Abortion (warning: contains some graphic details) - Page 45 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#1321 Old 08-24-2011, 12:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Pixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbleforlola View Post

I fail to see what abortion has to do with your private relationships with your children.

Exactly.
Pixie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#1322 Old 08-24-2011, 01:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by yally View Post

I was with you up until this point (I get that pointing out flaws in the pro choice argument doesn't mean you're pro life). But it's not pro choice if you believe one of the choices shouldn't be open and freely accessible.

What are you talking about? Where did I say one of the choices shouldn't be "open and freely accessible" (whatever that means)?

Correcting me by saying pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortion should be legal is an irrelevant nitpick that has no bearing on anything I've said and isn't even accurate based on a quick runby of dictionary.com and wikipedia.
Move of Ten is offline  
#1323 Old 08-24-2011, 01:28 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

The exception does not make sense.

Nothing and no one can have any concept of "I don't want to be killed" whilst it is unconscious and/or after it is dead.

The only valid objection to killing anything whilst it is unconscious thus lies in any robbing it of any future consciousness.

The being has the concept "I don't want to be killed while unconscious" while it is conscious. And it already has an identity that is built upon consciousness. Robbing it of future consciousness is only ethically problematic, as I see it, to a being that has such an identity.
Move of Ten is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#1324 Old 08-24-2011, 04:17 PM
Veggie Regular
 
AlixJ18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,196
Don't you know, he has children and if abortion stays legal than his children will actually be able to make a choice in what they want to do, so that's how it affects his children i'm sure, since there is no other way.
AlixJ18 is offline  
#1325 Old 08-24-2011, 07:00 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

The being has the concept "I don't want to be killed while unconscious" while it is conscious. And it already has an identity that is built upon consciousness. Robbing it of future consciousness is only ethically problematic, as I see it, to a being that has such an identity.

Hmmm ..

Purely from a vegan PoV; I would not like to have to prove that any non human animal meets that criteria.

From another PoV a human being would have to be well past the point of having been born before it met that criteria too.
Clueless Git is offline  
#1326 Old 08-24-2011, 07:06 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatricious View Post

I can't know if it's in dispute if you refuse to tell me in what way the abortion debate affects either your children or yourself.

Ok break that down a little ..

Does the abortion debate affect my children?
Clueless Git is offline  
#1327 Old 08-24-2011, 07:15 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbleforlola View Post

I fail to see what abortion has to do with your private relationships with your children.

Is that because you have not followed the current conversation twix Beatricious and myself back to where it actualy began?
Clueless Git is offline  
#1328 Old 08-24-2011, 07:22 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlixJ18 View Post

Don't you know, he has children and if abortion stays legal than his children will actually be able to make a choice in what they want to do, so that's how it affects his children i'm sure, since there is no other way.

What sense is there in that given that I have said very clearly that I can't support abortion being made illegal on many occasions, may I ask?
Clueless Git is offline  
#1329 Old 08-24-2011, 09:58 PM
Veggie Regular
 
vegkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In the depths of N'Kai
Posts: 3,910
Questions, questions, questions. Not that that's always bad, but it is kinda annoying.

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

vegkid is offline  
#1330 Old 08-25-2011, 05:40 AM
Veggie Regular
 
beatricious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

Ok break that down a little ..

Does the abortion debate affect my children?

If you have girl children, yes, it might.
beatricious is offline  
#1331 Old 08-25-2011, 05:51 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,056
i only stop to reflect that there have been many unkind things said in this thread .................................................. ......
papayamon is offline  
#1332 Old 08-25-2011, 08:25 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

Hmmm ..

Purely from a vegan PoV; I would not like to have to prove that any non human animal meets that criteria.

Anything that is capable of suffering or pleasure I consider to deserve ethical consideration and to be conscious (I consider suffering and pleasure to be states of consciousness). I wrote my last post poorly. If I could rephrase my point I'll just say that a conscious being who is temporarily unconscious deserves more rights than an unconscious being who may become conscious someday. The reason is that there is already a conscious being there, that consciousness is just temporarily "switched off". That's what I meant by an identity built upon consciousness. In the latter case there is no actual conscious being that is or has been in existence, just a potential conscious being that may exist in the future.

I haven't made any arguments about whether fetuses are conscious or not or where the burden of proof should lie in that regard. My argument was "IF we know they're not conscious they don't deserve ethical consideration". In terms of veganism, we know consciousness is linked to the brain, so I give the benefit of the doubt to any animal that has a brain. We don't have to prove it, since it's impossible to 100% prove anyone has consciousness including other humans. We can just point to obvious physiological and behavior evidence that make it seem extremely likely that animals in general are conscious.

Quote:
From another PoV a human being would have to be well past the point of having been born before it met that criteria too.

You're right, that is a problem with the way I wrote my last post. I don't think it applies based on my revision above.
Move of Ten is offline  
#1333 Old 08-25-2011, 09:02 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Jinkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

My argument was "IF we know they're not conscious they don't deserve ethical consideration".

