Abortion Rights

#754
#754
luthervol said:
For the religious who believe in a soul and the afterlife:

At what point does a soul attach to a being?

Do souls develop as a person develops or does the soul remain an unchanged entity?

If a fetus has a soul and is terminated either through miscarriage or an abortion, what is the destiny of the soul?
Click to expand...

I can pretend to be religious if you want.
 
#756
#756
As far as I can tell, the only viable forms of intelligent life on earth are morally degenerate jews who have chosen to turn their backs on the old ways. And racoons.
 
#757
#757
Wafflestomper said:
Is personhood a moral truth?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, the only thing that would truly establish personhood is if humans have some objective value. Otherwise it is a result of self awareness. (A delusion) And, (assuming evolutionary naturalism) self awareness is an accidental byproduct of unguided processes. But this still requires us to determine when a human becomes a person. Without any objective grounding we are left with arbitrary qualifiers. I hope TRUTs comments show that slippery slope. Newborns are not persons.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing for personhood. That would require me to establish what I've been asking, an objective measure of how to know when a human is imbued with rights. This then only begs, where and how are rights established? (I'm all ears)

So, since we all assume humans are persons at some point, I can only go with the facts. Conception is the 1st stage of human development. Abortion destroys the future reality of that human. That is all fact based. Therefore, humans ought not destroy the future reality of another human. This conclusion will probably draw some rabbit trails (death penalty, self defense). Don't worry, I'm prepared to deal with these moral dilemma.
 
#758
#758
Roustabout said:
As far as I can tell, the only thing that would truly establish personhood is if humans have some objective value.
Click to expand...

Seems arbitrary. What's the objective grounding for this assertion?

Roustabout said:
Otherwise it is a result of self awareness. (A delusion) And, (assuming evolutionary naturalism) self awareness is an accidental byproduct of unguided processes. But this still requires us to determine when a human becomes a person. Without any objective grounding we are left with arbitrary qualifiers. I hope TRUTs comments show that slippery slope. Newborns are not persons.
Click to expand...

Didn't you (or maybe it was OC) argue that God's self-reflection vis-a-vis his own character is the foundation of morality? Does that make God delusional?

Roustabout said:
Keep in mind I'm not arguing for personhood. That would require me to establish what I've been asking, an objective measure of how to know when a human is imbued with rights. This then only begs, where and how are rights established? (I'm all ears)
Click to expand...

Then why did you demand an objective definition of personhood?

Roustabout said:
So, since we all assume humans are persons at some point, I can only go with the facts. Conception is the 1st stage of human development. Abortion destroys the future reality of that human. That is all fact based. Therefore, humans ought not destroy the future reality of another human. This conclusion will probably draw some rabbit trails (death penalty, self defense). Don't worry, I'm prepared to deal with these moral dilemma.
Click to expand...

Since so many pregnancies terminate naturally, the most moral thing to do is to never attempt to conceive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#759
#759
NorthDallas40 said:
That one hits close to home for me. My father died as a result of Alzheimer’s. My mother was on her way before a blood vessel in her brain saved her the indignity.

But they were still “people”, “persons”. Their reasoning and memories were just totally rewired.

So in the way you answered that have you thought about the concept of losing personhood before or is this a new pondering. I’ve honestly never thought of it before.

Now to make my brain really hurt, I am thinking you stated your athiest? It’s not an accusation.

But if so then the “human identity” doesn’t exist beyond the biological form right? If so, and the concept of reasoning is taken as defining a person, then one could argue that when the brain has developed to the point that logical thoughts are capable of being stored within the synaptic pathways you have reached “personhood”? Or you think it’s the imprinting, the forming of those thoughts that defines “personhood”? Because the former is a biological basis. The latter is just for lack of a better example “muscle memory”.

Might go to basis of picking a defining point for “person” from the atheistic viewpoint.

Full disclosure. I am not atheistic I am Christian. But I’m seriously not bringing that into this I have nothing I’m springing here.
Click to expand...

I've thought about this for years. Also, I'm not an atheist, I'm a desist.
 
