Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 124

Thread: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

  1. #81
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Right, but based on what? What ethical system is being employed here? And, to be clear, the anti-abortion argument is hinged on the "humanity" aspect of issue.
    Well, killing innocent life is kind of a move based on most 'ethical systems. And we'll yes, of course it's hinged on the 'humanity' aspect, that's literally what we're dealing with here.

    Humans are by no means the only things that get conceived. Look, if we are going to have a reason on violating someone's agency (in a major way), it better be a very good one, and I am not buying comparisons to murder.
    Nice to see someone deciding to not listen to a certain type of argument just because they don't like it. And what are you on about, no-one said humans are the only things that are conceived, just that is the start point common to all. No-one would be here without their conception. Especially when fertility rates in the West are well below the replacement level of 2.1, abortion offers little to society but convenience, and a removal of the consequences when it comes to some people's sexual 'adventures'. If sex is no longer seen as a means to pro-creation, and only as a source of pleasure, most Western countries will fail within the century. There simply won't be enough people.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  2. #82

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Right, but based on what? What ethical system is being employed here? And, to be clear, the anti-abortion argument is hinged on the "humanity" aspect of issue.
    I'm not sure how to frame it differently. If you believe that a) all human life begins at conception and b) that all human life is of equal value, it isn't difficult to conclude that abortion is generally unethical.

    Humans are by no means the only things that get conceived. Look, if we are going to have a reason on violating someone's agency (in a major way), it better be a very good one, and I am not buying comparisons to murder.
    I don't see how conception not being exclusive to human beings is relevant. Whether all life (human or not) should be treated equally is a different debate.



  3. #83

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Indeed. What a "blatant straw man".
    So you accused me of,

    "it is beyond bold to imply that the morality of abortion is an open-and-shut case"

    And what I actually said was,

    "In addition to that, the obsession of attacking Planned Parenthood is ing idiotic. They are not angels and just like every organizations deserve due criticism on many issues. However, ultimately the goal is to give women control over their bodies. Having single moms who are not ready for motherhood is problematic and opposing that is idiotic."

    Quite clear I'm referring to the socioeconomic benefits of abortion to single mothers, not even whether abortion is a net benefit to the national economy as a whole. Quite clear I'm saying that it's a morally repugnant to force the financial burden of motherhood on a woman who does not want to be one. Nowhere is the morality of abortion in regards to the fetus or society as a whole ever brought up and this position is further clarified by later posts.

  4. #84

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    So you accused me of,

    "it is beyond bold to imply that the morality of abortion is an open-and-shut case"

    And what I actually said was,

    "In addition to that, the obsession of attacking Planned Parenthood is ing idiotic. They are not angels and just like every organizations deserve due criticism on many issues. However, ultimately the goal is to give women control over their bodies. Having single moms who are not ready for motherhood is problematic and opposing that is idiotic."

    Quite clear I'm referring to the socioeconomic benefits of abortion to single mothers, not even whether abortion is a net benefit to the national economy as a whole. Quite clear I'm saying that it's a morally repugnant to force the financial burden of motherhood on a woman who does not want to be one. Nowhere is the morality of abortion in regards to the fetus or society as a whole ever brought up and this position is further clarified by later posts.
    You explicitly stated that no "serious debate on whether abortion should be offered or not" could occur. Since the overwhelming majority of criticism relating to abortions is derived from ethical arguments, your own position is unambiguously tantamount to arguing that the morality of abortion is an open-and-shut case. You confirm this by arguing that removing the option of abortion would be "morally repugnant".
    Last edited by Cope; March 03, 2018 at 07:41 AM.



  5. #85

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    You explicitly stated that no "serious debate on whether abortion should be offered or not" could occur. Since the overwhelming majority of criticism relating to abortions is derived from ethical arguments, your own position is unambiguously tantamount to arguing that the morality of abortion is an open-and-shut case. You confirm this by arguing that removing the option of abortion would be "morally repugnant".
    When a time does come where technology offers an option of giving a child an excellent childhood and opportunities as well as offer the mother a life without the burden of motherhood, then we can have a serious debate on whether abortion should be offered or not.
    Quite clear I'm saying that it's a morally repugnant to force the financial burden of motherhood on a woman who does not want to be one
    You done? Or are we still having difficulties understanding English?

