U of C Abortion protests

[photon]

If single celled organisms are a group of people then yes you have a valid argument.

But they aren't.

Each cell in my body has the potential to become a complete new individual, I should be against anything that destroys any cell at all.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

If single celled organisms are a group of people then yes you have a valid argument.

But they aren't.

Each cell in my body has the potential to become a complete new individual, I should be against anything that destroys any cell at all.

That's a very simplistic ethical argument. A fertilized egg has far more potential to naturally grow into a human, then any other cell in your body.

[photon]

It's not simplistic, it's taking an issue to a boundary and trying to figure out what the right thing is at the extreme conditions. Just because a fertilized egg has more potential doesn't make one right and the other wrong. Define more. Define potential. Define natural. How much more makes it right or wrong? What if technology was such that you could take a skin cell, buy a $5 kit, swallow it, and 24 hours later you are pregnant? Then each cell has tons of potential.

Potential is the crux of the anti-birth control argument. Would you agree that using birth control is not immoral?

To me edge scenarios can be very useful in illuminating a moral issue.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

It's not simplistic, it's taking an issue to a boundary and trying to figure out what the right thing is at the extreme conditions. Just because a fertilized egg has more potential doesn't make one right and the other wrong. Define more. Define potential. Define natural. How much more makes it right or wrong? What if technology was such that you could take a skin cell, buy a $5 kit, swallow it, and 24 hours later you are pregnant? Then each cell has tons of potential.

Potential is the crux of the anti-birth control argument. Would you agree that using birth control is not immoral?

To me edge scenarios can be very useful in illuminating a moral issue.

Birth control and contraceptives insure that you are protecting and controlling your own genetic material. It is part of your person. A fertilized egg is a combination of material that has the full potential to be a self-determining human being. I think in cases of human life, it is safe to take a precautionary moral position.

[photon]

Your genetic material isn't you though, it's simply something that you've produced that happens to be stored in your body, and with the act of sex has the full potential to be a self determining human being.

I can't effectively argue the contraception position because I personally think it's silly. But there are many people who would find your position on birth control morally reprehensible. Would you support restricting the freedoms of everyone to use birth control based on the moral stance of that group?

We're not talking about a precautionary moral position here, we're talking about restricting the freedom of a whole group of individuals.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Your genetic material isn't you though, it's simply something that you've produced that happens to be stored in your body, and with the act of sex has the full potential to be a self determining human being.

I can't effectively argue the contraception position because I personally think it's silly. But there are many people who would find your position on birth control morally reprehensible. Would you support restricting the freedoms of everyone to use birth control based on the moral stance of that group?

We're not talking about a precautionary moral position here, we're talking about restricting the freedom of a whole group of individuals.

Restricting freedoms with the possiblility that you are saving life.

It's funny that someone who takes a liberal pro-life stance gets immediately lumped in with every single undesirable element of the pro-life movement. I have nothing in common with extremist Catholics or fundamentalist Baptists. I am strictly concerned with the human experience and spirit and I would like to see that made available for everyone.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Restricting freedoms with the possiblility that you are saving life.

It's funny that someone who takes a liberal pro-life stance gets immediately lumped in with every single undesirable element of the pro-life movement. I have nothing in common with extremist Catholics or fundamentalist Baptists. I am strictly concerned with the human experience and spirit and I would like to see that made available for everyone.

But I doubt you would agree that you should restrict every freedom to save even more lives. So there's a balance there somewhere between freedom to choose and limiting freedoms for the good of society. That's what the discussion is about.

Where did I lump you in with those groups? I didn't say you held the same values as they did....

I asked if you would support restricting everyone's freedoms based on their moral values. You didn't answer.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

But I doubt you would agree that you should restrict every freedom to save even more lives. So there's a balance there somewhere between freedom to choose and limiting freedoms for the good of society. That's what the discussion is about.

Where did I lump you in with those groups? I didn't say you held the same values as they did....

I asked if you would support restricting everyone's freedoms based on their moral values. You didn't answer.

Ah, I misunderstood.

I suppose you have to examine their moral values and make a restriction based on that examination. Especially on the grounds between speech and action. In the abortion debate, there is clearly good points raised by other side. Pro-life is correct in saying that a choice is a choice and a woman will choose to have an abortion no matter what. I think that is fair and it is the reason why I would support limited public funding to various types of abortion, ie. rape, incest, complications for the mother etc...

