Conjoined twins, 2 heads, 1 body

[Robin Sisland]

I don't see how that is in any way "subjective and [un]quantifiable".

We use kilogrammes to measure weight. Ignoring tiny variations in the earth's gravitational field 1kg is 1kg everywhere. Is there a similar universal system for measuring 'quality of life? No, so it's unquantifiable.
Do people have opinions about levels of quailty of life, yes, but they are opinions, and are unquantifiable therefore they are subjective.

I think suicide is a crime in the UK.

It isn't.

I'm bored. The legal position is that it's her decision, end of.

 

[Scottoffee]

One thing that struck me was this;

Apparently, the child is a 'gift from God', yet here she is, knocked up and unwed.

Mike and I have spent over seven years trying to have children

She's 25, he's 32 - over 7 years ago, she wasn't even an adult and he was 25.

She should maybe give her religious beliefs a quick once-over just to make sure that 'gift' is the right way to approach her predicament.

 

[Nebbiolo]

We use kilogrammes to measure weight. Ignoring tiny variations in the earth's gravitational field 1kg is 1kg everywhere. Is there a similar universal system for measuring 'quality of life? No, so it's unquantifiable.
Do people have opinions about levels of quailty of life, yes, but they are opinions, and are unquantifiable therefore they are subjective.

It isn't

I'm bored. The legal position is that it's her decision, end of

Oh, well I'm sorry for boring you. I've got to give you this Robin, you've got an unfortunate manner. If you can't construct an argument, or seek to better understand an issue, and would prefer to rely on assertions, then please continue to live that way.

Just a tip: Start with a premise, and move logically in steps, from premise to premise. Finally you get a solution, or what is called a "conclusion". Even if the conclusion is wrong, as long as the premises are sound, the argument is valid. But best of all is if the conclusion is correct, and the premises are correct, then you've got a sound argument; that is, one that is true.

Think about that for a while. It might make you take a step back occasionally.

 

[Goat]

What ever u lids are talking about, im with nebolid.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

I think suicide is a crime in the UK. But maybe I'm wrong on that. Perhaps it is just "assisted suicide" that is still illegal. Anyway, what you go onto say above is a different issue. The woman in this case is harming herself, not her potential children. The opposite is true in the case we have been discussing. She is, effectively, causing harm to others. She fails, in my view, the following liberal principle: "that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Expanding on that principal then, say the woman is forced to have an abortion and the loss of his children causes the father to have a mental breakdown and he eventually kills himself unable to live with the fact his children were never given the chance of life.

Does that fit in with that principal then as it is causing harm (all be it mental) to others?

 

[Robin Sisland]

Oh, well I'm sorry for boring you. I've got to give you this Robin, you've got an unfortunate manner. If you can't construct an argument, or seek to better understand an issue, and would prefer to rely on assertions, then please continue to live that way.

Pointing out that the legal position in the Uk and most (all?) other countries isn't an 'assertion' it's a fact. A fact that is made clear in the article you linked to in your opening post.
You apparently don't agree with it, and would like to change it, but that doesn't stop it being true.

Just a tip: Start with a premise, and move logically in steps, from premise to premise. Finally you get a solution, or what is called a "conclusion". Even if the conclusion is wrong, as long as the premises are sound, the argument is valid. But best of all is if the conclusion is correct, and the premises are correct, then you've got a sound argument; that is, one that is true.

Think about that for a while. It might make you take a step back occasionally.

Sigh.

I started with premise : it's the woman's decision, this is the legal situation.

You didn't accept it, even though it's demonstrably true.


I moved logically in steps pointing out that it would be next to impossible to legislate to force women to abort foetuses because you think the baby will not grow up to have what you think is an acceptable quality of life because it's not possible to give a quantifiable legal definition of "quality of life", because it can only be assessed subjectively.

You didn't accept that either.

Instead you insisted that your opinion on "quality of life" isn't subjective. It is, because it's your opinion, that's what subjective means. And that "quality of life" can be (measured) quantified - how with a ruler? If you have a means of measuring it objectively wouldn't it be better to explain it instead of criticising me - playing the man not the ball is a sure sign of a lost argument.

As you couldn't follow my argument (or didn't want to), apparently don't have access to a dictionary, and were simply repeating the same opinions you expressed in your opening post, I stepped back.

But you didn't accept that either.

If you want to carry your argument forward you'll need to explain how to arrive at a legal definition of 'quality of life', how to measure the future 'quality of life' of people who haven't been born yet, and to decide who gets to do the measuring and make the decision on which foetuses to abort and which to allow to be born.
Oh, and you'll also need to work out a way of overcoming part 3 of the Hippocratic Oath - the basic code that doctors work to - which states : 3. Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest.
In this case, harming an unborn child because your assessment of its potential for "quailty of life" doesn't match what you think is normal.
It's a tough one, take your time.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Sigh.

