Woman dies in Ireland for want of an abortion

[Grimlundt]

Even so, you cannot have a functional ethics without considering the potential of humans, animals, ...?

Actually, you can.

I think such an ethics would be possible but inadequate/dysfunctional.

Maybe the point is that this is a question (abortion) requiring less legalism and more *jurisprudence*?
That woman ought not to have suffered and died.
That was poor jurisprudence?

[Esternial]

Sort of... I was thinking "divorce".

We could power whole cities with the resulting sexual tension. Screw nuclear fusion!

[Great Nepal]

Maybe the point is that this is a question (abortion) requiring less legalism and more *jurisprudence*?
That woman ought not to have suffered and died.
That was poor jurisprudence?

No, it should require legalism based on consent of individual. Woman doesn't consent to her body being used as incubator; thus she has right to remove anything violating her consent.

[Grimlundt]

Maybe the point is that this is a question (abortion) requiring less legalism and more *jurisprudence*?
That woman ought not to have suffered and died.
That was poor jurisprudence?

No, it should require legalism based on consent of individual. Woman doesn't consent to her body being used as incubator; thus she has right to remove anything violating her consent.

yes. Isn't that the point. Who ought to decide.
I am pro-choice.
But we need to use jurisprudence to sort claims derived from *potential*?
Yes?
Such as the potential of a epithelial cell versus the potential of a embryo?
Or the academic potential of my child versus your child?
Do you follow now?

[Great Nepal]

No, it should require legalism based on consent of individual. Woman doesn't consent to her body being used as incubator; thus she has right to remove anything violating her consent.

yes. Isn't that the point. Who ought to decide.

Whose ever body it is... in this case the women. She consents to her body being used as incubator for the foetus: she has absolute right to keep it. If she doesn't, then she has absolute right to remove it.

I am pro-choice.
But we need to use jurisprudence to sort claims derived from *potential*?
Yes?
Such as the potential of a epithelial cell versus the potential of a embryo?
Or the academic potential of my child versus your child?
Do you follow now?

No, potential is vanity and really crap argument unless you have working crystal ball. The foetus could be Einstein in future; he could also be Hitler.

[Grimlundt]

p.s. when my wife and I were told there was a 25% chance that there was something wrong with our unborn baby, and we would be offered an abortion if the tests proved position, we STRUGGLED with the question.
It was NOT a question of law.
It it was a question of personal feelings and beliefs and longings.

I have said many times that banning abortion has no effect on rates of abortion.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/ns ... KVIfWeQklQ
So clearly I am not suggesting that we ought to ban abortion.

I am pro choice.
But I am also smart enough to know that while choices can be informed, they are never really "free".
We are NOT individuals. We are members of groups -- and always have been.

[Grimlundt]

yes. Isn't that the point. Who ought to decide.

Whose ever body it is... in this case the women. She consents to her body being used as incubator for the foetus: she has absolute right to keep it. If she doesn't, then she has absolute right to remove it.

I am pro-choice.
But we need to use jurisprudence to sort claims derived from *potential*?
Yes?
Such as the potential of a epithelial cell versus the potential of a embryo?
Or the academic potential of my child versus your child?
Do you follow now?

No, potential is vanity and really crap argument unless you have working crystal ball. The foetus could be Einstein in future; he could also be Hitler.

So you are essentially arguing that nobody has any predictive ability and that future conditions don't count.
So much for utilitarianism.
So much for Kant's categorical imperative.
So mush for induction.
So much for science.
Do you really want to defend that position?

[Esternial]

Whose ever body it is... in this case the women. She consents to her body being used as incubator for the foetus: she has absolute right to keep it. If she doesn't, then she has absolute right to remove it.


No, potential is vanity and really crap argument unless you have working crystal ball. The foetus could be Einstein in future; he could also be Hitler.

So you are essentially arguing that nobody has any predictive ability and that future conditions don;t count.
So much for utilitarianism.
So much for Kant's categorical imperative.
So mush for induction.
So much for science.
Do you really want to defend that position?

Predictions go only to some extent. In some cases they can be applied, in others they cannot.