My issue with this argument is that, barring complications of some sort, fetuses are guaranteed to become conscious beings. It doesn't even take that long for them to gain consciousness, either. I honestly think this argument has the same strength as thinking it's fine to kill someone who is asleep simply because they are not conscious at that exact moment. You just have to wait a while and they will be.

If your only concern is with causing another being pain, this argument is fine. If you're concerned with depriving another being of its future, though, this argument doesn't hold up. I'm pro-abortion for a variety of reasons, but I'm well aware that a human that would otherwise live is prevented from doing so each time an abortion is performed.
Jinkies is offline  
#1334 Old 08-25-2011, 10:06 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinkies View Post

My issue with this argument is that, barring complications of some sort, fetuses are guaranteed to become conscious beings. It doesn't even take that long for them to gain consciousness, either. I honestly think this argument has the same strength as thinking it's fine to kill someone who is asleep simply because they are not conscious at that exact moment. You just have to wait a while and they will be.

I addressed this argument. From my last post:

(in my view) "...a conscious being who is temporarily unconscious deserves more rights than an unconscious being who may become conscious someday. The reason is that there is already a conscious being there, that consciousness is just temporarily "switched off". That's what I meant by an identity built upon consciousness. In the latter case there is no actual conscious being that is or has been in existence, just a potential conscious being that may exist in the future."

Quote:
If your only concern is with causing another being pain, this argument is fine. If you're concerned with depriving another being of its future, though, this argument doesn't hold up.

Just to reiterate, I'm concerned with depriving a being of its future only if it's a conscious being. It can be in a state of unconsciousness that is temporary, but I still would still define it as a conscious being. It's a bit of a moot point anyway since it's not clear we're ever truly unconscious when we're asleep. We're in a different state of conscious and we tend not to commit experience to memory very easily. So when we wake up and have no memory of the sleeping period we may assume we were unconscious the whole time due to lacking memory continuity, but that isn't necessarily the case. There is still brain activity.
Move of Ten is offline  
#1335 Old 08-25-2011, 10:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Jinkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

I addressed this argument. From my last post:

I saw that, I just don't agree that your point is valid. Why does one of these beings having a past make his or her future more worthwhile? How much history does it take before a being's existence matters?

Without the abortion, both of these beings will live the same sort of life. They will both be regular humans and there will be no notable difference between them. Skip ahead five years into the future of the fetus. Barring an untimely death, he or she will be a conscious being with both a past and a future.
Jinkies is offline  
#1336 Old 08-25-2011, 12:32 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatricious View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git
Ok break that down a little ..

Does the abortion debate affect my children?

If you have girl children, yes, it might.

Ok. It is nice to have found something that can be agreed.
Clueless Git is offline  
#1337 Old 08-25-2011, 03:45 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Move of Ten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinkies View Post

I saw that, I just don't agree that your point is valid. Why does one of these beings having a past make his or her future more worthwhile? How much history does it take before a being's existence matters?

Without the abortion, both of these beings will live the same sort of life. They will both be regular humans and there will be no notable difference between them. Skip ahead five years into the future of the fetus. Barring an untimely death, he or she will be a conscious being with both a past and a future.

Because it makes it an actual conscious being and thus someone who deserves more rights than if that were not the case. If its temporarily unconscious it can still be thought of as a conscious being, just as I can describe a person who's asleep as being "a high energy person" and so on. The current state an entity is in should not define them if its really just temporary.

It's not about whether their future is worthwhile, it's whether they deserve ethical consideration in the present. Do you not see a difference between killing an unconscious chicken and destroying an egg?

I think I've explained my reasoning as best as I can. You don't have to agree with it and I can hardly prove I'm right (as with anything relating to ethics).
Move of Ten is offline  
#1338 Old 08-25-2011, 04:48 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Jinkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

The current state an entity is in should not define them if its really just temporary.

Whoops, I think you accidentally argued my point here! Totally agree, by the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

It's not about whether their future is worthwhile, it's whether they deserve ethical consideration in the present. Do you not see a difference between killing an unconscious chicken and destroying an egg?

I don't really know much about the life cycle of chickens. I'll assume for this point that the egg is fertilized and that the little chicken inside has the same odds of hatching as a human fetus does of being born. If that is the case, then there is no real difference. They're simply different points in the life cycle of a chicken. The little chickeny guy in that egg will be a big chicken soon enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

I think I've explained my reasoning as best as I can. You don't have to agree with it and I can hardly prove I'm right (as with anything relating to ethics).

I'm still not 100% on exactly what your argument is here. It seems to me that you are arguing that it's having a past that gives a being value. That's the only difference I can see between the fetus and an adult human that is in not in a conscious state. If that's right, why is a being's past worth so much more than its future? If not, then what exactly is the consciousness-related difference here that I'm missing?
Jinkies is offline  
#1339 Old 08-25-2011, 05:41 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

Do you not see a difference between killing an unconscious chicken and destroying an egg?

It is against vegan ethics to kill chickens.

It is against vegan ethics to 'destroy' eggs.