  6. #86

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    You done? Or are we still having difficulties understanding English?
    The self-evident implication of arguing that it is "morally repugnant to force the financial burden of motherhood on a woman who does not want to be one" is that to oppose abortion in contemporary society is itself necessarily immoral. That you attempt to frame the nature of this immorality through the lens of "socioeconomic" concerns is irrelevant: the argument is still derived from a moral position.
    Last edited by Cope; March 03, 2018 at 10:54 AM.



  7. #87

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The self-evident implication of arguing that it is "morally repugnant to force the financial burden of motherhood on a woman who does not want to be one" is that to oppose abortion in contemporary society is itself necessarily immoral. .
    Except it isn't. You can assert that it's immoral to let people starve without asserting that inequality is immoral. In similar vein, its perfectly fine to assert that its immoral to ruin the future of a young woman by not letting her have an abortion without asserting that abortion itself is morally questionable. The two aren't mutually inclusive.

    That you attempt to frame the nature of this immorality through the lens of "socioeconomic" concerns is irrelevant: the argument is still derived from a moral position
    This is nonsensical. There is no framing occurring. There is a discussion of socioeconomic impacts of abortion on single women, and there is a discussion of the morality of abortion in general. Two completely different discussion. Stop trying to shove words in my mouth.

  8. #88

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Except it isn't. You can assert that it's immoral to let people starve without asserting that inequality is immoral. In similar vein, its perfectly fine to assert that its immoral to ruin the future of a young woman by not letting her have an abortion without asserting that abortion itself is morally questionable. The two aren't mutually inclusive.
    Of course they're mutually inclusive. You can't logically argue that its "immoral to ruin the future of a young woman by not letting her have an abortion" whilst simultaneously arguing that opposing abortion isn't immoral. It's akin to arguing that the death penalty is morally unjustifiable whilst also arguing that supporting the death penalty isn't unethical.

    This is nonsensical. There is no framing occurring. There is a discussion of socioeconomic impacts of abortion on single women, and there is a discussion of the morality of abortion in general. Two completely different discussion. Stop trying to shove words in my mouth.
    You explicitly tied the two together - not that you hadn't done it implicitly beforehand. You even went as far as to accuse politicians who opposed Planned Parenthood as being primarily motivated by religious bigotry.



  9. #89

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Of course they're mutually inclusive. You can't logically argue that its "immoral to ruin the future of a young woman by not letting her have an abortion" whilst simultaneously arguing that opposing abortion isn't immoral. It's akin to arguing that the death penalty is morally unjustifiable whilst also arguing that supporting the death penalty isn't unethical.
    No they aren't and your analogy doesn't follow my argument.

    1. The socioeconomic impact of pregnancy on women is a completely different topic from whether life starts at conception.
    2. I never said abortion is immoral nor did I say it was moral. I said forcing women to go through with pregnancy is immoral while the morality of abortion itself is in question.

    So no, they are not mutually inclusive.

    You explicitly tied the two together - not that you hadn't done it implicitly beforehand. You even went as far as to accuse politicians who opposed Planned Parenthood as being primarily motivated by religious bigotry.
    Except I didn't. I never tied the two together. I specifically went to the effort of emphasizing the social and economic angle of the issue in regards to the women, not the fetus. Morality of abortion also has nothing to do with religion. I attacked religious bigotry because a large part of conservative arguments against abortion in USA are based on religious and social views like the "nuclear family" concept, as opposed to science. Morality of abortion will not be decided by the ethical standards of religion, not as long as this country is secular.

  10. #90

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Depends on what direction you are approaching the issue from. From a scientific bent, it is just a medical process. From most secular moral doctrines, that I can think of at the moment (humanism, consequentialism, and so on), there doesn't seem to be much of a problem. In the United States, it is the more religious moralists that seem to have a problem with it, and they always seem to give unrefined reasons.
    That is because "secular" moral doctrines aren't really moral doctrines, but simply personal, subjective preferences (and almost always left-wing, coincidentally enough). There is no objective morality without religion, and only objective moral laws can be considered truly law.

    The real, i.e. religious, moral doctrines are pretty clear in that, since:

    - Human beings aren't only bodies, dollars, work-hours.
    - Human worth is not derived from how economically useful a human being is to other people.
    - All human life is inherently incalculably valuable.
    - Unborn babies are human.

    Abortion is therefore immoral.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  11. #91
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Legend View Post
    That is because "secular" moral doctrines aren't really moral doctrines, but simply personal, subjective preferences
    Exactly the same as religious moral doctrines.

    There is no objective morality without religion, and only objective moral laws can be considered truly law.
    Objectivity and religion used in the same sentence?????
    Do they not have self awareness on whatever planet you're from?

    The real, i.e. religious, moral doctrines are pretty clear in that, since:

    - Human beings aren't only bodies, dollars, work-hours.
    - Human worth is not derived from how economically useful a human being is to other people.
    - All human life is inherently incalculably valuable.
    - Unborn babies are human.

    Abortion is therefore immoral.
    It's a lucky thing for women, then, that religiosity is dying out with increasing rapidity. It's inevitable and undeniable which direction the historical future has already taken on this issue.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  12. #92
    Elfdude's Avatar Tribunus
    Patrician Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    7,335

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    I can't stop laughing at the ridiculousness of the assertion that Religion gives humanity intrinsic value. I suppose slavery, the holocaust, not to mention the whole conflict between orthodox/catholic protestant/catholic muslim/hindu catholic/muslim christian/buddhist christian/shinto christian/animism christian/pagan etc never happened. Religious definitely told us that both people on both sides were equal and valuable in the eyes of god and totally didn't justify killing any of them as subhuman, infidel, heretic, blasphemers, barbarian, etc.

    /Sarcasm

    With reasoning like that it's no wonder religion hemorrhages adherents every year.

  13. #93

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Actually by Pew Research Center, Atheism is diminishing worldwide, in % terms. Christianity and Islam being the fastest growing religions.

    Why people with no religion are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population[....]
    For years, the percentage of Americans who do not identify with any religion has been rising, a trend similar to what has been happening in much of Europe (including the United Kingdom). Despite this, in coming decades, the global share of religiously unaffiliated people is actually expected to fall, according to Pew Research Center’s new study on the future of world religions.
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ds-population/
    http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/t...ous-landscape/

    Even I knowing the thing more or less inside out could rant on religious faults all day. But to blame religious institutions for holocaust, slavery, ethnic warfare, etc, is similar to blaming crime on institution of police existing.

    And that given neighborhoods with more crime have more police, and neighborhoods with less crime have less police, that once we dismantle police we will have a world free of crime as a consequence.

    No offense intended, but the average angry atheist critics are often clueless and lost as to what actually happens inside Temples and how is the format of the Cleric thought process(regardless of religion), and end up with very juvenile ideas of how and why the whole thing has self replicated for Millenia.

    Interesting is the projected growth of Islam. Projected to grow faster than Christianity, while atheism gets diluted by birth rates.
    Last edited by fkizz; March 04, 2018 at 05:49 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  14. #94

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    Exactly the same as religious moral doctrines.

    Objectivity and religion used in the same sentence?????
    Do they not have self awareness on whatever planet you're from?
    Indeed human understanding of what the correct religion is is subjective, because humans are fallible. That's what I'm saying. Only "God" is infallible, and a source of objective morality.

    It's a lucky thing for women, then, that religiosity is dying out with increasing rapidity.
    I think you'll change your mind when you have daughters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    With reasoning like that it's no wonder religion hemorrhages adherents every year.
    Delusional. In order to win the future, you have to actually show up first. Irreligious people are aging with fertility rates significantly below replacement level, and religious conversions aren't making up for it. They are rapidly decreasing, as a proportion of the human population.

    Note: This is for the "religiously unaffiliated", most of whom are still spiritual. Only a minority are atheist or agnostic. So an even smaller proportion of the population are projected to be "non-spiritual."





    And this is an incomplete projection. For instance it doesn't include China, where much of the irreligious are concentrated, and which is currently experiencing a massive growth in Christianity. Tens to hundreds of millions of irreligious Chinese are projected to convert to Christianity.

    The biggest unknown factor, however, is China, the world’s most populous country. Because of a lack of reliable data on religious switching in China, none of the scenarios models religious switching among its 1.3 billion people. If there is considerable switching in China in the coming decades, it could lower the percentage of the world’s population that is unaffiliated and boost the numbers of Christians, Buddhists and perhaps other groups. (See sidebar on China at the end of this chapter.)...