I support abortion restrictions in the general sense. The humanity of the fetus is up for debate. Sure. The fetus doesn't have a voice, can't tell us what it feels, so we can assume that it should not be granted the same status as a conscious human being. But we do grant rights to members of our society that do not retain a sense of "full" consciousness, such as the handicapped. We do so on the basis that they appear to us as human beings and we will take the precautionary measure of offering them full rights and treatment as human beings. In my mind, the same set of rights should be applied to an unborn fetus. We know it has the potential to be human, therefore we should grant it precautionary status as a full human being, subject to a code of universal human rights that respects the individual.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ah, I misunderstood.

I suppose you have to examine their moral values and make a restriction based on that examination. Especially on the grounds between speech and action. In the abortion debate, there is clearly good points raised by other side. Pro-life is correct in saying that a choice is a choice and a woman will choose to have an abortion no matter what. I think that is fair and it is the reason why I would support limited public funding to various types of abortion, ie. rape, incest, complications for the mother etc...

So I take that as a no you wouldn't support limiting everyone's rights to contraception based on the moral values of a group of the population?

What if the vast majority of the population happened to hold that moral value? Should contraception be outlawed then?

I support abortion restrictions in the general sense. The humanity of the fetus is up for debate. Sure. The fetus doesn't have a voice, can't tell us what it feels, so we can assume that it should not be granted the same status as a conscious human being.

Or in the case of a single celled fertilized egg, even the capability to feel. There's no brain. No nervous system. Nothing but a complicated chemical reaction. At some point along the way those things develop.

But we do grant rights to members of our society that do not retain a sense of "full" consciousness, such as the handicapped. We do so on the basis that they appear to us as human beings and we will take the precautionary measure of offering them full rights and treatment as human beings. In my mind, the same set of rights should be applied to an unborn fetus. We know it has the potential to be human, therefore we should grant it precautionary status as a full human being, subject to a code of universal human rights that respects the individual.

So my other questions remain then, define potential. How much potential? With how much outside intervention?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Reaper

It must be hard to stand on that slippery slope on which you've decided to set up camp.

I'm thanked out for the day, but if I werent, you'd get one for this.

This topic has it all, abortion, censorship, freedom of philosophical thought.

[peter12]

So I take that as a no you wouldn't support limiting everyone's rights to contraception based on the moral values of a group of the population?

What if the vast majority of the population happened to hold that moral value? Should contraception be outlawed then?

Absolutely not. I view contraception as simple self-protection. In fact, I would advocate even further availability and education of contraceptives to a population.

If the majority of a society held that value, then I guess I would be ineffective. Contraception is more of a health issue but can be viewed as a moral issue by some. The society would reap the consequences, I suppose. Like Africa is doing now with HIV/AIDS. Of course there are other factors, but a social rejection of contraception is certainly part of it.

Or in the case of a single celled fertilized egg, even the capability to feel. There's no brain. No nervous system. Nothing but a complicated chemical reaction. At some point along the way those things develop.



So my other questions remain then, define potential. How much potential? With how much outside intervention?

Well, this is an interesting question. I agree that we need to decide when potential is important. I would certainly advocate benchmarks being established when a brain and nervous system have developed. That, to me, would certainly be 'just' at this point.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Absolutely not. I view contraception as simple self-protection. In fact, I would advocate even further availability and education of contraceptives to a population.

And I would totally agree.

If the majority of a society held that value, then I guess I would be ineffective. Contraception is more of a health issue but can be viewed as a moral issue by some. The society would reap the consequences, I suppose. Like Africa is doing now with HIV/AIDS. Of course there are other factors, but a social rejection of contraception is certainly part of it.

Right but I'm not trying to actually argue the moral position of contraception itself, I'm using that issue to try to illustrate the abortion one.

You view contraception as simple self protection, others do not. You wouldn't support restricting everyone's freedoms based on that group's views; freedom to choose would be the correct path here; those that choose to limit their own freedoms based on their morals are free to do so, those that choose to exercise their freedom to use contraception are free to do so.

Abortion is very similar (though deeper I agree), some view abortion as an immoral act, others do not. Pro-choice advocates the freedom to limit (or not) one's own freedoms based on their morals, depending on how far along there's not enough harm to warrant limiting everyone's freedoms. Pro-not-choice advocates limiting limiting all freedoms based on their morals.

And actually it's interesting you bring up the social rejection of contraception and AIDS in Africa.. Wondering if a social rejection abortion would significantly impact quality of life due to many more unwanted children in society..