Unless I got that wrong then by vegan ethics eggs is chickens and chickens is eggs.
Clueless Git is offline  
#1340 Old 08-25-2011, 05:46 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinkies View Post

I'm still not 100% on exactly what your argument is here. It seems to me that you are arguing that it's having a past that gives a being value?

And if I read correctly the being in question itself has to value it's past.

Lord alone knows how old a human has to be before it has any concept of that at all.
Clueless Git is offline  
#1341 Old 08-25-2011, 05:47 PM
Veggie Regular
 
vegkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In the depths of N'Kai
Posts: 3,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

It is against vegan ethics to kill chickens.

It is against vegan ethics to 'destroy' eggs.

Unless I got that wrong then by vegan ethics eggs is chickens and chickens is eggs.

It's not the same thing, considering once a chicken hatches, the mother doesn't have to deal with the social/physical/psychological consequences for the rest of her life. She may love the baby, or she may reject the baby, but either way she won't have to provide for a kid, put him up for adoption, etc. Chickens do have a form of society, but nowhere near as complex as human society. And honestly that's a good thing, considering they don't have issues like abortion to deal with.

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

vegkid is offline  
#1342 Old 08-25-2011, 06:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kazyeeqen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

It is against vegan ethics to kill chickens.

It is against vegan ethics to 'destroy' eggs.

Unless I got that wrong then by vegan ethics eggs is chickens and chickens is eggs.

Not at all. Eggs aren't unethical because they are equivalent to a chicken, which is a sentient creature, they are unethical to eat or use because to get them you have to exploit a chicken. Milk isn't a cow, wool isn't a sheep, they are not moral objects, they come from moral objects.
kazyeeqen is offline  
#1343 Old 08-25-2011, 06:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
vegkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In the depths of N'Kai
Posts: 3,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazyeeqen View Post

Not at all. Eggs aren't unethical because they are equivalent to a chicken, which is a sentient creature, they are unethical to eat or use because to get them you have to exploit a chicken. Milk isn't a cow, wool isn't a sheep, they are not moral objects, they come from moral objects.

I think he is referring to fertilized eggs, i.e. chicken embryos. I may be mistaken though.

Enjoying the view over at http://forum.veggieviews.com/

vegkid is offline  
#1344 Old 08-25-2011, 06:44 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kazyeeqen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegkid View Post

I think he is referring to fertilized eggs, i.e. chicken embryos. I may be mistaken though.

But I feel the same way about that. I guess 'late term' chicken eggs, so eggs that are fertilized and then incubated for a week or so, might be approaching sentience (hard to say, just as hard as saying when a fetus becomes sentient), but that's specific and sort of irrelevant, cause that doesn't really happen. Some farm eggs are fertilized, but they are still just eggs and the reason I feel it's wrong to eat them is the same reason it's wrong to eat unfertilized eggs; because it means exploiting a chicken (or more than one) to get them. Not because they have any inherent moral status.
kazyeeqen is offline  
#1345 Old 08-25-2011, 07:40 PM
Veggie Regular
 
beatricious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clueless Git View Post

Ok. It is nice to have found something that can be agreed.

I thought maybe you were going to go on to explain how the abortion debate affects you, but I guess not?
beatricious is offline  
#1346 Old 08-26-2011, 10:03 AM
Veggie Regular
 
yally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post

What are you talking about? Where did I say one of the choices shouldn't be "open and freely accessible" (whatever that means)?

Correcting me by saying pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortion should be legal is an irrelevant nitpick that has no bearing on anything I've said and isn't even accurate based on a quick runby of dictionary.com and wikipedia.

Your response to kfl's post was 'I agree that abortion should be legal' seemed to intentionally omit the 'open and freely accessible' bit. Guess I read it wrong.

It seem kind of odd
yally is offline  
#1347 Old 08-26-2011, 10:59 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatricious View Post

I thought maybe you were going to go on to explain how the abortion debate affects you, but I guess not?

Do you mean 'elaborate on my previous explanation' Beatricious?

Without a concrete argument as to why any member of the public should not be involved in a public debate the original question was totaly irrelevant in the first place.
Clueless Git is offline  
#1348 Old 08-26-2011, 11:10 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by yally View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornsail
What are you talking about? Where did I say one of the choices shouldn't be "open and freely accessible" (whatever that means)?

Correcting me by saying pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortion should be legal is an irrelevant nitpick that has no bearing on anything I've said and isn't even accurate based on a quick runby of dictionary.com and wikipedia.

Your response to kfl's post was 'I agree that abortion should be legal' seemed to intentionally omit the 'open and freely accessible' bit. Guess I read it wrong.

It seem kind of odd

The only definition of 'pro-choice' which is common to all definitions of pro-choice is the advocacy that abortion should be legal.
Clueless Git is offline  
#1349 Old 08-26-2011, 01:47 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayamon View Post

i only stop to reflect that there have been many unkind things said in this thread .................................................. ......

What did I miss?
Clueless Git is offline  
#1350 Old 08-26-2011, 01:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Envy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Heaven
Posts: 6,548
meta-abortion

the discussion of the discussion of abortion.

"Hell exists not to punish sinners, but to ensure that nobody sins in the first place."
Envy is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off