#760
#760
Roustabout said:
As far as I can tell, the only thing that would truly establish personhood is if humans have some objective value. Otherwise it is a result of self awareness. (A delusion) And, (assuming evolutionary naturalism) self awareness is an accidental byproduct of unguided processes. But this still requires us to determine when a human becomes a person. Without any objective grounding we are left with arbitrary qualifiers. I hope TRUTs comments show that slippery slope. Newborns are not persons.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing for personhood. That would require me to establish what I've been asking, an objective measure of how to know when a human is imbued with rights. This then only begs, where and how are rights established? (I'm all ears)

So, since we all assume humans are persons at some point, I can only go with the facts. Conception is the 1st stage of human development. Abortion destroys the future reality of that human. That is all fact based. Therefore, humans ought not destroy the future reality of another human. This conclusion will probably draw some rabbit trails (death penalty, self defense). Don't worry, I'm prepared to deal with these moral dilemma.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the requirement for discovery of personhood is as vital as you believe it to be. Regardless of when a child develops personhood, they don't develop the capacity to consent until much later. In the meantime, their parents control their consent. As such, the parents are within their rights to do anything with that child.

Hard cases are those who have lost personhood and the capacity to consent. If they have a will or a PNOK, these individuals now control the choices and what to do with said human being. If they don't have a will or a PNOK, then they are wards of the state. The state makes the decisions.

Personally, I've never understood the uproar over either abortion or infanticide. Even if it is murder, it's not your kid that is being murdered, and there's hardly ever a reason to believe that someone who has an abortion or commits infanticide, of their own child, is a threat to society. Further, a parent acting alone to kill their child, against the wishes of the other parent, can very easily be charged with a whole host of crimes as they have violated the rights of the other parent.

There's no slippery slope to fear, unless you are under the illusion that a significant number of couples, working together, want to kill their children. But, that's not the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#761
#761
apevol said:
I can pretend to be religious if you want.
Click to expand...

No one else seemed to be interested. I was actually asking out of legitimate curiosity. That seems as if it would be a part of the equation for believers.
 
#762
#762
therealUT said:
I've thought about this for years. Also, I'm not an atheist, I'm a desist.
Click to expand...

Sorry thought you said you were atheistic in your beliefs. So of course I had to look that up and it still isn’t clear what a desist belief system is other than possibly chose not to even worry about it? An athiest would say there is no God. Best I can tell a desist would say who cares if there is or isn’t?
 
#763
#763
NorthDallas40 said:
Sorry thought you said you were atheistic in your beliefs. So of course I had to look that up and it still isn’t clear what a desist belief system is other than possibly chose not to even worry about it? An athiest would say there is no God. Best I can tell a desist would say who cares if there is or isn’t?
Click to expand...

You're confusing agnosticism and deism. An agnostic simply doesn't believe either way. A deist believes that the supernatural exists, but doesn't go beyond that. A theist believes an all-powerful supernatural being exists, and often also thinks that being is all good and sits in judgment of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#764
#764
therealUT said:
You're confusing agnosticism and deism. An agnostic simply doesn't believe either way. A deist believes that the supernatural exists, but doesn't go beyond that. A theist believes an all-powerful supernatural being exists, and often also thinks that being is all good and sits in judgment of us.
Click to expand...

Ok now deist I get. I’m not playing the grammar game but the post said “desist” so I just ran with it. And yeah I admit the closest I could come was akin to agnostic but it looked like you were trying to differentiate so I stuck with it. Deist I understand.

So if you actually took that out and told people they could lose their personhood, especially in our country where our founding documents instill “we are born with...” you would make a lot of people lose their damn minds. Would probably be good for a lot of fiery rebuttals!! Lol.
 
#766
#766
NorthDallas40 said:
Ok now deist I get. I’m not playing the grammar game but the post said “desist” so I just ran with it. And yeah I admit the closest I could come was akin to agnostic but it looked like you were trying to differentiate so I stuck with it. Deist I understand.

So if you actually took that out and told people they could lose their personhood, especially in our country where our founding documents instill “we are born with...” you would make a lot of people lose their damn minds. Would probably be good for a lot of fiery rebuttals!! Lol.
Click to expand...

