abortion

Originally posted by ivanhoe
http://discardedlies.com/entries/2005/03/down_the_slippery_slope.php

Euthanasia in the Netherlands.

A hospital in the Netherlands — the first nation to permit euthanasia — recently proposed guidelines ( the so called "Groningen Protocol". IvanH) for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun ...[text shortened]... of the Slippery Slope or is it about time starting to wonder about what is REALLY happening ?

In order to show that such a policy is part of a "slippery slope" progression relevant to our debate, rather than just a form of localized insanity, you'd have to show that this policy resulted from previously adopted abortion policies.

Originally posted by bbarr
I was responding to the post of Halitose's where he claimed the following:

[b]But once you cross that line that you are willing to kill to solve a social problem, what prevents the killing of the mentally insane, or the terminally ill. If the quality of life is the yardstick to measure whether it should be terminated or not, you've hit a slippery slope.[/ ...[text shortened]... tose is worried about, then you should confront their fallacious reasoning, and not my position.

Reality isn't your cup of tea ... I know.

Originally posted by Halitose
Leave poor Bbarr alone. He's just had all his feathers plucked.

Just what these forums need, another freeloading troll.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Reality isn't your cup of tea ... I know.

I see you're having a difficult time responding to the content of my posts. Perhaps you need a nap. When you are refreshed, I invite you to respond to my previous post, conveniently provided again for you below:

Why should we consider a zygote a person? I take it as untendentious that rocks and plants and cells are not persons. So, if zygotes are persons, then zygotes must have some property that rocks and plants and cells lack. What property do you think this is, Ivanhoe? If you specify the property in question, I'll give you an argument aiming to show that that property is neither necessary nor sufficient for personhood. So, all you have to do is come up with potential properties criterial for personhood, and I'll do all the argumentative work (as usual, when we discuss this issue).

Originally posted by Halitose
If you do not draw the line at conception, where would you propose that the line be drawn?

4, 8, 16 cell stage?

When the first brain waves are transmitted?

When it starts sucking its thumb?

When the fetus has achieved a level of neurological sophistication sufficient for supporting the psycological capacities for suffering, rudimentary self-awareness and rudimentary rationality. Since we cannot determine precisely when these capacities arise, but we know that they arise sometime in the third trimester, I propose that abortions be permissible in the third trimester only if the mother's life or health is seriously in danger.

Originally posted by bbarr
In order to show that such a policy is part of a "slippery slope" progression relevant to our debate, rather than just a form of localized insanity, you'd have to show that this policy resulted from previously adopted abortion policies.

Why don't you study the situation in question ? You once stated you are not interested in what happens in the Netherlands in this field, which shows your indifference for the issue.

You could also study the development of mentality and how they succeeded in changing people's mentality and ideology in Germany in the thirties. How did they succeed then and how are they succeeding now in changing people's opinions and thinking towards a new "Culture of Death" ? These are very complicated actual processes and not suited to be molded in one of your reasoning models or schemes, which are designed to "prove" something.

You just keep hiding behind your theoretical "This is a Slippery Slope Fallacy" shield. Please start looking at what is really happening in the world instead of reasoning from theoretical points of view.

..... and please, also don't expect me to show you here how things have developed in the past fourty years. If you choose to be blind for certain societal developments then I cannot cure that blindness by offering "proof" to you, because there is no "proof" as you would like to see it ..... and you know it.

Originally posted by bbarr
I see you're having a difficult time responding to the content of my posts. Perhaps you need a nap. When you are refreshed, I invite you to respond to my previous post, conveniently provided again for you below:

[b]Why should we consider a zygote a person? I take it as untendentious that rocks and plants and cells are not persons. So, if zygotes are pers ...[text shortened]... od, and I'll do all the argumentative work (as usual, when we discuss this issue).



[/b]

We have gone through this endlessly.

Originally posted by bbarr
When the fetus has achieved a level of neurological sophistication sufficient for supporting the psycological capacities for suffering, rudimentary self-awareness and rudimentary rationality. Since we cannot determine precisely when these capacities arise, but we know that they arise sometime in the third trimester, I propose that abortions be permissible in the third trimester only if the mother's life or health is seriously in danger.