    While it is clear that religious affiliation and practice have risen dramatically in China since the end of the Cultural Revolution, data on recent patterns of religious switching are practically nonexistent35. Anecdotally, some newspaper articles and reports from religious groups have attempted to describe changes underway in China, but it is unclear how accurately these accounts reflect change underway at the country level.36 Still, some experts believe that China’s Christian population is growing, perhaps rapidly. Most notably, one of the world’s leading specialists on religion in China, Purdue University sociologist Fenggang Yang, estimates that the Christian population in China grew at an average annual rate of 7% between 1950 and 2010. At this rate, Yang calculates the proportion of China’s population that is Christian could grow from 5% in 2010 to 67% in 2050.37

    Without survey data measuring patterns of switching among China’s main religious groups, it is not possible to formally model switching in China, as this report does for other countries.38 However, it is possible to conduct sensitivity tests that provide ballpark estimates of how much impact religious change in China could, potentially, have on the global religious landscape.


    While all religious groups in China could be experiencing significant change through switching, media reports and expert assessments generally suggest that the main effects are rising numbers of Christians and declining numbers of religiously unaffiliated people. The following sensitivity tests assume, for illustrative purposes, that switching is limited to this movement between the unaffiliated and Christians.


    As of 2010, China had an estimated 68 million Christians and 701 million unaffiliated people. Due primarily to differences in the age and sex composition of these initial populations, in the main projection scenario – which does not attempt to model religious switching – China’s Christian population is expected to grow slightly by 2050, to 71 million, while the unaffiliated population is expected to decline to 663 million.


    Under that main scenario, 5.4% of China’s population and 31.4% of the world’s total population will be Christian in 2050. If China’s Christian population were to decline to Japanese levels (2.4% of the country’s population) in 2050, it would reduce the Christian share of the global population to 30.9%. On the other hand, if China’s Christian population was to increase to the level projected for South Korea in 2050 (33.3% of the country’s population), it would raise the count of Christians in China to 437 million and the share of Christians in the world’s overall population to 35.3%.


    And if everyone who is currently unaffiliated in China were to convert to Christianity by 2050, China’s population would be 56.2% Christian (734 million Christians), raising the Christian share of the world’s population to 38.5% and lowering the unaffiliated share of the global population to 6.1%. Though that scenario may be unlikely, it offers a rough sense of how much difference religious switching in China maximally could have by 2050. Extremely rapid growth of Christianity in China could maintain or, conceivably, even increase Christianity’s current numerical advantage as the world’s largest religion, and it could significantly accelerate the projected decline by 2050 in the share of the global population that is religiously unaffiliated.
    Nor does it account for the good possibility of another religious Great Awakening in the West. The West has experienced periods of irreligiosity before, only to be reversed.

    The Great Awakening is a term that refers to a number of periods of religious revival in American Christian history. Historians and theologians identify three or four waves of increased religious enthusiasm occurring between the early 18th century and the late 20th century. Each of these "Great Awakenings" was characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelical Protestant ministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and redemption on the part of those affected, an increase in evangelical church membership, and the formation of new religious movements and denominations.
    But in my opinion, everyone has metaphysical beliefs. They just disagree on what the correct ones are.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  15. #95

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Well, killing innocent life is kind of a move based on most 'ethical systems. And we'll yes, of course it's hinged on the 'humanity' aspect, that's literally what we're dealing with here.
    No, I am asking what logic leads to conception being the point at which we should consider something a human. I want to know why that is being assumed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Nice to see someone deciding to not listen to a certain type of argument just because they don't like it. And what are you on about, no-one said humans are the only things that are conceived, just that is the start point common to all. No-one would be here without their conception. Especially when fertility rates in the West are well below the replacement level of 2.1, abortion offers little to society but convenience, and a removal of the consequences when it comes to some people's sexual 'adventures'. If sex is no longer seen as a means to pro-creation, and only as a source of pleasure, most Western countries will fail within the century. There simply won't be enough people.
    The population growth of the a nation is a matter of value judgement. I don't think we should interfere with someone's agency to that degree to insure a certain level of population growth. I am not interested in telling people why they should or should not have sex.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I'm not sure how to frame it differently. If you believe that a) all human life begins at conception and b) that all human life is of equal value, it isn't difficult to conclude that abortion is generally unethical.
    My point was that people believe life begins at conception for a reason; what is that reason? Did someone just tell them it was so, or do people use some kind of ethical system.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    I don't see how conception not being exclusive to human beings is relevant. Whether all life (human or not) should be treated equally is a different debate.
    I agree. I want to know what makes conception the "definitive moment" of humanity.
    Last edited by The spartan; March 04, 2018 at 11:18 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  16. #96

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I agree. I want to know what makes conception the "definitive moment" of humanity.
    There is no "definitive" moment of humanity. This short report outlines the biological case for why it is valid to consider conception to be the moment at which a new life has begun.