Well, this is an interesting question. I agree that we need to decide when potential is important. I would certainly advocate benchmarks being established when a brain and nervous system have developed. That, to me, would certainly be 'just' at this point.

I agree, and I'm sure there's been tons of research in this area done already. Try to get the group at the UofC to entertain this line of discussion though, I'd like to watch the results

[peter12]

Abortion is very similar (though deeper I agree), some view abortion as an immoral act, others do not. Pro-choice advocates the freedom to limit (or not) one's own freedoms based on their morals, depending on how far along there's not enough harm to warrant limiting everyone's freedoms. Pro-not-choice advocates limiting limiting all freedoms based on their morals.

And actually it's interesting you bring up the social rejection of contraception and AIDS in Africa.. Wondering if a social rejection abortion would significantly impact quality of life due to many more unwanted children in society..

Well, there has to be a trade-of. A social rejection of abortion would have to come with a variety of accomodations. Increased support for single mothers, increased community daycare and further support for community-based healthcare. The thing that really bugs me about the UofC crowd is that they refuse to acknowledge the huge responsiblity that protecting life entails. You have to give in order to be an effective protector.

Same goes with the handicapped. Thank goodness there are so many kind and compassionate people who give their lives helping those less capable than others.

I agree, and I'm sure there's been tons of research in this area done already. Try to get the group at the UofC to entertain this line of discussion though, I'd like to watch the results

It's at the heart of the ethics of our new technoscience and it deserves a lot more serious and rational attention than it gets, in my opinion.

[jonesy]

Why is the UofC choosing to shut down one side of an issue? I thought Universities were there in part to promote discussion of ideas and theories. It seems targetted against a group they don't agree with. How is that freedom of speech?

In terms of violence, I have seen 2 or 3 of these events and the only violence I saw was when pro abortionists attacked and destroyed the pro life material. They don't have to agree, but why can't they let someone else have a different opinion?

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, there has to be a trade-of. A social rejection of abortion would have to come with a variety of accomodations. Increased support for single mothers, increased community daycare and further support for community-based healthcare.

I think those things could be worth-while doing even in the absence of social rejection or outlawing of abortion...

Start slowly, grow a system that would accommodate women who carry to term and have the children adopted (adoption has always seemed like the reasonable alternative to abortion to me).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

I think those things could be worth-while doing even in the absence of social rejection or outlawing of abortion...

Start slowly, grow a system that would accommodate women who carry to term and have the children adopted (adoption has always seemed like the reasonable alternative to abortion to me).

Totally agree.

So you admit a great deal of discomfort regarding abortion. I think most people do. That, to me, is an indication of how people truly feel about abortion. I read a great article about a "Lincolnian" position on abortion awhile back. I should dig it up.

[jonesy]

Just to be clear I honestly think that an unborn baby is a person and therefore think abortion is murder. If you don't think that, you are free to your opinion, but I am not uneducated, incestous, gun toting or any other nasty thing you can think to call me.
There are tens of thousands of abortions in calgary each year, and as someone who sees that as murder it makes me sad.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Why is the UofC choosing to shut down one side of an issue? I thought Universities were there in part to promote discussion of ideas and theories. It seems targetted against a group they don't agree with. How is that freedom of speech?

In terms of violence, I have seen 2 or 3 of these events and the only violence I saw was when pro abortionists attacked and destroyed the pro life material. They don't have to agree, but why can't they let someone else have a different opinion?

They both get their turns to demonstrate, obviously not on the same day.

The Pro-Lifers have just been pushing the envelope every year and this year they were warned and pushed too far.

Regardless of your opinions, or on which side of the war you choose to stand, this particular group is bunch of wackjobs.

[jonesy]

My understanding was that the pro abortionists are not threatened with jail or civic violations or expulsions, whereas the pro lifers are, so it seems like censorship to me.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Why is the UofC choosing to shut down one side of an issue? I thought Universities were there in part to promote discussion of ideas and theories. It seems targetted against a group they don't agree with. How is that freedom of speech?

In terms of violence, I have seen 2 or 3 of these events and the only violence I saw was when pro abortionists attacked and destroyed the pro life material. They don't have to agree, but why can't they let someone else have a different opinion?

According to other posters in this thread, these people are promoting "their side of the issue" by harassing passersby and provoking confrontations with total strangers.

The University said in its press release that this group had contacted the school about the potential for violence. In other words, they said "we are going to be doing things on campus that might make people violent towards us".

Be honest. If PETA was doing all of the above, would you call it a free speech issue?