Topic: Abortion 2 (Read 21296 times)

luvmaybe · « **Reply #180 on:** March 09, 2009, 08:50:02 PM »

A pregnant woman is with child or children whether it is her first, second, or third trimester. It is beyond reasonable doubt that what she has in her womb is a human being; unless they think she is not going to deliver a human being after a full-term trimester, but a guinea pig.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #181 on:** March 10, 2009, 10:26:42 AM »

Or a microwave oven.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #182 on:** March 10, 2009, 04:09:32 PM »

Human vs Person?

I've read again some parts of this thread again. K.. here goes. Logically a human will only beget a human. Logically a person will only beget a person. Thus we are talking about a human person.

When speaking of an Embryo in a human person then we can know that this embryo will potentially (if death doesn't come to this human person naturally) will become like one of us all human persons. What rights doe's this potential human person have? That is another argument that I've read that some have raised. That question is silly actually.. from my pov, that is.

Copernicus · « **Reply #183 on:** March 14, 2009, 12:46:21 AM »

Quote from: luvmaybe on March 09, 2009, 08:50:02 PM

A pregnant woman is with child or children whether it is her first, second, or third trimester. It is beyond reasonable doubt that what she has in her womb is a human being; unless they think she is not going to deliver a human being after a full-term trimester, but a guinea pig.

The word "human being", like all words, has various senses. The claim that a fertilized egg is a human being is not much different from claiming that any live cell in the human body is a human being. Both have the requisite DNA and the potential (given modern scientific advances in cloning) to produce a full human being. The question in the case of a human pregnancy is when the fetus is sufficiently developed that it should be considered a person in the eyes of society. Different segments of society have different opinions on this matter, but the current majority opinion holds that legal personhood really begins in the third trimester, when the development of the brain begins to support higher levels of cognition. In all cases, the life and health of the mother, a fully developed person, takes precedence over that of the fetus. It is, and should be, her choice on whether to bring the pregnancy to term, because she is the one who will ultimately be responsible for the well-being of the child.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #184 on:** March 14, 2009, 08:54:22 AM »

Scary. Frightening.

On this view, Cop, if a three month old child is by 'current majority opinion' determined not to be a 'human being' there is nothing to really stop someone, right?

If the Nazis decide that the Jews are not 'human beings' well, who can blame them, after all with technology you can get 'human beings' out of a butt cell, what makes a Jew any different?

"In all cases, the life and health of the mother, a fully developed person,"

Well, that's just a consensus opinion, of course. We need not put much stock in that. What makes here a 'fully developed person' except consensus?

Also, why the double talk? How does the mother get to be 'a fully developed person' but the embryo doesn't get to be 'a less developed person'? Why does the embryo get deprived of the 'person' status.

A toddler isn't 'a fully developed person' is he? Perhaps what you mean is, 'a human being who has gone through puberty.' Where do we objectively draw the line on 'fully developed.' HA! My bad, I goofed. I said 'objectively' but of course by this view of yours there is nothing objective about it.

I have to say in conclusion that this statement was disingenuous:

"Both have the requisite DNA and the potential (given modern scientific advances in cloning) to produce a full human being."

I will concede for the sake of discussion that they both have the 'requisite DNA' but your addition of the need of 'scientific advances' in order to make the live cell turn into a 'human being' really says a lot. As far as we know, this 'potential' is definitely different than an embryo, for- and it may be different in your experience- there is no recorded instance of any of these living cells turning into 'human beings' while still in their 'host' and bursting out into life 'fully developed' (or, when 'higher levels of cognition' are reached). There are billions of humans out there and each human has billions of living cells in them but there is no record that anyone has seen any of these living cells turn into a 'human being.'

To assert that the potential is the same kind of thing is to bastardize the word potential. On this view, there isn't anything that isn't a human being, for (given modern scientific advances in cloning and abiogenesis) even a speck of dirt could be whipped up into a 'human being.'

I'll set aside the numerous objections that could be made to your scientism latent in that statement and just focus on one last part:

"when the development of the brain begins to support higher levels of cognition."