  17. #97

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    There is no "definitive" moment of humanity.
    That was my argument. A 'Human Being' is an emergent thing, it doesn't just pop into being when an egg is fertilized.
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This short report outlines the biological case for why it is valid to consider conception to be the moment at which a new life has begun.
    Well just to be clear; this isn't a scientific study of any kind, it is a 'report' (an opinion piece, scientists can't define humanity themselves). The author is also arguing definitions of "cell" and "organism", but not Human or Humanity. The article is also kind of confusing to me; what exactly is the crux of the argument being provided that human life starts at conception?

    Also, this is coming from a Pro-Life non-profit, so that isn't super convincing. It also concludes with:
    The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective,
    based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell
    types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent,
    peer-reviewed publications).
    Which is obviously not true as that would mean vast majority scientists are pro-life when, last time I checked up on stats, it is a minority of scientists that are pro-life.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  18. #98

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    That was my argument. A 'Human Being' is an emergent thing, it doesn't just pop into being when an egg is fertilized.
    This view is no more valid than than those which argue that a human being, worthy of a right to life, has come into existence at the point of conception: its merely your subjective ethical interpretation of humanity. And that was my contention from the beginning. Your original argument, if you'll remember, was to claim that opposing abortion at any stage was nonsensical, as if to imply that moral interpretations which contradicted your own were invalid.

    Well just to be clear; this isn't a scientific study of any kind, it is a 'report' (an opinion piece, scientists can't define humanity themselves). The author is also arguing definitions of "cell" and "organism", but not Human or Humanity. The article is also kind of confusing to me; what exactly is the crux of the argument being provided that human life starts at conception?
    If one accepts that a new human life begins at the point of conception, then it becomes ethically reasonable (not unquestionable) to argue that said new life ought to be entitled to the same legal protections as all other human lives. In other words, the position has a basis in a rational thought, and is not, therefore, "nonsense". To clarify, this argument is not synonymous with arguing that supporting the availability of abortions is necessarily irrational and/or unethical.

    Also, this is coming from a Pro-Life non-profit, so that isn't super convincing.
    A pro-life advocate argues a pro-life case. Shocking.

    It also concludes with:

    Which is obviously not true as that would mean vast majority scientists are pro-life when, last time I checked up on stats, it is a minority of scientists that are pro-life.
    Accepting that embryos are living entities does not necessitate an opposition to abortion: pro-choice arguments tend not to hinge on whether embryos or fetuses are technically living or not. The most common pro-choice positions consider the viability of life outside of the womb as being the critical ethical issue rather than whether the life can be said to exist at all. Viewing conception as being the essential moment is not less morally coherent than viewing the detection of a heart beat, brain activity or independent viability as being the definitive signal of the beginning of the life's humanity.
    Last edited by Cope; March 06, 2018 at 04:37 PM.



  19. #99

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This view is no more valid than than those which argue that a human being, worthy of a right to life, has come into existence at the point of conception: its merely your subjective ethical interpretation of humanity. And that was my contention from the beginning. Your original argument, if you'll remember, was to claim that opposing abortion at any stage was nonsensical, as if to imply that moral interpretations which contradicted your own were invalid.
    No, my original argument was that the stance that human life (or, personhood) begins at the moment of conception was nonsensicle. It wasn't "opposing abortion at any stage was nonsensical". In fact, I openly stated that I preferred the Roe v Wade way of handling the issue, which also does not support abortion at any stage. The idea that personhood is emergent is an already accepted position; we apply it to children all the time. We don't treat children as having full autonomy; their parents often overrule their agency and we don't hold them as fully liable for their actions as we do adults. Humans develop in stages. Having a human with full rights at the moment of conception goes counter to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    If one accepts that a new human life begins at the point of conception, then it becomes ethically reasonable (not unquestionable) to argue that said new life ought to be entitled to the same legal protections as all other human lives. In other words, the position has a basis in a rational thought, and is not, therefore, "nonsense". To clarify, this argument is not synonymous with arguing that supporting the availability of abortions is necessarily irrational and/or unethical.
    No no, I agree that, if it is a given that human life begins at conception, entitling an embryo to legal protections most humans have is logical. I was saying that accepting that human life begins at conception as a given was nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    A pro-life advocate argues a pro-life case. Shocking.
    There isn't anything wrong with the lozier institute putting forth it's own opinion, I was just trying to differentiate from a scientific study.