In terms of science you test the prediction. So in this case it would require you to test the prediction, let the baby be born and potentially have a reduced quality of life. The consequences are much graver compared to a simple lab test, and thus you can't just go with your predictions here.

[Grimlundt]

So you are essentially arguing that nobody has any predictive ability and that future conditions don;t count.
So much for utilitarianism.
So much for Kant's categorical imperative.
So mush for induction.
So much for science.
Do you really want to defend that position?

Predictions go only to some extent. In some cases they can be applied, in others they cannot.

In terms of science you test the prediction. So in this case it would require you to test the prediction, let the baby be born and potentially have a reduced quality of life. The consequences are much graver compared to a simple lab test, and thus you can't just go with your predictions here.

yes.
You now agree with me.
because now you say we need jurisprudence when managing claims from potential.

[Des-Bal]

So you are essentially arguing that nobody has any predictive ability and that future conditions don't count.
So much for utilitarianism.
So much for Kant's categorical imperative.
So mush for induction.
So much for science.
Do you really want to defend that position?

Determining "potential" would require adequately mapping out that child's entire life before it's born. Science and Induction really aren't relevant here, nobodies saying it's impossible to predict anything they're saying you can't predict potential.

And like I told my ethics professor the categorical imperative is bullshit.

[Grimlundt]

Yes.
But try out some Kant.
Can you will it that all abortions be commanded by the government for everybody all the time?
No.
Can you will it that the mother ought to have the say, all the time.
I am thinking, yes.
But, that's not as a legalistic absolute or rule to be obeyed.
No ethics can really be based on obedience ...
It's really more of a moral fiction of the sort we need to reform bad laws.
Laws against abortion ARE obscene and wicked.
41,000 women a year die to make pro-life people feel morally comfortable.

[Grimlundt]

So you are essentially arguing that nobody has any predictive ability and that future conditions don't count.
So much for utilitarianism.
So much for Kant's categorical imperative.
So mush for induction.
So much for science.
Do you really want to defend that position?

Determining "potential" would require adequately mapping out that child's entire life before it's born. Science and Induction really aren't relevant here, nobodies saying it's impossible to predict anything they're saying you can't predict potential.

And like I told my ethics professor the categorical imperative is bullshit.

Do you know about fuzzy logic and probabilities?
Potential is not fixed and certain because it deals with future conditions.
You promoting a false duality: we either know everything or nothing.
LOL

Also, along with the liberal tradition (e.g. Locke), Kant's deontology is the ultimate philosophical groundwork of human rights.
Are you sure you want to dismiss it so blithely?
Especially since you are dumping utilitarianism and really don't care about avoiding acts that are likely to result in human suffering -- that would involve prediction

[Esternial]

Predictions go only to some extent. In some cases they can be applied, in others they cannot.

In terms of science you test the prediction. So in this case it would require you to test the prediction, let the baby be born and potentially have a reduced quality of life. The consequences are much graver compared to a simple lab test, and thus you can't just go with your predictions here.

yes.
You now agree with me.
because now you say we need jurisprudence when managing claims from potential.

No, I'm saying we need to let people determine it and make their own choices rather than look at the law for answers. You can't work with predictions, so you'll have to figure it out with the results you have right now. If there's a significant chance your child will have a reduced quality of life, you can't just think "Well, MAYBE it won't" and just take the risk, because it's your child that'll live with it. There's a real danger to your unborn child, so terminating the pregnancy would be a reasonable choice.

Stop hiding behind the law/religion, because it'll just result in cases like these. Where doctors feel restricted by the law/religion to listen to people's choices.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

POST ABORTED

[Grimlundt]

yes.
You now agree with me.
because now you say we need jurisprudence when managing claims from potential.

No, I'm saying we need to let people determine it and make their own choices rather than look at the law for answers. You can't work with predictions, so you'll have to figure it out with the results you have right now. If there's a significant chance your child will have a reduced quality of life, you can't just think "Well, MAYBE it won't" and just take the risk, because it's your child that'll live with it. There's a real danger to your unborn child, so terminating the pregnancy would be a reasonable choice.

Stop hiding behind the law/religion, because it'll just result in cases like these. Where doctors feel restricted by the law/religion to listen to people's choices.