It is just a theory, an opinion, not the truth what you are presenting here.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You could also study the development of mentality and how they succeeded in changing people's mentality and ideology in Germany in the thirties. [snip]
You just keep hiding behind your theoretical "This is a Slippery Slope Fallacy" shie ...[text shortened]... in the world instead of reasoning from theoretical points of view.

Goodness. Can't you see the difference between "neurological sophistication" and the vague terminology that you use.

If you have such severe problems with the basic language employed to identify errors in logic and argument, why do you put so much effort into these arguments?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Goodness. Can't you see the difference between "neurological sophistication" and the vague terminology that you use.

If you have such severe problems with the basic language employed to identify errors in logic and argument, why do you put so much effort into these arguments?

I hit the wrong button with the intention to correct a spelling error, sorry for the forum clog. 😳

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Goodness. Can't you see the difference between "neurological sophistication" and the vague terminology that you use.

If you have such severe problems with the basic language employed to identify errors in logic and argument, why do you put so much effort into these arguments?

Do you know what "neurological sophistication" entails according to BBarr ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Why don't you study the situation in question ? You once stated you are not interested in what happens in the Netherlands in this field, which shows your indifference for the issue.

You could also study the development of mentality and how they succeeded in changing people's mentality and ideology in Germany in the thirties. How did they succeed then ...[text shortened]... oof" to you, because there is no "proof" as you would like to see it ..... and you know it.

I have never claimed I am indifferent to political developments in other countries. That is simply a lie on your part. What I am indifferent to are fallacious arguments that aim to show that such political developments are relevant to the truth or falsity of positions in applied ethics.

If you cannot show that positions on abortion such as mine entail that it is permissible to engage in infanticide, euthanasia of the unwilling, etc., then you have not provided any reason to be concerned about the relationship between my position on abortion and slippery slope progressions.

You may blather on about the "culture of death", and make vague and sweeping claims about peoples' mentality concerning abortion, euthanasia, and so on, but these aren't arguments.

If you are concerned, as I am, about political developments in this arena, then pay close attention to the way in which politicians, lawyers and judges reason about these issues. That is where the political battle lies, and not with philosophical positions such as mine.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

We have gone through this endlessly.

No, you have never presented what you take to be the property in virtue of which zygotes are properly considered persons. You have never explained why you think that being a human organism is sufficient for having a right to life. You have merely asserted these things. Of course, I see no reason to take your assertions seriously if you refuse to give arguments in their favor. So, once again:

Why should we consider a zygote a person? I take it as untendentious that rocks and plants and cells are not persons. So, if zygotes are persons, then zygotes must have some property that rocks and plants and cells lack. What property do you think this is, Ivanhoe? If you specify the property in question, I'll give you an argument aiming to show that that property is neither necessary nor sufficient for personhood. So, all you have to do is come up with potential properties criterial for personhood, and I'll do all the argumentative work (as usual, when we discuss this issue).

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Do you know what "neurological sophistication" entails according to BBarr ?

I'm fairly confident it won't turn out to awfully far from similar notions I encountered in a graduate course in cognitive linguistics in which we read a fair amount of scientific literature concerned with the evolution of the human brain (even though I took this course at a college that eternally plays second fiddle to that other college in Seattle).

Originally posted by bbarr
I have never claimed I am indifferent to political developments in other countries. That is simply a lie on your part. What I am indifferent to are fallacious arguments that aim to show that such political developments are relevant to the truth or falsity of positions in applied ethics.

If you cannot show that positions on abortion such as mine entail t ...[text shortened]... es. That is where the political battle lies, and not with philosophical positions such as mine.

Bbarr: "I have never claimed I am indifferent to political developments in other countries. That is simply a lie on your part. "

Be carefull Bbarr. You stated you are not interested in the Dutch developments.

Bbarr: "If you are concerned, as I am, about political developments in this arena, then pay close attention to the way in which politicians, lawyers and judges reason about these issues. That is where the political battle lies, and not with philosophical positions such as mine.[/b]

.... and please stop pretending you are not engaged in politics on this site by expressing your ideas concerning the "Culture of Life" issues. You are not elevated above the masses just because you do not label yourself a political debater, but a philosophical one. You, Bbarr, are a political debater, NOT a philosophical one, despite the form you use.

You haven't expressed any concern at all regarding any political or societal developments regarding these issues. The only thing you are concerned with is proselytising your Neo-Kantian personhood ideas in which NOBODY in Planned Parenthood and NOBODY on the left is seriously interested in.