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    Accepting that embryos are living entities does not necessitate an opposition to abortion: pro-choice arguments tend not to hinge on whether embryos or fetuses are technically living or not. The most common pro-choice positions consider the viability of life outside of the womb as being the critical ethical issue rather than whether the life can be said to exist at all. Viewing conception as being the essential moment is not less morally coherent than viewing the detection of a heart beat, brain activity or independent viability as being the definitive signal of the beginning of the life's humanity.
    I would imagine that people who believe a fertilized embryo was a human being based on "uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method" would be against abortion at any stage (with possible caveats based on condition). And I agree that viability outside of the womb is another arbitrary distinction, though it seems to be based on convenience than a hardcore belief that viability is what determines personhood. I think an argument that a fetus gains personhood on becoming medically viable is pretty weak, personally. I think it requires arbitration based on several characteristics that we consider important to being a human. Mary Ann Warren suggests "consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivation, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness" as such characteristics. A person wouldn't need to have all of those characteristics, but if it has none of those characteristics, it hinders the argument for personhood.



    To follow that up; I am curious as to your opinions on conception regarding invitro fertilization from a pro-life perspective. If we accept a fertilized embryo as a person with rights, that has a lot of implications for the many thousands of fertilized embryos that are frozen or discarded every year for the sake of invitro fertilization.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #100

    Default Re: Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    No, my original argument was that the stance that human life (or, personhood) begins at the moment of conception was nonsensicle. It wasn't "opposing abortion at any stage was nonsensical".
    There is some linguistic confusion here. This is the quote I'm referring to:

    "the more prominent groups against abortion are clearly against abortion at any stage, which is nonsense."

    When I said you had claimed "that opposing abortion at any stage was nonsensical" I was arguing on the basis of this point - specifically that you find groups who reject abortion at any stage to be arguing on the basis of nonsense. The semantics aside, the position that "human life begins at the point of conception" is not nonsensical.

    In fact, I openly stated that I preferred the Roe v Wade way of handling the issue, which also does not support abortion at any stage. The idea that personhood is emergent is an already accepted position; we apply it to children all the time. We don't treat children as having full autonomy; their parents often overrule their agency and we don't hold them as fully liable for their actions as we do adults. Humans develop in stages. Having a human with full rights at the moment of conception goes counter to that.
    It is a matter of personal ethical preference. Nevertheless, the difference between denying autonomy and denying life itself is significant: in a sense it mirrors the disparity between custodial sentences and the death penalty.

    No no, I agree that, if it is a given that human life begins at conception, entitling an embryo to legal protections most humans have is logical. I was saying that accepting that human life begins at conception as a given was nonsense.
    It isn't: all human life begins at the point of conception. The argument is not about whether this statement is true, it is about whether the life of an embryo ought to be viewed as having equal legal value to that of a more developed human being.

    I would imagine that people who believe a fertilized embryo was a human being based on "uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method" would be against abortion at any stage (with possible caveats based on condition). And I agree that viability outside of the womb is another arbitrary distinction, though it seems to be based on convenience than a hardcore belief that viability is what determines personhood. I think an argument that a fetus gains personhood on becoming medically viable is pretty weak, personally. I think it requires arbitration based on several characteristics that we consider important to being a human. Mary Ann Warren suggests "consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivation, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness" as such characteristics. A person wouldn't need to have all of those characteristics, but if it has none of those characteristics, it hinders the argument for personhood.
    In my view this argument fails because we would expect the fetus to acquire these characteristics over time, and it would be unusual to apply the same ethical logic outside of the abortion debate. For instance, if a person fell into a coma and ostensibly lost the all of the characteristics you cited, we would not assume he/she had lost their humanity so long as there was a reasonable expectation that these characteristics would reemerge. And even in the case where there was no expectation that the patient would regain consciousness, it would remain unethical to euthanize them. The treatments keeping the patient living may be withdrawn, but it would extremely unusual for a doctor to initiate a procedure which, in and of itself, caused the death of a patient.
    Last edited by Cope; March 08, 2018 at 08:04 PM.



Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •