Abortion Rights

[Roustabout]

I’m neither, and you know it.

Then you need to go back and re-read.

You think rights begin with brain activity (at least what I recollect from this convro). TRUT views personhood and rights beginning sometime between 3 and 4 years old. Therefore, supporting infanticide as a non criminal act. Just so we're clear, that's a parent killing their BORN child. And, since those rights don't exist until this certain age, then I can only assume he is Ok with infanticide up until that age.

You applauded TRUTs statement, which was directed at me (incorrectly btw. Rabbit trail versus rabbit hole), that I was somehow unwilling to examine my own beliefs.

So, please enjoy considering the implications if this.

 

[Roustabout]

What does that have to do with the criteria for what constitutes life?

You keep trying to change the subject. Own up to your inconsistency.

One, it's not arbitrary.

Two, not simply life, but specifically, human life. The biological evidence is not a philosophical notion, but a hard fact.
Trying to cloud the matter is insanity.

 

[rjd970]

Then you need to go back and re-read.

You think rights begin with brain activity (at least what I recollect from this convro). TRUT views personhood and rights beginning sometime between 3 and 4 years old. Therefore, supporting infanticide as a non criminal act. Just so we're clear, that's a parent killing their BORN child. And, since those rights don't exist until this certain age, then I can only assume he is Ok with infanticide up until that age.

You applauded TRUTs statement, which was directed at me (incorrectly btw. Rabbit trail versus rabbit hole), that I was somehow unwilling to examine my own beliefs.

So, please enjoy considering the implications if this.

Define personhood, please.

Until you do, my point and Trut point stands. You know this, I know this, and any fair minded reader knows this.

 

[therealUT]

Then you need to go back and re-read.

You think rights begin with brain activity (at least what I recollect from this convro). TRUT views personhood and rights beginning sometime between 3 and 4 years old. Therefore, supporting infanticide as a non criminal act. Just so we're clear, that's a parent killing their BORN child. And, since those rights don't exist until this certain age, then I can only assume he is Ok with infanticide up until that age.

You applauded TRUTs statement, which was directed at me (incorrectly btw. Rabbit trail versus rabbit hole), that I was somehow unwilling to examine my own beliefs.

So, please enjoy considering the implications if this.

Okay with it? In one sense, yes. But, I think it's repugnant, so in another sense, no.

I can't see why it would be morally wrong, other than that it feels repugnant. I don't think such a feeling can ground a consistent system of morality. So, I don't rely on my feelings of repugnance to make moral claims.

Now, it might be immoral to kill your child. But, it's not clear to me that it is. As such, I step away from controlling the behavior of the parents through force and coercion. I think such an approach is the essence of humility and restraint in thought, while pushing your beliefs on others through force and coercion is the essence of arrogance and tyranny.

 

[Roustabout]

Define personhood, please.

Until you do, my point and Trut point stands. You know this, I know this, and any fair minded reader knows this.

You're avoiding.

For the umpteenth time, my position and case isn't for or against personhood. So, why is the onus on me to defend something Im NOT claiming?
My case holds regardless of when personhood (if there is such a thing) begins. My position stands on when human life begins.

 

[Roustabout]

Okay with it? In one sense, yes.

Now, it might be immoral to kill your child. But, it's not clear to me that it is.

For emphasis.

 

[therealUT]

You're avoiding.

For the umpteenth time, my position and case isn't for or against personhood. So, why is the onus on me to defend something Im NOT claiming?
My case holds regardless of when personhood (if there is such a thing) begins. My position stands on when human life begins.

Why do you think human life, without personhood, is special, such that humans have rights and beasts do not?

 

[therealUT]

For emphasis.

Yeah, I'm okay with infanticide, per se, in the same sense that I'm okay with cock fighting.

 

[Wafflestomper]

One, it's not arbitrary.

Two, not simply life, but specifically, human life. The biological evidence is not a philosophical notion, but a hard fact.
Trying to cloud the matter is insanity.