Yikes. Scary. If this is the measure, let everyone be vigilant. Car accident victims in a coma, any person put out for surgery, old people losing their mental facilities... on your book if at any time 'the current majority opinion' decides these aren't 'human beings' there is no objective reason to deny them this right. Since these people are taking valuable resources (from our health care system, etc), the life and health of the rest of us, fully developed persons all, takes precedence over that of the... 'thingie.'

What is a fetus, anyway, but just a name we use for a human person in a different stage of development. Embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, adult... these labels do not impact the personhood status, but it sure makes it easier to dispose of unwanted stages of development, doesn't it?

Thanks for the succinct presentation of your views, Cop. You didn't miss any of the frightening aspects of the debate. Most frightening is that there is a man in the White House with precisely these views. Don't worry, though, Cop. If 'current majority opinion' decides that college professors aren't humans, I (while seeing their argument, naturally) at least will rise to your defense.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #185 on:** March 14, 2009, 03:11:50 PM »

The word "human being", like all words, has various senses. The claim that a fertilized egg is a human being is not much different from claiming that any live cell in the human body is a human being. Both have the requisite DNA and the potential (given modern scientific advances in cloning) to produce a full human being. The question in the case of a human pregnancy is when the fetus is sufficiently developed that it should be considered a person in the eyes of society. Different segments of society have different opinions on this matter, but the current majority opinion holds that legal personhood really begins in the third trimester, when the development of the brain begins to support higher levels of cognition. In all cases, the life and health of the mother, a fully developed person, takes precedence over that of the fetus. It is, and should be, her choice on whether to bring the pregnancy to term, because she is the one who will ultimately be responsible for the well-being of the child.

Why should "society" have opinions on this matter? Strange. Especially given the FACT that humans and persons will birth after their kind. Once a human fetus is germinated there is the ONLY conclusion that a human person will produce nothing but after it's design. Not really that hard to understand.

End Bringer · « **Reply #186 on:** March 14, 2009, 07:31:19 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on March 14, 2009, 12:46:21 AM

In all cases, the life and health of the mother, a fully developed person, takes precedence over that of the fetus. It is, and should be, her choice on whether to bring the pregnancy to term, because she is the one who will ultimately be responsible for the well-being of the child.

As your other remarks have already been shot down, the only thing I have to say is how such thinking like the statement above allows for government oppression and genocide of it's citizens. After all it would logically follow that the "life and health" of the nation would take precedence over that of citizens, irregardless of "personhood". As such you would allow that government's like Nazis Germany were fully in there right to exterminate 'undesirables' for the good of a nation simply because having the responsibility over others some how gives one the right to abandon that reponsibility in favor of the self. Very twisted thinking.

Copernicus · « **Reply #187 on:** March 15, 2009, 03:58:59 PM »

Quote from: Zagzagel on March 14, 2009, 03:11:50 PM

Why should "society" have opinions on this matter? Strange...

Not really. We are social beings, and morality is a code by which humans interact with each other. Hence, the opinions of "society" matter very much. What is strange is the idea that an authority external to the human race ought to define how humans interact with each other.

Quote

Especially given the FACT that humans and persons will birth after their kind. Once a human fetus is germinated there is the ONLY conclusion that a human person will produce nothing but after it's design. Not really that hard to understand.

It is when you use barely coherent language to express the ideas. Perhaps you could clear it up a little? I have no idea what you mean by "birth after their kind". I like to think of germination as something that is limited to plant seeds sprouting or some such thing, but I sort of get your idea. I certainly do not agree that there is only one conclusion that a person can come to, but you did not explain how you arrived at your conclusion. Can you clarify?

Zagzagel · « **Reply #188 on:** March 15, 2009, 04:36:15 PM »

Quote
Especially given the FACT that humans and persons will birth after their kind. Once a human fetus is germinated there is the ONLY conclusion that a human person will produce nothing but after it's design. Not really that hard to understand.

It is when you use barely coherent language to express the ideas. Perhaps you could clear it up a little? I have no idea what you mean by "birth after their kind". I like to think of germination as something that is limited to plant seeds sprouting or some such thing, but I sort of get your idea. I certainly do not agree that there is only one conclusion that a person can come to, but you did not explain how you arrived at your conclusion. Can you clarify?

