Abortion Rights

[LouderVol]

Our objective system of morals? What exactly are you referring to?

As to opinions changing, it is quite possible that abortion could be outlawed in the future. I think that is actually quite likely. The amazing development of artificial wombs will be instrumental.



Laws =/= morality.

the objective sytem of morals was pulled straight from your quotes when referring to slavery. it was an interesting inclusion given the relative nature of the argument.

if laws aren't morality, I agree, why include the legality of slavery in a discussion, when most people would say slavery is inherently wrong and immoral.

seems like you are fostering ties between the two when it seems to ultimately go against your perceived argument.

 

[LouderVol]

I guess I missed that. Last I checked it was considered inconsequental to the discussion.

not inherently to "us" (imo). to your side maybe, but to us, person hood is synonymous with life/human. "your" side is the one introducing an exclusion to that and except for rjds 9-12 weeks you have yet to establish a counterpoint, ceding the point to us. or at least moving forward under that same assumption.

I am currently trying to get to rjds source on 9-12 and how those implications might impact further discussions.

 

[rjd970]

the typical, healthy human brain can go 3 minutes without oxygen, before permanent damage happens. but they can be saved and come back. does the lack of brain activity in those 3 minutes mean they lose any rights?

how about people in comas? they have lost the ability to experience anything, and their brain lacks self conscience-ness, or control over the body.

Is there function at the brain stem in those three minutes, or when one is in coma?

And for the record, I haven't established anything with regard to personhood. I'm simply saying end of the first trimester time frame seems reasonable, given the development of the brain.

And lets not forget...we are not only talking about brain activity...but actually having a physical brain at all.

 

[rjd970]

I'm not Roust, but could you clarify the question? It kind of sounds similar to claiming that 2+2 does not == 4 because someone doesn't know math.

I think the question is if 2+2=4, then why did we say 2+2=1 for so long?

 

[rjd970]

not inherently to "us" (imo). to your side maybe, but to us, person hood is synonymous with life/human. "your" side is the one introducing an exclusion to that and except for rjds 9-12 weeks you have yet to establish a counterpoint, ceding the point to us. or at least moving forward under that same assumption.

I am currently trying to get to rjds source on 9-12 and how those implications might impact further discussions.

It has been asked, countless times, what defines personhood and it has never been answered. What makes a person? You are equating personhood and human. Wonderful. You had said a week after conception:

I believe it is human once it hits the embryonic state. (roughly a week after conception). but it still doesn't mean you can kill it willy nilly.

Why?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I think the question is if 2+2=4, then why did we say 2+2=1 for so long?

OK. Point applies.

 

[rjd970]

OK. Point applies.

What objective standard can you point to that shows we got it right?

The question how could we have ever corrected slavery.

PKT response is opinions change. If there was objective morals slavery could only ever be wrong if we are indeed correct now.

So, the question is, how do we know we got it corrected, and why was it wrong before? If slavery is objectively wrong, what are you referencing to show this?

 

[LouderVol]

Is there function at the brain stem in those three minutes, or when one is in coma?

And for the record, I haven't established anything with regard to personhood. I'm simply saying end of the first trimester time frame seems reasonable, given the development of the brain.

And lets not forget...we are not only talking about brain activity...but actually having a physical brain at all.

ok, so its not actual brain activity that matters. its simply having a brain now? that lump of cells is a brain? again I am simply trying to actually nail down where/what/when your line is. because it seems like you are hard up on arguing a point you don't have a solid stance on yourself. allowing you to morph your argument into whatever shape you need it to be for the time being.

 

[Roustabout]

Opinions change.

How did an objective system of morals allow slavery?

Nice try!!

Where did I say that?

 

[Roustabout]

What objective standard can you point to that shows we got it right?

The question how could we have ever corrected slavery.

PKT response is opinions change. If there was objective morals slavery could only ever be wrong if we are indeed correct now.

So, the question is, how do we know we got it corrected, and why was it wrong before? If slavery is objectively wrong, what are you referencing to show this?

Holy smoke!! You're actually taking the position that slavery wasnt wrong and that the abolitionists had no objectively better ethic to shoot for.

Wow!!

 

[Orange_Crush]

What objective standard can you point to that shows we got it right?

The question how could we have ever corrected slavery.

PKT response is opinions change. If there was objective morals slavery could only ever be wrong.

So, the question is, how do we know we got it corrected, and why was it wrong before? If slavery is objectively wrong, what are you referencing to show this?

I've not tried to prove objective morality. I actually said earlier in this thread that that's why I normally don't have these debates, because we can't agree on a source of morality.

But that doesn't mean you can infer that objective morality doesn't exist. I'm asking what logic pkt is using to infer that OR doesn't exist because people haven't followed it.

People could have perceived it and not followed it.

People could have not perceived it, and it still be an objective standard.

 

[Roustabout]

It has been asked, countless times, what defines personhood and it has never been answered. What makes a person? You are equating personhood and human. Wonderful. You had said a week after conception:



Why?

You believe in personhood.
You define it.

 

[LouderVol]

It has been asked, countless times, what defines personhood and it has never been answered. What makes a person? You are equating personhood and human. Wonderful. You had said a week after conception:



Why?

because after that point nothing fundamentally changes with the embryo/fetus. before that point it is self sustaining. but once it embeds in the uterus it becomes dependent on the mother. There is probably a couple days of wiggle room there but a week is a nice round number.

 

[rjd970]

I've not tried to prove objective morality. I actually said earlier in this thread that that's why I normally don't have these debates, because we can't agree on a source of morality.

But that doesn't mean you can infer that objective morality doesn't exist. I'm asking what logic pkt is using to infer that OR doesn't exist because people haven't followed it.

People could have perceived it and not followed it.

