Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   What We Talk About When We Talk About Palin (Rebecca Traister & Liz Mair) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5912)

AemJeff 09-02-2010 09:49 PM

Re: What We Talk About When We Talk About Palin (Rebecca Traister & Liz Mair)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 177630)
I apologize for excerpting what you thoughtfully wrote but I want to respond that the issue of abortion is not only an individual and/or private judgment because it goes to the heart of the value we, as a society, place on the life of a human being. Abortion interferes with that life and the mother is not the only person who should be considered.

That's true. And I don't think anybody here has argued that the mother is the only person whose considerations count. But I think most people who have contributed here would agree that the paramount concerns are the mother's right to her own bodily integrity, and the fetus' right to existence. Everything else would seem subordinate to those.

I note that we've switched positions here. Between you and me, I'm the libertarian in this discussion! :)

AemJeff 09-02-2010 09:52 PM

Re: What We Talk About When We Talk About Palin (Rebecca Traister & Liz Mair)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 177631)
Personhood gets even more complicated when applied to nonhumans. Peter Singer discusses animal rights, abortion and infanticide in the context of personhood, i.e., when it's ethical to terminate any life form.

Complete tangent, but if you start talking about sentience, experiencing pain and suffering, self-awareness, etc., there are other nonhuman beings to consider.

That's another debate, I think. I will say that the implication occurred to me as I was typing my argument, but it doesn't seem relevant to what I was trying to say. And, to be sure, if I was trying to construct a complete theory of personhood, that wouldn't be the only consideration. I think it's necessary, but not sufficient.

badhatharry 09-02-2010 11:16 PM

Re: What We Talk About When We Talk About Palin (Rebecca Traister & Liz Mair)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 177633)
That's true. And I don't think anybody here has argued that the mother is the only person whose considerations count. But I think most people who have contributed here would agree that the paramount concerns are the mother's right to her own bodily integrity, and the fetus' right to existence. Everything else would seem subordinate to those.

I note that we've switched positions here. Between you and me, I'm the libertarian in this discussion! :)

Sorry to belabor a point which will never get settled either here or elsewhere for some time. My point at the beginning of all of this was and continues to be that Roe vs Wade is no great victory for women while convenient and available birth control methods and the vacuum cleaner are. :)

PreppyMcPrepperson 09-02-2010 11:37 PM

Re: What We Talk About When We Talk About Palin (Rebecca Traister & Liz Mair)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 177577)
We are trying to understand each others' point of view, not build teams.

I didn't mean it to be antagonistic, Ocean. This thread has been extremely civil and interrogative, not combative, as you say, which is what drew me in to following it in the first place.

stephanie 09-03-2010 11:58 AM

Re: What We Talk About When We Talk About Palin (Rebecca Traister & Liz Mair)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 177626)
That kind of experience is going to color my views. It is the right of those women that I defend when I talk about choice.

I understand.

stephanie 09-03-2010 12:01 PM

Re: What We Talk About When We Talk About Palin (Rebecca Traister & Liz Mair)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 177631)
Complete tangent, but if you start talking about sentience, experiencing pain and suffering, self-awareness, etc., there are other nonhuman beings to consider.

Not a tangent at all. It's one of the problems I see with us saying that sentience is what it's based on.

stephanie 09-03-2010 12:22 PM

Re: What We Talk About When We Talk About Palin (Rebecca Traister & Liz Mair)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 177629)
I think, though, that if I'm making an argument in which personhood is at least theoretically measurable by degree, then I'd better have a theory about what that means.

Sure, I think I agree, if I'm following you. I think it's important and that anyone who basis an argument on "personhood" needs to be able to outline what they are talking about and why they think it's significant.

But my point is merely that ultimately, our definitions of what a "person" is going to be a subjective one, and a philosophical one (and, of course, a legal one). Some claims seem so clearly wrong that they shouldn't be granted any credibility -- i.e., that race or ethnic background matters or sex or even that babies wouldn't be included (something that has not always been so clearly the case). Others might be similar by analogy (i.e., if we found some species of aliens who were capable of reason and the like, clearly we'd have to consider them also legally persons). But on the edges, what is it that causes us to define entities in or out? I have opinions on this, but ultimately think that ultimately my conclusion on the question isn't on firmer foundation than various others. So I feel like I can talk about the various arguments if people are interested, but am not comfortable saying I'm right and others wrong within a range of positions. (Although that doesn't mean there aren't some answers that I will dismiss as clearly inconsistent with our values and understanding as a society and, in fact, wrong or immoral -- like that there's some meaningful difference based on race or sex or even babyhood among born people.)

Wonderment 09-03-2010 04:48 PM

Re: What We Talk About When We Talk About Palin (Rebecca Traister & Liz Mair)
 
Quote:

It's one of the problems I see with us saying that sentience is what it's based on.
Yes, there are a lot of factors that come into play with "sentience." We don't kill people with very low sentience (extremely mentally disabled, irreversible coma, last phases of dementia, etc.)

Anyway, I am back full circle to where I started, supporting Rebecca's views of expanding abortion rights as a matter of public policy, whether you personally accept abortion or not. Anything else you do just adds fuel to the "pro-life" fire. Restrictions are a slippery slope.

Here is an example of how I reconcile my public policy views with my actual personal views. I support the UN criteria for a "just war" (basically self-defense after an attack or response to an imminent attack), even though personally I am a pacifist and would not participate in any war, and even though I think "self-defense" responses are always disproportionate.

That's not to say that I personally compromise on abortion. I don't. I definitely and absolutely want my daughters to have the right and exercise it according to their best judgment.

On animal rights I'm a supporter of The Great Ape Project to grant person-like rights to bonobos, gorillas, chimps and orangutans (we'll deal with cetaceans and other self-aware creatures later on).


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.