Abortion Rights

[Roustabout]

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.

So, how is that making me look twisted up?

 

[LouderVol]

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.

Most surprising abortion statistic: The majority of women who terminate pregnancies are already mothers.

they do. 61% of abortions were by women who were already mothers. no idea how to back figure that to how many were actually married, but I am willing to say it is a significant number.

your argument on abortion/infantcide is complete crap "well its not your kid". I don't believe murder is wrong because a family member has been killed, shouldn't take the same for this.

for me its about taking a life. was a life terminated yes or no. personhood doesn't even come into it. I am not comfortable defining when another entity is a person or not. way too much room to play.

 

[LouderVol]

I'll feel very confident in this assessment unless and until you provide a reason for why abortion should be illegal but not everything that you believe is morally wrong should be illegal.

because abortion is harming another person, in "our" world. I don't think anyone disputes the legality or hurting another individual. you just want to redefine what an individual is so you can have a legality/morality discussion. I am typically going to lean to the side that offers more protections (life) than not (abortion).

 

[LouderVol]

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

those roosters going to be human someday?

 

[LouderVol]

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?

how many abortions are saving lives? I won't make a rule off the exceptions.

 

[LouderVol]

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

yeah but then you have the open borders bringing in cheap labor and letting them stay so....

 

[Caleb59seal]

because abortion is harming another person, in "our" world. I don't think anyone disputes the legality or hurting another individual. you just want to redefine what an individual is so you can have a legality/morality discussion. I am typically going to lean to the side that offers more protections (life) than not (abortion).

I honestly can say in all my time in volnation... This is the single greatest discussion I have seen. Period. I gain a lot of respect for you in about 30 seconds.

 

[LouderVol]

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.lolo, when you have no argument, revert to extremes.

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. I can reasonably say that a human fetus/baby will develop personhood. I submit as evidence everyone that formed a cognizant thought.

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.lol, the potential requires actual completion? you can't go and back count those people. or at least it makes me incredibly uncomfortable on the implications of such.

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.the same thing is said of people with actual personhood. you are making a distinction without difference. If I don't recieve food or care I need I will die just as much as that child will.

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.

to the last paragraph, do they only develop sociopathic tendencies at a young, pre-your-personhood, age? Or can they do it later in life as well?

keep chipping away at what a person is.

 

[LouderVol]

I honestly can say in all my time in volnation... This is the single greatest discussion I have seen. Period. I gain a lot of respect for you in about 30 seconds.

I am guessing that is the collective "you" and not just me. but thank you.

 

[therealUT]

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.

Humans, without personhood, have not dominated the planet.

I would be pissed if someone killed my cat or vandalized my car, but my cat and my car do not have rights and are not special, per se. They are valuable to me because they are my property.

If someone kills your kids, I will support your endeavor to have them charged with a property crime and I will support your contention that the property was valuable enough that they ought to go to prison for life. For, such a person who has no disregard for the property of others, especially when others place such esteem in said property, is a very real threat to society. Moreover, insofar as it would be reasonable to expect you to not be satisfied if such person was only fined or was only imprisoned for a short stint, then it is reasonable to expect that you would seek other means (vigilantism) for redress. And, this, then, would be to establish a climate in which vendettas are sure to reign.

Vendettas threaten the very stability of society (see Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Rwanda, South Africa, etc).

 

[therealUT]

to the last paragraph, do they only develop sociopathic tendencies at a young, pre-your-personhood, age? Or can they do it later in life as well?

keep chipping away at what a person is.

They can do both, but most develop pre-personhood. Yet, since I have already claimed that persons can lose their personhood, your "chipping away" strategy will not work here.

 

[therealUT]

because abortion is harming another person, in "our" world. I don't think anyone disputes the legality or hurting another individual. you just want to redefine what an individual is so you can have a legality/morality discussion. I am typically going to lean to the side that offers more protections (life) than not (abortion).

Abortion is possibly harming another human, but it is certainly not harming another person. Moreover, why do you think it is the government's job to prohibit the harming of persons/humans, per se?

Let me try this another way to see if this will clarify the issue.

Do you think that any being with the power to prevent one person/human from harming another person/human is morally wrong if they then permit one person/human to harm another person/human?

 

[LouderVol]

Humans, without personhood, have not dominated the planet.you have previously used the example of being able to draw a specific triangle as a level of measure. what about those with no understanding of what a triangle might be? are the illiterate without personhood? because I believe collectively we dominated this planet long before anyone could have passed any of your modern tests for personhood.

I would be pissed if someone killed my cat or vandalized my car, but my cat and my car do not have rights and are not special, per se. They are valuable to me because they are my property.ok, and? even submitting to your argument you are still harmed by the loss of property. essentially how I see it is you argue that before a plant bears fruit it has no right to call itself a tomato/whatever plant. you can't get one without the other.

If someone kills your kids, I will support your endeavor to have them charged with a property crime and I will support your contention that the property was valuable enough that they ought to go to prison for life. For, such a person who has no disregard for the property of others, especially when others place such esteem in said property, is a very real threat to society. Moreover, insofar as it would be reasonable to expect you to not be satisfied if such person was only fined or was only imprisoned for a short stint, then it is reasonable to expect that you would seek other means (vigilantism) for redress. And, this, then, would be to establish a climate in which vendettas are sure to reign.

Vendettas threaten the very stability of society (see Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Rwanda, South Africa, etc).

I honestly can't say if I would resort to vigilantism. certainly if I was present at the moment I would strive to kill them, but after a trial? I honestly don't know if I would want to shackle myself with that. but myself particular is not the matter at hand.

I am not angry at the murderer of my child for the damage to me. I am upset at what they did to my child. In my life I can say I have gone thru enough where I can honestly say I would turn the cheek if it was me being assaulted, but would step up for someone else.

 

[LouderVol]

They can do both, but most develop pre-personhood. Yet, since I have already claimed that persons can lose their personhood, your "chipping away" strategy will not work here.

and I have stated I am completely uncomfortable with that. I don't like that there can be an arbitrary line of personhood so I fall into the category of its all valuable.

 

[therealUT]

I honestly can't say if I would resort to vigilantism. certainly if I was present at the moment I would strive to kill them, but after a trial? I honestly don't know if I would want to shackle myself with that. but myself particular is not the matter at hand.

I am not angry at the murderer of my child for the damage to me. I am upset at what they did to my child. In my life I can say I have gone thru enough where I can honestly say I would turn the cheek if it was me being assaulted, but would step up for someone else.

What did they do to your child? It's quite possible that one could murder your child and your child would feel absolutely no pain. In such a case, the murderer has simply freed your child from life.

 

[Caleb59seal]

I am guessing that is the collective "you" and not just me. but thank you.

No, just you.

 

[LouderVol]

Abortion is possibly harming another human, but it is certainly not harming another person. Moreover, why do you think it is the government's job to prohibit the harming of persons/humans, per se?

Let me try this another way to see if this will clarify the issue.

Do you think that any being with the power to prevent one person/human from harming another person/human is morally wrong if they then permit one person/human to harm another person/human?

to the last yes. if you know an individual is likely to do something it is your obligation to do something to stop them. even then I wouldn't immediately stoop to their level and go straight for killing them. but in this case physically violence is self defeating in the case of abortion, so I don't have an opportunity to get it wrong.


your first paragraph is your world, I have responded with my answers to my world view. If its life, its a person. so therefore it is a crime against a person. again I default to taking a stance that gives more rights/protections than less.

 

[therealUT]

and I have stated I am completely uncomfortable with that. I don't like that there can be an arbitrary line of personhood so I fall into the category of its all valuable.

The line is not arbitrary. It is quite clear. It's the difference between not being able to think abstractly (and, thus, remove oneself from the constraints that bind every other being in nature) and being able to think abstractly. Persons can do the latter. Moreover, persons experience sentiments, which, again, is a removal of oneself from the constraints that bind every other being in nature.

Your concern seems to be a concern of discovery. That is, when is the exact moment in which this specific human being has these capacities? That's a tough question, but it is certainly well beyond the infant stage.

 

[therealUT]

to the last yes. if you know an individual is likely to do something it is your obligation to do something to stop them.

And, any being with the power to stop them who refuses to then stop them is a being who is doing something morally wrong, bad, committing a sin?

 

[Roustabout]

Wait, a person is being harmed? I thought it was society.

What exactly is being harmed?

 

[LouderVol]

What did they do to your child? It's quite possible that one could murder your child and your child would feel absolutely no pain. In such a case, the murderer has simply freed your child from life.

I don't find assisted suicides to be wrong on the person who helps. still regrettable and I might find fault with the person committing suicide. but considering I don't believe children are old enough to consent to a freeing of life it is still murder. and that is just semantics again.

you are still doing harm in the removal of life. lack of pain is meaningless. I deal with a reality that I may have injured myself bad enough where I am no longer capable to feeling pain from the injury but I may still be doing damage to my body.

 

[therealUT]

I don't find assisted suicides to be wrong on the person who helps. still regrettable and I might find fault with the person committing suicide. but considering I don't believe children are old enough to consent to a freeing of life it is still murder. and that is just semantics again.

you are still doing harm in the removal of life. lack of pain is meaningless. I deal with a reality that I may have injured myself bad enough where I am no longer capable to feeling pain from the injury but I may still be doing damage to my body.

If I die painlessly, I am not harmed.

 

[Roustabout]

I don't find assisted suicides to be wrong on the person who helps. still regrettable and I might find fault with the person committing suicide. but considering I don't believe children are old enough to consent to a freeing of life it is still murder. and that is just semantics again.

you are still doing harm in the removal of life. lack of pain is meaningless. I deal with a reality that I may have injured myself bad enough where I am no longer capable to feeling pain from the injury but I may still be doing damage to my body.

Good points. Murder is stealing the future reality of someone. That's why we view the death of a child and a old person differently. One has their whole life ahead if them. The other has a life begins them.

 

[LouderVol]

The line is not arbitrary. It is quite clear. It's the difference between not being able to think abstractly (and, thus, remove oneself from the constraints that bind every other being in nature) and being able to think abstractly. Persons can do the latter. Moreover, persons experience sentiments, which, again, is a removal of oneself from the constraints that bind every other being in nature.

Your concern seems to be a concern of discovery. That is, when is the exact moment in which this specific human being has these capacities? That's a tough question, but it is certainly well beyond the infant stage.

no. that is how you have chosen to define it so you can sleep at night while you accept murder.

how is thinking abstractly not arbitrary? how is an expression of sentiment not arbitrary?

animals can't express themselves like we can but there has been compelling evidence that they have feelings and can problem solve (think abstractly).

 

[Roustabout]

If you die painlessly your future is harmed (destroyed).