Let me put it this way for you. 1 + 1 = 2. Or maybe 1 * 1 produces 1. A Male and Female having sex will germ with each other/ with the males sperm entering the female partner/produce a Male or Female child. I think history shows that a man and woman will only produce only a male or female child = after their kind. Obviously now I am not speaking of plants (but maybe in a agriculturally way of seeding

)

Can anyone tell me when two human beings of the opposite sex produced plants, tigers, monkey, worms or whales?

haha :)

Zagzagel · « **Reply #189 on:** March 15, 2009, 07:12:08 PM »

Yeah, dumb it down for him Zag.

Actually.. I'm thinking Cop is trying to smarten me up. I have to articulate myself for the coming generations. But maybe Cop should do that for us?

Heh'

Copernicus · « **Reply #190 on:** March 15, 2009, 11:49:04 PM »

Quote from: Zagzagel on March 15, 2009, 07:12:08 PM

Yeah, dumb it down for him Zag.

Actually.. I'm thinking Cop is trying to smarten me up. I have to articulate myself for the coming generations. But maybe Cop should do that for us?

Heh'

Hey, I'm in a generation stuck way behind you. I'm not trying to smarten you up. Just trying to understand what you are trying to tell me. Anyway, I'm working on a response to sntjohnny. BBL.

Copernicus · « **Reply #191 on:** March 17, 2009, 01:25:27 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on March 14, 2009, 08:54:22 AM

On this view, Cop, if a three month old child is by 'current majority opinion' determined not to be a 'human being' there is nothing to really stop someone, right?

Stop someone from what? The majority certainly has held opinions such as this in the past, e.g. during the period of slavery in the US, and that opinion was decisively overturned in time. Just because the majority decides that some behavior is "right", that doesn't mean that it is in the long term interests of the majority. The history of moral evolution has proceeded in fits and starts, but it has progressed to the point where a large number of people can coexist with each other in relative peace and harmony. The price of that harmony has been to move in the direction of treating all human beings with equal respect and dignity, much to the dismay of the conservative base in every past era.

Quote

If the Nazis decide that the Jews are not 'human beings' well, who can blame them, after all with technology you can get 'human beings' out of a butt cell, what makes a Jew any different?

It didn't take you long to play the Nazi card. May we expect to see Comrade Stalin and Chairman Mao popping up soon? Again, the majority opinion does not always work in achieving a stable, peaceful society, which is, after all, one of the goals of society. Gods are megaphones. People use them to shout out their personal opinions about how everyone else ought to behave. Most of the time, the shouters fail to distinguish between their voice and God's voice. So "objective morality" just becomes a subjective opinion with God's name tacked on.

Quote

...What makes here a 'fully developed person' except consensus?

According to you, the answer would be divine revelation.

There are some very pragmatic factors that determine how we humans manage human reproduction. Atheists have families, too, and their concerns about babies and children are the same as those of religious faith. Divine revelation is not needed to prevent us from treating infants as if they were not real persons. Gametes, zygotes, blastospheres, embryos, fetuses--the status of those are seen differently by different people. Those who believe that a soul attaches to a fertilized egg may be more inclined to treat the fertilized egg as a human being. Those who do not are more inclined to give it no greater status than other cells in the body.

Quote

Also, why the double talk? How does the mother get to be 'a fully developed person' but the embryo doesn't get to be 'a less developed person'? Why does the embryo get deprived of the 'person' status.

For starters, it lacks a brain. Part of what we mean by "person" is that the entity so categorized is capable of rational thought. It has no mind. Beyond that, it lacks property or social status or (usually) even a name. More importantly, it may even lack potential support for its critical period of development as a child in human society, which means that its chances of survival in the real world will be lessened--most ironically by those fully developed humans who seem to be most interested in bringing its personhood into being but don't want to take responsibility for it after it is born. And let's not forget that there are fully developed animals--apes and monkeys, for example--that have a developed brain and cognition. Yet we treat those animals as if they were entitled to even less of an existence than a mass of cells with human DNA but no cognitive abilities whatsoever.

Quote

A toddler isn't 'a fully developed person' is he? Perhaps what you mean is, 'a human being who has gone through puberty.' Where do we objectively draw the line on 'fully developed.' HA! My bad, I goofed. I said 'objectively' but of course by this view of yours there is nothing objective about it.