What isn't arbitrary? Your selection of what needs to be objectively grounded certainly seems to be.

You're the one clouding the issue here. The biological evidence cannot be interpreted without a foundation for doing so--this is what I'm referring to. The criteria for what constitutes life is a philosophical notion; there is actually still some debate on it as well.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

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

I can't believe this got likes.
That's some ****ed up ****.

He's got you sounding all twisted.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

To me the question has never been about when life begins. In a strictly biological sense it begins at conception. From other perspectives, brain activity, birth, the point at which a being can consent etc etc etc.

None of that is really relevant. The question should be, at what developmental point are we as a society willing to value the potential life over that of a life which has been realized?

 

[therealUT]

To me the question has never been about when life begins. In a strictly biological sense it begins at conception. From other perspectives, brain activity, birth, the point at which a being can consent etc etc etc.

None of that is really relevant. The question should be, at what developmental point are we as a society willing to value the potential life over that of a life which has been realized?

Potential life?

Potential human life?

Or, potential development of certain capacities?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Potential life?

Potential human life?

Or, potential development of certain capacities?

You can spin it any manner in which you want. Call it any of your three choices or call something else, I don't care. When do we value the possibility over that of the person incubating that possibility.

 

[Matt2496]

IMO, abortion has been propagated by the US government throughout our society as a method of population control. Just my opinion tho

 

[Obsessed]

Potential life?

Potential human life?

Or, potential development of certain capacities?

Kind of off topic, but didn’t you guys have a baby not long ago?

Btw, congrats on the new home.

 

[LouderVol]

You're better than this dumbass argument. Renounce it and beg for forgiveness

I was told that people have sex for other reasons than making babies. I was straight up told by people on this board that they were doing it because they enjoyed it, and having babies were specifically not part of what they wanted. so yes, its part of it. just because you (the collective) want to avoid responsibility doesn't make the action (abortion) any less reprehensible.

 

[therealUT]

You can spin it any manner in which you want. Call it any of your three choices or call something else, I don't care. When do we value the possibility over that of the person incubating that possibility.

It depends on whether or not you want to consistently hold your beliefs to their logical conclusions.

First, if you value human life qua human life, your reasoning and reasons are not significantly different from the same reasoning and reasons that racists have. You draw the line at a certain similitude of DNA, they draw the line at a certain similitude of DNA.

Second, if you move to potential capacity for personhood, you either must reject natural selection or make the very bold claim that no other species can have offspring that will develop personhood or extend your these rights to other species. As far as I can tell, it is possible that a new born bonobo will develop personhood, eventually. Why not today? Tomorrow? The theory of natural selection tells us it is more likely that such an ape will have offspring that develop personhood than not. Moreover, the theory makes room for the possibility that a cow has a calf that develops personhood. Unless we are not extending rights to cattle, based on the possible potential, I see no reason to extend it to humans based on the possible potential.

One might provide a generalization of humans and, as such, then say that all infants will develop personhood. But, this is simply false. The infants that have the potential to be persons are merely those that develop into persons.

Moreover, the fetuses that are aborted and the infants that are killed are among those that never develop personhood. All that can be made here is a potentiality claim. But, I'm not even sure what that means. It is certainly not equivalent to, "Left to their own devices, they will develop personhood". It is much closer to, "If they are fed appropriately and cared for appropriately, they will develop personhood". But, the use of "appropriately", here, begs the question.

I do not believe that sociopaths are persons, for they lack the sentiment aspect. Moreover, we do treat sociopaths differently under the law and within most moral theories. But, we also can claim, with a high degree of certainty, that many sociopaths are not born as such, but turn into sociopaths due to conditions of their early life, prior to the development of the capacity to experience sentiments.

 

[therealUT]

Kind of off topic, but didn’t you guys have a baby not long ago?

Btw, congrats on the new home.

Definitely did not have a baby. But, the wife is starting to ask about these things.

 

[Roustabout]

He's got you sounding all twisted.