I started with premise : it's the woman's decision, this is the legal situation.

Sigh.

No, Robin. That is an assertion, not a premise. You seem to think you're very bright, but unfortunately you are are very poor at constructing arguments.

Have a look on the internet for the definition of a premise and then get back to me.

 

[Robin Sisland]

With pleasure.

In discourse and logic, a premise is a claim that is a reason (or element of a set of reasons) for, or objection against, some other claim

It's also - as I keep explaining - demonstrably true, and not an assertion which may or may not be true. But for reasons I don't understand you won't accept this.

 

[Brownie]

If you want to carry your argument forward you'll need to explain how to arrive at a legal definition of 'quality of life', how to measure the future 'quality of life' of people who haven't been born yet, and to decide who gets to do the measuring and make the decision on which foetuses to abort and which to allow to be born.
Oh, and you'll also need to work out a way of overcoming part 3 of the Hippocratic Oath - the basic code that doctors work to - which states : 3. Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest.
In this case, harming an unborn child because your assessment of its potential for "quailty of life" doesn't match what you think is normal.
It's a tough one, take your time.

So you're worried about legal ambiguity, yet are prepared to put forward the Hippocratic Oath as a guiding principle?

 

[Robin Sisland]

So you're worried about legal ambiguity, yet are prepared to put forward the Hippocratic Oath as a guiding principle?

Must be Wizard of Oz night. Plenty of straw men, no Dorothies?

If you want construct a legal framework which allows for doctors to forcibly perform abortions on women who don't want them you'll need to take the Hippocratic Oath into consideration, because that's the 'guiding principle' they work to. Again, simple statement of fact, - not my opinion, assertion etc.

 

[Nebbiolo]

With pleasure.

In discourse and logic, a premise is a claim that is a reason (or element of a set of reasons) for, or objection against, some other claim

It's also - as I keep explaining - demonstrably true, and not an assertion which may or may not be true. But for reasons I don't understand you won't accept this.

Robin, a premise cannot start from a conclusion (which you did). It starts from a fact of the matter. What you do is begin an argument from a point that has not been established, from a controversial point, and fail to address this issue when pushed. A truly good argument, with pertinent premises, would run like this:

(P1) some people have difficulty understanding the rules of logic
(P2) some people are cleverer than others
(C) therefore, not everyone is equally intelligent

Play games all you want, but don't try to teach me logic.

Now you're boring me. If you want to continue the oneupmanship, than do it by PM.

 

[trebilcock66]

I once thought as you do, Neb.

Now, after personal experience of this issue, I do not.

A life is a life. Not ours to take, give or judge.

It follows that quality of life is also not ours to measure.

No religious view, mine - I'm a full on atheist.

 

[Robin Sisland]

What you do is begin an argument from a point that has not been established, from a controversial point, and fail to address this issue when pushed.

The legal position is that the woman has the right to choose. This is a simple fact established in law.
The only controversy as far as I can see is that you don't agree with it. And when pressed to explain how you would construct a legal framework to allow enforced abortions you, ignore the questions, utilise straw man arguments about religion, and resort to personal insults.

It's getting late - fancy a beer and an argument about who to play up front on Monday?

 

[Nebbiolo]

The legal position is that the woman has the right to choose. This is a simple fact established in law.
The only controversy as far as I can see is that you don't agree with it. And when pressed to explain how you would construct a legal framework to allow enforced abortions you, ignore the questions, utilise straw man arguments about religion, and resort to personal insults.

It's getting late - fancy a beer and an argument about who to play up front on Monday?

A straw man argument? I've not misrepresented what you say. I have also refuted your position, which is another sign that you don't understand the concept of a straw man. I don't think you have the slightest understanding of what a straw man actually is?

Robin, I feel you need to consider the way you speak to people. More than one person has been justifiably cross with you lately.

Perhaps if you didn't act so pompously (unjustifiably so in my view) this would have ended in a courteous manner.

Anyway, I'm not going to answer you again because to do so would break terms and conditions of GOT.

 

[Brownie]

Must be Wizard of Oz night. Plenty of straw men, no Dorothies?

If you want construct a legal framework which allows for doctors to forcibly perform abortions on women who don't want them you'll need to take the Hippocratic Oath into consideration, because that's the 'guiding principle' they work to. Again, simple statement of fact, - not my opinion, assertion etc.

Sorry, I'm just not used to people getting so hung up on legality when discussing this kind of thing. My point was simply that as the law, or formulation of the law, serves up some very difficult moral questions, so do things like the Hippocratic Oath. Particularly with issues like abortion, you won't often find people ready to accept general rules. They prefer to rely on their own reasoning and intuition, which tend to be very situation specific.