In my sense of the expression "fully developed person", a toddler qualifies as such. Babies have civil rights, albeit not full civil rights. In the eyes of the law, they are less of a "person" than someone who has reached what we refer to as "majority". Children always have fewer civil rights than parents.

Quote

I have to say in conclusion that this statement was disingenuous:

"Both have the requisite DNA and the potential (given modern scientific advances in cloning) to produce a full human being."

No, you did not have to say that.

Quote

I will concede for the sake of discussion that they both have the 'requisite DNA' but your addition of the need of 'scientific advances' in order to make the live cell turn into a 'human being' really says a lot. As far as we know, this 'potential' is definitely different than an embryo, for- and it may be different in your experience- there is no recorded instance of any of these living cells turning into 'human beings' while still in their 'host' and bursting out into life 'fully developed' (or, when 'higher levels of cognition' are reached). There are billions of humans out there and each human has billions of living cells in them but there is no record that anyone has seen any of these living cells turn into a 'human being.'

The difference is insignificant. If science were able to clone full human beings from any body cell, that would not change their status as non-persons. Embryonic masses of cells are not 'persons', regardless of what they would become if allowed to develop. Forcing women to bring pregnancies to term is cruel, irresponsible, and immoral.

Quote

To assert that the potential is the same kind of thing is to bastardize the word potential. On this view, there isn't anything that isn't a human being, for (given modern scientific advances in cloning and abiogenesis) even a speck of dirt could be whipped up into a 'human being.'

You are becoming seriously confused. My position is that embryonic cells do not qualify as 'persons'. Yours is that they do. You equate the potential with reality.

Quote

I'll set aside the numerous objections that could be made to your scientism latent in that statement and just focus on one last part:

"when the development of the brain begins to support higher levels of cognition."

Yikes. Scary. If this is the measure, let everyone be vigilant. Car accident victims in a coma, any person put out for surgery, old people losing their mental facilities... on your book if at any time 'the current majority opinion' decides these aren't 'human beings' there is no objective reason to deny them this right. Since these people are taking valuable resources (from our health care system, etc), the life and health of the rest of us, fully developed persons all, takes precedence over that of the... 'thingie.'

This is a tired straw man, and we've covered this territory before. Dying and comatose people are full members of society, unlike embryos and fetuses. They have formed relationships with people, they own property, and they have a potential to recover. When that potential disappears, we make allowances with instruments such as DNR orders and, in a few states, medically-assisted death.

Quote

What is a fetus, anyway, but just a name we use for a human person in a different stage of development. Embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, adult... these labels do not impact the personhood status, but it sure makes it easier to dispose of unwanted stages of development, doesn't it?

There is a big difference between fetuses and babies that can live outside of the womb. That is what the law has recognized historically, and that is what most people consider an important distinction from the perspective of society.

Quote

Thanks for the succinct presentation of your views, Cop. You didn't miss any of the frightening aspects of the debate. Most frightening is that there is a man in the White House with precisely these views. Don't worry, though, Cop. If 'current majority opinion' decides that college professors aren't humans, I (while seeing their argument, naturally) at least will rise to your defense.

Well, you've managed to misconstrue and unfairly caricature just about everything I've said, but I expected no less. You seem to have missed the fact that I have never claimed that what society defined as 'right' was objectively 'right'. We all get our morality from the same place--our character and our upbringing. If you had been raised a cannibal, you would most likely dine on human flesh without considering it the slightest bit immoral. That doesn't mean that the practice of cannibalism would be less harmful to human well-being than it is now, and it is human well-being that ultimately defines what is moral and what is not.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #192 on:** March 17, 2009, 08:27:32 AM »

"Stop someone from what?"

Doing anything they want.

"that doesn't mean that it is in the long term interests of the majority."

I'm sure that the majority is always thinking of its long term interests.

"The history of moral evolution has proceeded in fits and starts, but it has progressed to the point where a large number of people can coexist with each other in relative peace and harmony."

That's some wishful thinking and historical revision if I've ever seen it. It was only in the last century that we saw some of the worst abuses in the history of humanity. Abuses still persist. They just don't make the headline news.

"It didn't take you long to play the Nazi card."

Because it's the same d*mn thing. One group of persons deciding another group of persons aren't persons at all.

"Again, the majority opinion does not always work in achieving a stable, peaceful society, which is, after all, one of the goals of society."

You are clearly not grasping the point. You are actually conceding my point. If personhood resides in the consensus of the majority (or, a minority with the power) then at no point can any human consider himself safe. Your argument that eventually (or hopefully) the majority will conform their moral system to what is in their 'best interests' is irrelevant to my assertion. You are admitting that I am correct in my analysis.

Naturally, I believe that a proper moral system will in fact lead to 'peace and harmony' and a 'stable, peaceful, society.' However, I understand something you do not, which is if what is 'moral' is dependent on the ruminations of each individual human, then there is no basis for negotiation.

To put it simply for you, you are assuming that a society has a purpose- safety and security. But that is just your opinion. Others have thought that the purpose of society was something else, and their morality- since it was of their own making just as their views on the purpose of society is- was geared towards that.

In short, your approach will never achieve the peace and harmony you seek. There will always be atrocities and genocides where ever your approach is tried. You apparently are ignorant of the fact that it was tried at the end of the 19th century.

"According to you, the answer would be divine revelation. Wink"

Why the wink? That is in fact my answer.

"Divine revelation is not needed to prevent us from treating infants as if they were not real persons."

I think history shows otherwise.

"For starters, it lacks a brain."

I'm sorry, but where is it written that a thing needs to have a brain in order to be considered a person? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Seems like arbitrary plucking to me.

"Part of what we mean by "person" is that the entity so categorized is capable of rational thought."

This sums up the utter incoherency of your position. The idea that what we mean by 'person' means 'is capable of rational thought' is at best, a mere 'majority consensus.' At any time any one likes, on your terms, we could change the definition so as to mean anything anyone wants.

It hasn't apparently occurred to you that between the two of us, it is me trying to get you to understand the 'long term interests of the majority.' Only one of us has a view that will perpetuate human life and dignity, even the weakest humans among us. Your views certainly will appear to be in the 'long term interests of the majority' but of course here again, 'long term interests' is derived from consensus, and the way things are looking a lot of policy makers are looking at the bottom line in order to make that calculation. If you are on your death bed and the state won't give you the medicine that would save your life because the medicine is expensive and you are not deemed productive to society, don't blame me.

After all, one of the definitions of 'personhood' is that a person is productive to society.

"The difference is insignificant. If science were able to clone full human beings from any body cell, that would not change their status as non-persons. Embryonic masses of cells are not 'persons', regardless of what they would become if allowed to develop."

So cloned human beings are non-persons? I was wondering where you would stand on that.

"Forcing women to bring pregnancies to term is cruel, irresponsible, and immoral."

Well, that's just your opinion. Opinions change as morality evolves. We need not think much of your view here.

"You are becoming seriously confused. My position is that embryonic cells do not qualify as 'persons'. Yours is that they do. You equate the potential with reality."

No, that's not what is going on. You invoked potentiality, not me. You tried to say that the potential of an embryo is the same as the potential of any living cell in a human. An embryo will indisputably turn into a human. Living cells in our bodies indisputably will not. Your assessment that we will with scientific technology be able to turn living cells into humans and this is the same kind of potential is completely flawed. For one thing, this same technology (which does not exist and may never, even if 100% unleashed) could take those living cells and turn them into, say, kidneys. An embryo will never turn into a kidney.

So even if you are right that we could make humans out of any living cells that does not mean it has the same kind of potential.

An embryo is like an arrow in its flight path. It will always arrive at a specific, predictable flight path, unless someone meddles in the meantime. An embryo is just the arrow 1 second after it leaves the bow. That is the kind of potential here.

A living cell is like a rock falling to the ground. It's potential is that it will complete its cycle and die, without producing a copy of the thing which created it. If someone catches the rock as it falls, you can argue that he can run over and put it right on the same target that the arrow would have hit, but he also could take it into his house to use as a paper weight. Or he can bean someone in the head with it.

The use of 'potential' in these two situations are categorically different senses of the term.

"This is a tired straw man, and we've covered this territory before."

It is the future if you and your ilk get their way.

"Dying and comatose people are full members of society, unlike embryos and fetuses."