Yes, a lot of people would lose their damned minds. That said, the DoI does not say that anyone is born with any rights. Here are the following independent clauses that are relevant:

"All men are created equal"

"Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

'Men', here, certainly does not mean all human beings, for the drafters of this document and signers of this document did not think that all human beings had these rights. Thus, 'Men', here, means persons. They did not think that Africans were persons (nor the 'savages' they speak of in the same document).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#767
#767
therealUT said:
Yes, a lot of people would lose their damned minds. That said, the DoI does not say that anyone is born with any rights. Here are the following independent clauses that are relevant:

"All men are created equal"

"Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

'Men', here, certainly does not mean all human beings, for the drafters of this document and signers of this document did not think that all human beings had these rights. Thus, 'Men', here, means persons. They did not think that Africans were persons (nor the 'savages' they speak of in the same document).
Click to expand...

They didn’t believe women were either based on period gender based rights and privileges. But that’s a totally different debate.

Regardless, even with belief systems flawed as many would believe in the modern context, they were quite visionary and got a great deal right.

Interesting that you point to the DoI. That document actually doesn’t factor into our legislative basis. It’s just more of a “Ok *****es we’re tired of this crap and here’s what we’re gonna do going forward” statement.
 
#768
#768
Wafflestomper said:
Seems arbitrary. What's the objective grounding for this assertion?



Didn't you (or maybe it was OC) argue that God's self-reflection vis-a-vis his own character is the foundation of morality? Does that make God delusional?



Then why did you demand an objective definition of personhood?



Since so many pregnancies terminate naturally, the most moral thing to do is to never attempt to conceive.
Click to expand...

Most of these questions don't follow.
Why an objective grounding for personhood? Because you are claiming the unborn aren't persons and not entitled to rights, and thus can be killed simply on the choice of the mother.
 
#769
#769
therealUT said:
I don't think that the requirement for discovery of personhood is as vital as you believe it to be. Regardless of when a child develops personhood, they don't develop the capacity to consent until much later. In the meantime, their parents control their consent. As such, the parents are within their rights to do anything with that child.

Hard cases are those who have lost personhood and the capacity to consent. If they have a will or a PNOK, these individuals now control the choices and what to do with said human being. If they don't have a will or a PNOK, then they are wards of the state. The state makes the decisions.

Personally, I've never understood the uproar over either abortion or infanticide. Even if it is murder, it's not your kid that is being murdered, and there's hardly ever a reason to believe that someone who has an abortion or commits infanticide, of their own child, is a threat to society. Further, a parent acting alone to kill their child, against the wishes of the other parent, can very easily be charged with a whole host of crimes as they have violated the rights of the other parent.

There's no slippery slope to fear, unless you are under the illusion that a significant number of couples, working together, want to kill their children. But, that's not the case.
Click to expand...
How many abortions ever year?
Infanticide might not be a problem here and now, but I can see that happening.
 
#770
#770
Roustabout said:
How many abortions ever year?
Infanticide might not be a problem here and now, but I can see that happening.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why the number of abortions each year matters, if those who have and conduct abortions are not a threat to society.

As with infanticide becoming widespread and prevalent:

1. No, it's not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. If it becomes widespread, it's because society has completely collapsed and incredible scarcity has reduced humanity to a state of war of all against all.

2. Let's grant that in simply removing the legal prohibitions against infanticide, infanticides increase substantially. So what? This increase does not threaten the stability of society.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#771
#771
therealUT said:
Yes, I think it is possible for someone to lose personhood. In fact, I think most who suffer from advanced forms of alzheimers and dementia have lost their personhood.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Albeit probably for different reasons and on a different scale.
 
#772
#772
therealUT said:
I'm not sure why the number of abortions each year matters, if those who have and conduct abortions are not a threat to society.

As with infanticide becoming widespread and prevalent:

1. No, it's not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. If it becomes widespread, it's because society has completely collapsed and incredible scarcity has reduced humanity to a state of war of all against all.

2. Let's grant that in simply removing the legal prohibitions against infanticide, infanticides increase substantially. So what? This increase does not threaten the stability of society.
Click to expand...

Other than the fact that we've aborted an entire generation.

I can't believe this got likes.
That's some ****ed up ****.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top