I think you need to pay closer attention. TRUT is a master of rhetoric. An extremely intelligent guy, which will get no dispute from me. He knows how to direct a conversation. But this isn't my first rodeo. His entire worldview is based on personal autonomy, which he has no support for. So, there are some things I will not engage him on, because I already know where it leads. Been there done that.

Are you uncertain as to whether it's morally wrong to kill a one year old child?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I think you need to pay closer attention. TRUT is a master of rhetoric. An extremely intelligent guy, which will get no dispute from me. He knows how to direct a conversation. But this isn't my first rodeo. His entire worldview is based on personal autonomy, which he has no support for. So, there are some things I will not engage him on, because I already know where it leads. Been there done that.

Are you uncertain as to whether it's morally wrong to kill a one year old child?

It is very wrong, in my mind, but I recognize that is a subjective opinion.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It depends on whether or not you want to consistently hold your beliefs to their logical conclusions.

First, if you value human life qua human life, your reasoning and reasons are not significantly different from the same reasoning and reasons that racists have. You draw the line at a certain similitude of DNA, they draw the line at a certain similitude of DNA.

Second, if you move to potential capacity for personhood, you either must reject natural selection or make the very bold claim that no other species can have offspring that will develop personhood or extend your these rights to other species. As far as I can tell, it is possible that a new born bonobo will develop personhood, eventually. Why not today? Tomorrow? The theory of natural selection tells us it is more likely that such an ape will have offspring that develop personhood than not. Moreover, the theory makes room for the possibility that a cow has a calf that develops personhood. Unless we are not extending rights to cattle, based on the possible potential, I see no reason to extend it to humans based on the possible potential.

One might provide a generalization of humans and, as such, then say that all infants will develop personhood. But, this is simply false. The infants that have the potential to be persons are merely those that develop into persons.

Moreover, the fetuses that are aborted and the infants that are killed are among those that never develop personhood. All that can be made here is a potentiality claim. But, I'm not even sure what that means. It is certainly not equivalent to, "Left to their own devices, they will develop personhood". It is much closer to, "If they are fed appropriately and cared for appropriately, they will develop personhood". But, the use of "appropriately", here, begs the question.

I do not believe that sociopaths are persons, for they lack the sentiment aspect. Moreover, we do treat sociopaths differently under the law and within most moral theories. But, we also can claim, with a high degree of certainty, that many sociopaths are not born as such, but turn into sociopaths due to conditions of their early life, prior to the development of the capacity to experience sentiments.

The opinion I hold is with regard to abortion only, as it applies to a fetus which is in the gestation period. I don't see the issue as requiring a label such as personhood or conception etc. It is simply a matter of when the rights of one being trump the rights of another being.

 

[LouderVol]

If a worthless ****ing junky doesn't kill a tiger, they aren't going to spend the next 18 years making the tiger's life a living nightmare.

climate change, environment loss due to development. introduction of invasive species, etc etc etc. sounds pretty tortuous to me.

 

[LouderVol]

You don't have to. But, if you think that human DNA is just inherently special, that sounds pretty arbitrary.

1. how is human DNA not inherently special? its unique, and we have placed value on the individual. also good luck getting a human out of a duck. and then you consider our dominance of this planet and its special. and then as far as messing with it, real easy to mess it up. I would be real pissed if someone tampered with mine, or of one of my unborn kids so I would say it has value to a person as well.
2. we aren't discussing DNA. this is one of the continued fallacies of the abortion crowd, they keep changing the subject, or trying to change the subject to something they can argue.
3, how is what literally defines us arbitrary? is there a debate I am unaware of or does this go back to my second point of obfuscation.

 

[Roustabout]

It is very wrong, in my mind, but I recognize that is a subjective opinion.

So. You're mind could be changed?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

So. You're mind could be changed?

I don't see how. You could offer up future Hitler scenarios, but under realistic circumstances that don't implicate the defense of the greater good, I cannot see how.