Remember what you said:

"Part of what we mean by "person" is that the entity so categorized is capable of rational thought"

Comatose people are not capable of rational thought. Hence they are not persons. This isn't a strawman, this is you not being consistent. Everywhere you turn you bang your head against a piece of objective morality that alerts you to the fact that your perspective, if pursued to its logical end, would result in barbarism. Your answers are plainly ad hoc attempts to show how these are not the logical ends. Unfortunately, they are.

"They have formed relationships with people,"

An embryo has a relationship with its mother. Mothers are still people, right?

"they own property,"

Sure, I can totally see why this would be a component of personhood. Now I can see how the southern slave owners were right to deprive blacks from voting as full citizens. After all, blacks didn't own property. (Note to self: In quest to take over the world, if there are any 'humanish' 'things' that I want to exterminate first deprive them of their property and put them into comas. Then I will be able, in good conscience, to hook them up to my own private Matrix or otherwise dispose of them as I will)

"and they have a potential to recover."

The unborn does not have the potential to recover? Sure, if you stick a knife in its skull and suck out its brains I can see that it would be hard to come back from that, but that seems to me to be the case for comatose people, too.

"There is a big difference between fetuses and babies that can live outside of the womb."

It's the Copernicus Comedy Hour. On the one hand, the difference between the potentiality of an embryo and a living cell is 'insignificant.' On the other hand, the difference between a fetus and a baby is 'big.' This is just too much! lol

"You seem to have missed the fact that I have never claimed that what society defined as 'right' was objectively 'right'."

lololol no, I didn't miss it. That was really my point lolol

"it is human well-being that ultimately defines what is moral and what is not."'

That's just your opinion. If you were a cannibal you'd think differently.

Copernicus · « **Reply #193 on:** March 17, 2009, 02:21:10 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on March 17, 2009, 08:27:32 AM

"Stop someone from what?"

Doing anything they want.

Rubbish. We are all held in check by exactly the same "majority opinions". Just because your side does not run around drowning witches anymore, that does not mean that it won't happen again. People do not behave better just because they think a deity is going to smoke them if they step out of line. The deities promote whatever ideas their worshipers want them to promote.

Quote

"that doesn't mean that it is in the long term interests of the majority."

I'm sure that the majority is always thinking of its long term interests.

They are beginning to. After all, fewer people are voting Republican nowadays.

Quote

"Again, the majority opinion does not always work in achieving a stable, peaceful society, which is, after all, one of the goals of society."

You are clearly not grasping the point. You are actually conceding my point. If personhood resides in the consensus of the majority (or, a minority with the power) then at no point can any human consider himself safe. Your argument that eventually (or hopefully) the majority will conform their moral system to what is in their 'best interests' is irrelevant to my assertion. You are admitting that I am correct in my analysis.

Not at all. I take an evolutionary view of morality. Those rules of conduct that strengthen the well-being of individuals tend to produce larger populations. Those that weaken it tend to be overwhelmed and pushed aside. It has nothing to do with "objective" right and wrong. Evolution is the ultimate arbiter. It is you who are not grasping my point, because you keep trying to see it as an endorsement of majority opinion. Hence, utilitarianism makes more sense than authoritarianism when it comes to evaluating moral principles.

Quote

Naturally, I believe that a proper moral system will in fact lead to 'peace and harmony' and a 'stable, peaceful, society.' However, I understand something you do not, which is if what is 'moral' is dependent on the ruminations of each individual human, then there is no basis for negotiation.

I understand quite clearly what you are trying to say. I just disagree with it. Morality is an aggregate of individual ruminations, because society is an aggregate of individuals. We are always negotiating morality with other individuals and with our conception of social standards. More importantly, we are always negotiating it with ourselves.

Quote

To put it simply for you, you are assuming that a society has a purpose- safety and security. But that is just your opinion. Others have thought that the purpose of society was something else, and their morality- since it was of their own making just as their views on the purpose of society is- was geared towards that.

Again, you don't really think in terms of an evolutionary paradigm. Society has no "purpose" any more than evolution has a direction. Certain behavioral strategies are better than others at increasing our chances of survival and reproduction. What wins in the end is what enhances survival and well-being.

Quote

In short, your approach will never achieve the peace and harmony you seek. There will always be atrocities and genocides where ever your approach is tried. You apparently are ignorant of the fact that it was tried at the end of the 19th century.

Nonsense. I am not recommending an "approach" at all. I am describing the process by which we have arrived at our present situation. Atrocities have always occurred in the past, but the world on the whole is at peace. History books make things look less peaceful than they have been, because they record points of extraordinary change, not mundane events. Most people, most of the time, live in peace and harmony, and they always have.

Quote

"Divine revelation is not needed to prevent us from treating infants as if they were not real persons."

I think history shows otherwise.

I think it shows exactly what I have said. During times of slavery, both sides of the debate used the Bible to promote their claims about the essential humanity of slaves, both children and adults.

Quote

"Part of what we mean by "person" is that the entity so categorized is capable of rational thought."

This sums up the utter incoherency of your position. The idea that what we mean by 'person' means 'is capable of rational thought' is at best, a mere 'majority consensus.' At any time any one likes, on your terms, we could change the definition so as to mean anything anyone wants.

Meanings are determined by usage. Words mean what we think they mean. The fact is that the majority does decide matters such as when individuals are entitled to protection and when they are not. If you were the only person alive, you would have no need of moral prescriptions. Everything you did would be moral by definition.

Quote

It hasn't apparently occurred to you that between the two of us, it is me trying to get you to understand the 'long term interests of the majority.' Only one of us has a view that will perpetuate human life and dignity, even the weakest humans among us. Your views certainly will appear to be in the 'long term interests of the majority' but of course here again, 'long term interests' is derived from consensus, and the way things are looking a lot of policy makers are looking at the bottom line in order to make that calculation. If you are on your death bed and the state won't give you the medicine that would save your life because the medicine is expensive and you are not deemed productive to society, don't blame me.

I might blame you if I had to spend my last days in agony because people like you do not believe in "death with dignity" laws. I certainly do blame you for opposing laws to mitigate climate change and to remove a woman's right to control her own pregnancy. I also blame you for opposing a publicly funded health care system that would allow us to compete with other nations that not only have cheaper health care but healthier populations. What you don't seem to understand is that we both propose different solutions to achieve the same goals, and you cannot accept the fact that I think your proposals are doomed to failure.

Quote

"The difference is insignificant. If science were able to clone full human beings from any body cell, that would not change their status as non-persons. Embryonic masses of cells are not 'persons', regardless of what they would become if allowed to develop."

So cloned human beings are non-persons? I was wondering where you would stand on that.

Sorry for the ambiguity. The antecedent of "their" in "their status" was "any body cell", not "full human beings". You misinterpreted me.

Quote

"Forcing women to bring pregnancies to term is cruel, irresponsible, and immoral."

Well, that's just your opinion. Opinions change as morality evolves. We need not think much of your view here.

You keep confusing description with prescription. I do not take the position that the majority point of view is ipso facto the most desirable point of view. Women should have a right to choose regardless of majority opinion. And it is just one opinion among many. I believe that, because I think that a society where women have more control over pregnancies would lead to a more stable society in the long run.

Quote

So even if you are right that we could make humans out of any living cells that does not mean it has the same kind of potential.

That wasn't my point, though. My point was that a potential should not be confused with an actuality. The life of an embryo--an entity that is not yet a thinking being--should not be allowed to trump the rights of an actual person. Taking away a woman's right to choose does just that.

Quote

An embryo is like an arrow in its flight path. It will always arrive at a specific, predictable flight path, unless someone meddles in the meantime. An embryo is just the arrow 1 second after it leaves the bow. That is the kind of potential here.

Sheer nonsense. The vast majority of embryos never make it to maturity. Fertilized human eggs die in vast numbers every day, and that has nothing to do with abortion laws.

Quote

A living cell is like a rock falling to the ground. It's potential is that it will complete its cycle and die, without producing a copy of the thing which created it. If someone catches the rock as it falls, you can argue that he can run over and put it right on the same target that the arrow would have hit, but he also could take it into his house to use as a paper weight. Or he can bean someone in the head with it.

Are you trying to make a point here? Beware of falling rocks?

Quote

"This is a tired straw man, and we've covered this territory before."

It is the future if you and your ilk get their way.

Me and my ilk actually have gotten our way. Roe v Wade is settled law, and your dire prediction has proven to be slippery slope nonsense.

Quote

"Dying and comatose people are full members of society, unlike embryos and fetuses."

