------------------------------------------
M.C.: That's an interesting ethical argument, though I completely disagree with their conclusions. What I dread now is seeing this article pop up as an argument against abortion rights.
Me: It is an argument against abortion rights.
M.C.: That's not how I read it, considering they are talking about value of postnatal life. But I see where fanatacists can grab hold of it without regard to context and turn the headline into a fear-mongering tactic.
Me: You seem to misunderstand. By arguing for the morality of killing unwanted post-born babies, these pro-choicers have abandoned their argument entirely.
Since a "person" now means “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her,” the door is now open for the wholesale elimination of anyone deemed undesirable.
M.C.: You are the one misunderstanding. These are not 'pro-choicers' making the argument; it is a group of medical ethicists publishing a scientific article. They make the argument based on a supposition that most scientists (myself included) would not agree with, and just because it is published does not mean it is infallible. That is the point of scientific inquiry.
Me: No, it's a political article. Science is not invoked. They make an argument in favor of a position based on morality. Didn't you read the article?
M.C.: Yes, and I even comprehended what I was reading. The Telegraph article linked above is reporting on a scientific article published in 'The Journal of Medical Ethics'. All of the quotes in the Telegraph are in regards to that article and the argument presented is summarized from it.
Me: Ok, so let's clarify the situation. Do you support or oppose the conclusion of the scientists, and what is your basis for deciding?
M.C.: I disagree with their conclusions based on the summarized argument presented in the Telegraph article. As I haven't read the actual journal article (and I'm willing to bet you haven't either), I won't engage in uninformed debate on its merits.
Me: What is your basis for deciding?
M.C.: I disagree that a postnatal infant lacks "properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual".
Me: Explain.
Maddie Chapman No, I think that explains my position succinctly.
Me: I see. So you don't know why you disagree?
M.C.: Nice try. I refuse to be drawn into a debate of false equivalencies based on willful ignorance of science. Have a nice day.
Me: There's no need to be condescending. I am only asking you questions. If you can't answer, that's fine.
Willful ignorance of science? As noted, we are not talking about science, we are talking about morality and politics.
Me: It is an argument against abortion rights.
M.C.: That's not how I read it, considering they are talking about value of postnatal life. But I see where fanatacists can grab hold of it without regard to context and turn the headline into a fear-mongering tactic.
Me: You seem to misunderstand. By arguing for the morality of killing unwanted post-born babies, these pro-choicers have abandoned their argument entirely.
Since a "person" now means “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her,” the door is now open for the wholesale elimination of anyone deemed undesirable.
M.C.: You are the one misunderstanding. These are not 'pro-choicers' making the argument; it is a group of medical ethicists publishing a scientific article. They make the argument based on a supposition that most scientists (myself included) would not agree with, and just because it is published does not mean it is infallible. That is the point of scientific inquiry.
Me: No, it's a political article. Science is not invoked. They make an argument in favor of a position based on morality. Didn't you read the article?
M.C.: Yes, and I even comprehended what I was reading. The Telegraph article linked above is reporting on a scientific article published in 'The Journal of Medical Ethics'. All of the quotes in the Telegraph are in regards to that article and the argument presented is summarized from it.
Me: Ok, so let's clarify the situation. Do you support or oppose the conclusion of the scientists, and what is your basis for deciding?
M.C.: I disagree with their conclusions based on the summarized argument presented in the Telegraph article. As I haven't read the actual journal article (and I'm willing to bet you haven't either), I won't engage in uninformed debate on its merits.
Me: What is your basis for deciding?
M.C.: I disagree that a postnatal infant lacks "properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual".
Me: Explain.
Maddie Chapman No, I think that explains my position succinctly.
Me: I see. So you don't know why you disagree?
M.C.: Nice try. I refuse to be drawn into a debate of false equivalencies based on willful ignorance of science. Have a nice day.
Me: There's no need to be condescending. I am only asking you questions. If you can't answer, that's fine.
Willful ignorance of science? As noted, we are not talking about science, we are talking about morality and politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment