception" argument. Now we just need to figure out the parameters of "if the life of the mother is endangered by continuing the pregnancy". Does endangerment have to be lethal in all cases? As was mentioned before, if the father, upon hearing of the pregnancy, decides to flee the scene of the crime, are you seriously going to force the mother to have a child she doesn't want to raise alone? The list of things that endanger both the child and the mother is quite long, and that's generally why pro-choice folks argue that the abortion developmental prevention option needs to stay open.

 

I honestly don't think that opinions belong on a science forum. What we are discussing is not science.

Informed opinion is essential to modern life. And information helps us overcome our own internal feelings and bias in science as well. It may not feel right to give free needles to drug addicts, but it successfully stems the spread of diseases that might otherwise find their way to non-addicts. It may not feel right to arrest the development of a viable fetus, but in many cases it actually lowers the crime rate down the line, lowers the amount of public funding needed and keeps multiple lives from being ruined in the process. This isn't opinion, it's backed up by mounds of evidence, like all the best theories.

 

And to believe all this started from "you might have guessed I'm a republican".

Which is ironic, because nobody had up until then.

[chilled_fluorine]

Let's look at some examples.

 

Does the parent who tells the doctor to separate their conjoined twins, knowing one will die, do so because they want to?

Does the person who has to choose which of the two drowning victims he'll save, do so because they want to?

Did I tell the doctor I wanted him to stop treatment of my mother and instead ease her pain because I wanted to?

Did I punish my children because I wanted to?

Does a jury decide to be responsible for a man's death because they want to?

Does a soldier send his men into certain death because he wants to?

Does my brother still smoke after his heart attack because he wants to?

 

You seem to be incredibly naive.

 

The parent tells the doctor because they know it is in the twins' best interest, and they want to do what is in their childrens' best interest.

Yes, they would prefer one to be alive to the other. If they had no opinion on it, they would know it was in one's best interest, and they would want to do something to help that person. You knew your mother would suffer less, and you wanted her to suffer less.You punished your children because you knew they needed to learn they did something wrong, and you want your children to know right from wrong.Etc, etc.I must be thinking differently than you. People make tough choices not because they are fun, but because in the end, they know it is what is best. People want what is best, and they are often willing to do a little suffering to obtain it. Of course you didn't want your mother to die. But you knew it was best for her, as she would only die more painfully otherwise, and you definitely didn't want that. If given the choice, I would say I want to jump off a very tall building, as opposed to drowning. If I had to do one or the other, I would very willingly jump off, it would be much more comfortable.

[Phi for All]

The parent tells the doctor because they know it is in the twins' best interest, and they want to do what is in their childrens' best interest.

Yes, they would prefer one to be alive to the other. If they had no opinion on it, they would know it was in one's best interest, and they would want to do something to help that person. You knew your mother would suffer less, and you wanted her to suffer less.You punished your children because you knew they needed to learn they did something wrong, and you want your children to know right from wrong.Etc, etc.I must be thinking differently than you. People make tough choices not because they are fun, but because in the end, they know it is what is best. People want what is best, and they are often willing to do a little suffering to obtain it. Of course you didn't want your mother to die. But you knew it was best for her, as she would only die more painfully otherwise, and you definitely didn't want that. If given the choice, I would say I want to jump off a very tall building, as opposed to drowning. If I had to do one or the other, I would very willingly jump off, it would be much more comfortable.

So you're a woman and something goes wrong with the method of birth control you're using and now you're pregnant. The father doesn't want to help with any of the expense or duties of raising a child and you feel unable to do it all by yourself. You want to wait until you're in a better position financially, and with a more reliable partner, before you decide to raise a child. You want to do what's in the best interests of everyone involved. You know you have to make a tough choice, not because it's fun, but because in the end, you know it is what is best. So you decide to have a safe medical procedure done by a qualified healthcare professional that stops the development of the embryo inside your body.

 

What's wrong with that?

[zapatos]

The parent tells the doctor because they know it is in the twins' best interest, and they want to do what is in their childrens' best interest.

Yes, they would prefer one to be alive to the other. If they had no opinion on it, they would know it was in one's best interest, and they would want to do something to help that person. You knew your mother would suffer less, and you wanted her to suffer less.You punished your children because you knew they needed to learn they did something wrong, and you want your children to know right from wrong.Etc, etc.I must be thinking differently than you. People make tough choices not because they are fun, but because in the end, they know it is what is best. People want what is best, and they are often willing to do a little suffering to obtain it. Of course you didn't want your mother to die. But you knew it was best for her, as she would only die more painfully otherwise, and you definitely didn't want that. If given the choice, I would say I want to jump off a very tall building, as opposed to drowning. If I had to do one or the other, I would very willingly jump off, it would be much more comfortable.

Ok, I'll go along with a difference of opinion. For me though I would never try to convey my feelings on choosing the lesser of two evils by saying it is something I want (or the synonyms: wish, desire, or like). I just can't get myself to say I wanted my colonoscopy.

[chilled_fluorine]

So you're a woman and something goes wrong with the method of birth control you're using and now you're pregnant. The father doesn't want to help with any of the expense or duties of raising a child and you feel unable to do it all by yourself. You want to wait until you're in a better position financially, and with a more reliable partner, before you decide to raise a child. You want to do what's in the best interests of everyone involved. You know you have to make a tough choice, not because it's fun, but because in the end, you know it is what is best. So you decide to have a safe medical procedure done by a qualified healthcare professional that stops the development of the embryo inside your body.

 

What's wrong with that?

 

Well, birth control failure is one of the situations I'm not really sure of. Abortion is giving up a plan. I Still don't like it, but I guess it is better. If you couldn't give the child the quality of life it deserves, it should be done very early on, and with the intent of having another child when you are in a better opportunity to do so. Putting it up for adoption would be my preferred thing to do.

 

Ok, I'll go along with a difference of opinion. For me though I would never try to convey my feelings on choosing the lesser of two evils by saying it is something I want (or the synonyms: wish, desire, or like). I just can't get myself to say I wanted my colonoscopy.

 

Well, we clearly have different philosophies. I am a born pessimist. Pessimists are always being proven right, or being pleasantly surprised. Of course, I also have other philosophies.If you didn't "want" your colonoscopy, why did you have it done? Like it or not, you wanted a colonoscopy. Admittedly, that sounds messed up. So, Zapatos, I'm not naive? Gee, thanks, that comes as such a relief to me.

[Phi for All]

Well, birth control failure is one of the situations I'm not really sure of. Abortion is giving up a plan. I Still don't like it, but I guess it is better. If you couldn't give the child the quality of life it deserves, it should be done very early on, and with the intent of having another child when you are in a better opportunity to do so. Putting it up for adoption would be my preferred thing to do.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that the issue is much more nuanced than "life begins at conception" could ever begin to cover.

 

This is a great reason why many folks don't want to impose their morals on other people at the federal level. It's also one of the conflicts of interest I have with the current GOP platform. You can't want smaller government AND let it deny women the right to deal with personal situations like this. Don't let the religious right force you into an untenable position just because they also claim to be Republicans.

[chilled_fluorine]

I appreciate your acknowledgement that the issue is much more nuanced than "life begins at conception" could ever begin to cover.

 

This is a great reason why many folks don't want to impose their morals on other people at the federal level. It's also one of the conflicts of interest I have with the current GOP platform. You can't want smaller government AND let it deny women the right to deal with personal situations like this. Don't let the religious right force you into an untenable position just because they also claim to be Republicans.

 

My opinions aren't based on religious nonsense. They are based on what I find moral, and what I find reasonable. A situation isn't personal if it involves the life of another. Thank you for the appreciation. I finally have a "bad" reputation on this forum. It seems people are much more generous with their -1's than their +1's. I still find it unfair that there aren't any republicans here to back me up. It seems like I've made mooeypoo mad...

[mooeypoo]

That's unbelievably wrong. There is abundant evidence to support morality. Morals are determined by the society you're part of. They are absolutely NOT "just what feels right". Drink the puppies in the US and you're going to jail, or possibly an asylum (though there would be some PETA folks calling for lethal injection), no matter how right it feels to you. Drink the puppies in a the wildest parts of New Guinea and you may get a shoulder shrug and a request for a sample.

 

And on top of that, morals are supported by SOME logic (otherwise why bother)

 

When you look into why it is considered immoral to kill puppies and drink their bloods in the USA, you won't find that the answer is "it doesn't feel right", you'll find that the answer lies into the fact we consider puppies (and dogs, and other animals) to have sentience, which means we value their lives above mere food sources.

You will get a different answer if you drink the blood of a goat, by the way, because we seem to consider a goat's life as valid food source - unlike dogs. Is this a valid claim? Maybe yes, maybe not, we can argue, but the way to argue on that one is to use EVIDENCE.

 

For instance, I may supply evidence to show that dogs have much higher capacity for intelligence than goats, and therefore make a logical argument of why dogs are above being eaten. Someone else may point out that life should be valued even without higher intelligence, and explain why they became vegetarians. We may disagree, then, on the analysis or interpretation of the evidence, or on what is MORE important (the value of all life without distinction, or the need to eat beef while not harming higher intelligence animals). That argument may truly depend on personal viewpoints -- but we wouldn't have GOTTEN there at ALL without at the very least supporting our claims with *some* logic that has SOMETHING to do with reality.

 

I'm still waiting for the logic that supports your claim, chilled_fluorine. So far, you are avoiding from even trying it by arguing it's not needed. Well, you're wrong because of the reasons above, and you're also wrong because we're a science forum and that's what our rules demand. There is nothing to argue with here. Either start working with us, or go.

 

I'm waiting.

 

~mooey

[chilled_fluorine]

And on top of that, morals are supported by SOME logic (otherwise why bother)

 

When you look into why it is considered immoral to kill puppies and drink their bloods in the USA, you won't find that the answer is "it doesn't feel right", you'll find that the answer lies into the fact we consider puppies (and dogs, and other animals) to have sentience, which means we value their lives above mere food sources.

You will get a different answer if you drink the blood of a goat, by the way, because we seem to consider a goat's life as valid food source - unlike dogs. Is this a valid claim? Maybe yes, maybe not, we can argue, but the way to argue on that one is to use EVIDENCE.

 

For instance, I may supply evidence to show that dogs have much higher capacity for intelligence than goats, and therefore make a logical argument of why dogs are above being eaten. Someone else may point out that life should be valued even without higher intelligence, and explain why they became vegetarians. We may disagree, then, on the analysis or interpretation of the evidence, or on what is MORE important (the value of all life without distinction, or the need to eat beef while not harming higher intelligence animals). That argument may truly depend on personal viewpoints -- but we wouldn't have GOTTEN there at ALL without at the very least supporting our claims with *some* logic that has SOMETHING to do with reality.

 

I'm still waiting for the logic that supports your claim, chilled_fluorine. So far, you are avoiding from even trying it by arguing it's not needed. Well, you're wrong because of the reasons above, and you're also wrong because we're a science forum and that's what our rules demand. There is nothing to argue with here. Either start working with us, or go.

 

I'm waiting.

 

~mooey

I knew you were lurking mooeypoo. I also knew that my umadbro would get you to start talking again. You amuse me. Most people would say that puppies are cute, not sentient. I don't find puppies to be sentient. Wish as you might, logic is not evidence. If you were raised in a society that used ground puppies as it's food source, you would find it highly logical, and morally correct. Logic and reason, or at least your ideas of logic and reason, seem to be very subject to cultural and personal bias. Why does intelligence make something above being eaten? That's not how nature works. Any natural species physically able to would gladly munch down a human baby or two, if it was hungry for meat.

You've said that last part so many times, and in so many different contexts, that I now have no idea what you're talking about. Congrats. Phi, why did you close my thread about potassium iodide? Where to buy it, the topic, is completely open for discussion, but I'm not allowed to keep anything private? I would like it of you reopened the topic.

Edited October 4, 2012 by chilled_fluorine

[zapatos]

Like it or not, you wanted a colonoscopy. Admittedly, that sounds messed up. So, Zapatos, I'm not naive? Gee, thanks, that comes as such a relief to me.

So you insist you are right and it is not just a difference of opinion. No, you are indeed naive. You aren't able to see things from another's point of view. It is not necessarily important to agree with another but it is important to understand their perspective. If you don't try you will not grow.

[chilled_fluorine]

So you insist you are right and it is not just a difference of opinion. No, you are indeed naive. You aren't able to see things from another's point of view. It is not necessarily important to agree with another but it is important to understand their perspective. If you don't try you will not grow.

 

I understand your perspective, but I still think it's wrong. To come up with my previous answer, I had to look at things from your perspective to convince you I was right. It seems that I failed. My idea is backed by the logic of "people want to do what is in their best interest", but I failed to see any logic from your perspective. If you would point it out, in a non-opinionized way, I might be more ready to accept your ideas as a valid alternative to my own. Care to share?

[mooeypoo]

I knew you were lurking mooeypoo. I also knew that my umadbro would get you to start talking again. You amuse me. Most people would say that puppies are cute, not sentient. I don't find puppies to be sentient. Wish as you might, logic is not evidence. If you were raised in a society that used ground puppies as it's food source, you would find it highly logical, and morally correct. Logic and reason, or at least your ideas of logic and reason, seem to be very subject to cultural and personal bias. Why does intelligence make something above being eaten? That's not how nature works. Any natural species physically able to would gladly munch down a human baby or two, if it was hungry for meat.

You've said that last part so many times, and in so many different contexts, that I now have no idea what you're talking about. Congrats.

 

That's because you keep refusing to answer that last part, and out of attempting to be patient, I keep repeating it.

 

So as we can see, you're absolutely not interested in any form of actual debate. You think that what you think is truth regardless of evidence or proper logical succession of claims, and no one can even suggesting to attempt to hint that you may be convinced otherwise. That, beyond being a pointless base for any debate, is also borderline trolling, which is against our rules.

 

And yes, I will keep repeat this fact until you change your way or get kicked out for refusing to follow the rules, so that no one can even suggest we didn't warn you.

 

So, until that happens, it seems there's no real reason to waste time here any longer.

 

 

Phi, why did you close my thread about potassium iodide? Where to buy it, the topic, is completely open for discussion, but I'm not allowed to keep anything private? I would like it of you reopened the topic.

 

You don't make the rules here, and moderators do not act alone.

Phi might have been the one who pushed the button and posted the note, but it was a staff decision which you don't get to argue, not even as a method to shift the argument again trying to hide the fact you have no clue what you're talking about, and don't quite care to check.

 

That ain't a-workin'.

 

~mooey