You do not seem to be reading any of my posts.
When me and my wife decided that even if the baby was "imperfect" we would keep it, we did not make a rule for everybody to follow. Okay?
It was a matter of OUR FEELINGS.
Our choice?
This choice, however, WAS informed by our feelings about the future conditions for the child, it's potential ..
I'm sorry if you so deeply embedded in the polemic that you cannot imagine yourself in that situation.
The potential of things IS relevant.
It IS a potential human being.
You ought not to be led to argue false things just to win an argument?

p.s. I am pro-choice and an atheist
You seem to have misunderstood my posts on some fundamental level.
I am NOT defending a pro-life position.
I am showing you, in the interests of truth and justice, the nature of the best pro-life argument ...
And I think we have come a deeper understanding of how to handle that argument? -- and how not to?
Yes?

[Tsuntion]

<snipped>

I think you wanted this thread.

[Bottle]

Must be nice to have the luxury of speculating, just in theory mind you, about all these interesting ramifications, secure in the knowledge that your own organs are not in danger of being appropriated for the good of the Fatherland. Your own schooling, career, travel plans, and various dreams won't be sidelined so you can serve your duty as an ambulatory aquarium. Your own genitals aren't the ones that will be non-theoretically torn up.

I must say, though, that the subject is somewhat different when "potential" is not wafting about in the philosophical aether, but rather is sloshing around your very own innards.

[Apollonesia]

And because they did, they should simply have let it ruin their financial situation and lives in general by having a child they didn't want and couldn't adequately provide for

Once again, if they were not financially secure (or did not want a child at the time), they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

They should have abstained until they felt that they could support a child.

[Bottle]

And because they did, they should simply have let it ruin their financial situation and lives in general by having a child they didn't want and couldn't adequately provide for

Once again, if they were not financially secure (or did not want a child at the time), they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

They should have abstained until they felt that they could support a child.

Punish poor people for fucking...nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea!

[Des-Bal]

Do you know about fuzzy logic and probabilities?
Potential is not fixed and certain because it deals with future conditions.
You promoting a false duality: we either know everything or nothing.
LOL

Also, along with the liberal tradition (e.g. Locke), Kant's deontology is the ultimate philosophical groundwork of human rights.
Are you sure you want to dismiss it so blithely?
Especially since you are dumping utilitarianism and really don't care about avoiding acts that are likely to result in human suffering -- that would involve prediction

No I'm saying we often don't know enough to make an informed decision. We cannot determine what a child will do in it's long life so there's no reason to consider it.


I say again, the Categorical Imperative is bullshit and falls apart under the slightest test. Kant himself said he wouldn't lie to a murderer who asked him where to find more people to murder.

Utilitarianism is great, usually. If you legitimately believed in pure Utilitarianism you would rob banks and give the money to charity, you would become an organ donor and kill yourself, you would live in a box so you could give all of your money to the little children of Africa.

[Des-Bal]

Once again, if they were not financially secure (or did not want a child at the time), they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

They should have abstained until they felt that they could support a child.

People should face the consequences of their actions. When they have to, if they can avoid or mitigate those consequences then they absolutely should.

[Dyakovo]

And because they did, they should simply have let it ruin their financial situation and lives in general by having a child they didn't want and couldn't adequately provide for

Once again, if they were not financially secure (or did not want a child at the time), they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

They should have abstained until they felt that they could support a child.

Because having sex always results in the woman getting pregnant...

[BushSucks-istan]

It's funny how people think that they have a say in health decisions that should be made BY THE WOMAN CARRYING THE BABY.

[Zweite Alaje]

Once again, if they were not financially secure (or did not want a child at the time), they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

They should have abstained until they felt that they could support a child.

Punish poor people for fucking...nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea!

If they're poor they probably shouldn't be fucking, but working to improve their situation.

[Grimlundt]

And because they did, they should simply have let it ruin their financial situation and lives in general by having a child they didn't want and couldn't adequately provide for

Once again, if they were not financially secure (or did not want a child at the time), they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

They should have abstained until they felt that they could support a child.

So poor people ought not to have sex?
Or my ears deceive me?