People could have not perceived it, and it still be an objective standard.

How do you infer objective morality exists that is not subjective?

 

[rjd970]

You believe in personhood.
You define it.

I have. Countless times in this thread.

The ability to think, feel, react, reason, suffer, experience, be self aware all play into it. I believe who we are is more than just organic matter. Brain activity is an important part of this.

A two week old embryo does not have the capacity to do any of that.

 

[Orange_Crush]

How do you infer objective morality exists that is not subjective?

It's a metaphysical belief. Again, I'm not trying to prove that it exists. I'm just asking pkt if that was what he was really asking, or if he was asking how an objective morality (the Bible) allowed for slavery (in Israel).

If it were the first, I'm asking what logic says that an objective truth must be rationally perceived and acted upon to be true.

Think of it this way. By that logic, natural selection could never have happened because we would have had to perceive natural selection for natural selection to be true.

 

[LouderVol]

I have. Countless times in this thread.

The ability to think, feel, react, reason, suffer, experience, be self aware all play into it. I believe who we are is more than just organic matter. Brain activity is an important part of this.

A two week old embryo does not have the capacity to do any of that.

neither does someone in a coma. there is brain activity but they have no ability to do any of the things you mentioned.

you bring up an "and" but really it doesn't seem to be that.

 

[rjd970]

Holy smoke!! You're actually taking the position that slavery wasnt wrong and that the abolitionists had no objectively better ethic to shoot for.

Wow!!

Nope, wrong again.

I BELIEVE slavery to be wrong. I'm asking for the objective proof of I'm right or the standard that shows as such.

 

[rjd970]

neither does someone in a coma. there is brain activity but they have no ability to do any of the things you mentioned.

you bring up an "and" but really it doesn't seem to be that.

There is also brain activity at 8-12 weeks. We can't do most of those things at the beginning of the second trimester either. But I still think there is a person there because there is brain activity.

Your trying really hard here. Go read what is happening with a 8-12 week old embryo. That is the bare minimum what I would consider a person.

 

[Roustabout]

I think human rights are a (useful) figment of the our minds.

Making sure to note this.

What defines "human" from a biological prospective is uncontroversial.

Then i think you need to be having a conversation with Waffle an rjd.

What defines as "life", in the context of "a life being taken", refers to personhood. That is the central idea of this whole exchange.

And that is the category error i'm dealing with. I've already addressed this. When a life is taken, what is really taken away? The future reality of that person. Was it their rights? Nope. Unless you can identify these rights and objectively ground them. It's certainly not their past life. Seems like a whistle past the graveyard. Does a fetus have a future life?

This is answered in what is being sought by an abortion. What is the mother seeking to abort? If the blastocyst or zygote stayed that way would an abortion be sought? No. The mother is aborting the future person. The child and responsibility that is a CERTAIN reality unless it is deprived of its being.

When talking about rights (figment), rights (figment) are conferred upon a person. At the start of this thread, the discussion was about legal rights (a figment) and moral responsibilities for the biological mother and father. However, if another has/ought to have legal/moral rights (a figment) in this situation (the potential child), their personhood MUST be established. Discussing the moral/legal rights (a figment) conferred upon a person to an entity which has a non-person status is nonsensical.

Established according to who? Says who? So it must be established to confer rights that are a figment of our mind? The same one's you refuse to source or ground. And some notion of personhood? A newborn is a different form, lacking self-awareness, ability to sustain itself, and lacking higher cognitive skills. Why is a person not defined as a self sufficient being, possessing higher cognition? Because babies are cute? Sorry i was being nonsensical.

 

[Roustabout]

Nope, wrong again.

I BELIEVE slavery to be wrong. I'm asking for the objective proof of I'm right or the standard that shows as such.

Well, then your question is either incredibly flawed or you don't really believe it's WRONG. You simply don't prefer it. You can't smuggle in a word (wrong) and then rob it of any real meaning to try and make your point. I believe vanilla ice cream to be better than chocolate. And people who like chocolate are wrong.

The burden is not on us to prove objective moral values, as if there is some formula we can write out. The burden is for you to justify your use of the word wrong and ground it in any actual meaning. Because you are attempting to use the term in an objective way, and not in the way i am referencing ice cream flavor preference.

So, shame on you for demanding we demonstrate objective proof, when you are hijacking it for your own use.

 

[Roustabout]

There is also brain activity at 8-12 weeks. We can't do most of those things at the beginning of the second trimester either. But I still think there is a person there because there is brain activity.

Your trying really hard here. Go read what is happening with a 8-12 week old embryo. That is the bare minimum what I would consider a person.

Ok, let's argue on your terms.
An 8-12 week incubating human is a person? Prior to our scientific ability to recognize this, was that a person?

Is there potential scientific discovery that could cause us to redefine personhood? Right now the state of TN allows you to kill persons, based on your view. What are you doing to stop state sponsored murder?

 

[Roustabout]

I have. Countless times in this thread.

The ability to think, feel, react, reason, suffer, experience, be self aware all play into it. I believe who we are is more than just organic matter. Brain activity is an important part of this.

A two week old embryo does not have the capacity to do any of that.

So, your BELIEF determines this notion of personhood?
And a newborn has a different level of that compared to a 12 week fetus. A 1 year old has a different level of that compared to a newborn. Slippery slope.

 

[LouderVol]

So, your BELIEF determines this notion of personhood?
And a newborn has a different level of that compared to a 12 week fetus. A 1 year old has a different level of that compared to a newborn. Slippery slope.

also curious as to what makes something distinctly "brain activity" vs activity in a bunch of cells. as far as I have researched there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference taking into consideration those differences of time and a developing mind.

 

[Obsessed]

Y’all are giving me a headache...