Remember what you said:

"Part of what we mean by "person" is that the entity so categorized is capable of rational thought"

Did you notice the qualifier "part of"?

Quote

Comatose people are not capable of rational thought. Hence they are not persons...

Rubbish. Comatose people can recover, which means that their brains are still capable of rational thought.

Quote

This isn't a strawman, this is you not being consistent. Everywhere you turn you bang your head against a piece of objective morality that alerts you to the fact that your perspective, if pursued to its logical end, would result in barbarism. Your answers are plainly ad hoc attempts to show how these are not the logical ends. Unfortunately, they are.

It is a blatant strawman. You are consciously misrepresenting what I said. Just because you are asleep or unconscious, that does not mean that you are "incapable of rational thought". I think that you understand that very well. Embryos are not capable of thought in the same way that a comatose patient is. Moreover, I never said that such capability was the sole criterion by which society confers "personhood" on an individual.

Quote

"They have formed relationships with people,"

An embryo has a relationship with its mother. Mothers are still people, right?

Right. Hence the expression "a woman's right to choose". I am not the one proposing that we deprive her of that right.

Quote

"it is human well-being that ultimately defines what is moral and what is not."'

That's just your opinion. If you were a cannibal you'd think differently.

As would you. Your point?

End Bringer · « **Reply #194 on:** March 17, 2009, 06:28:05 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on March 17, 2009, 02:21:10 PM

Rubbish. We are all held in check by exactly the same "majority opinions". Just because your side does not run around drowning witches anymore, that does not mean that it won't happen again. People do not behave better just because they think a deity is going to smoke them if they step out of line. The deities promote whatever ideas their worshipers want them to promote.

So it's your contention that if law enforcement suddenly vanished we wouldn't see any adverse increase in crime?

Quote

Not at all. I take an evolutionary view of morality. Those rules of conduct that strengthen the well-being of individuals tend to produce larger populations. Those that weaken it tend to be overwhelmed and pushed aside. It has nothing to do with "objective" right and wrong. Evolution is the ultimate arbiter. It is you who are not grasping my point, because you keep trying to see it as an endorsement of majority opinion. Hence, utilitarianism makes more sense than authoritarianism when it comes to evaluating moral principles.

And thus is why you have been pointed out to be inconsistent because those pesky minorities of people in comas contribute nothing. Of course this doesn't even include the fact that abortion doesn't fly under your view either if you were consistent. As abortion is about eliminating individuals (or "potential" individuals if you want to fuss), so their 'well-being' isn't being protected at all. Thus larger populations would actually be produced by banning all forms of abortion if that's the goal, but let's not forget those who think populations should be decreased like China.

You advocate an exasperatingly fickle system Cop.

Quote

Again, you don't really think in terms of an evolutionary paradigm. Society has no "purpose" any more than evolution has a direction. Certain behavioral strategies are better than others at increasing our chances of survival and reproduction. What wins in the end is what enhances survival and well-being.

You contradict yourself as you advocate there is no "purpose", then turn around and imply "survival and reproduction" is the 'purpose'.

Quote

Nonsense. I am not recommending an "approach" at all. I am describing the process by which we have arrived at our present situation. Atrocities have always occurred in the past, but the world on the whole is at peace. History books make things look less peaceful than they have been, because they record points of extraordinary change, not mundane events. Most people, most of the time, live in peace and harmony, and they always have.

And I thought you were just naive when it came to religiously based historical matters.

Quote

I think it shows exactly what I have said. During times of slavery, both sides of the debate used the Bible to promote their claims about the essential humanity of slaves, both children and adults.

Red herring. At least under an objective system one side would have to be wrong. Under yours it doesn't matter and the slave owners would actually be more in line with your beliefs about what constitutes 'personhood'.

Quote

Meanings are determined by usage. Words mean what we think they mean. The fact is that the majority does decide matters such as when individuals are entitled to protection and when they are not. If you were the only person alive, you would have no need of moral prescriptions. Everything you did would be moral by definition.

It's utterly laughable how you call SJ's claim of 'doing anything they want' "rubbish", then here concede that they can indeed do anything they want. Heck, why does anyone need to be alone? Since you deny an objective morality anything anyone does is 'moral' now under such a view. Which is why atrocities will always continue to happen as people are allowed to view such acts as being entirely moral. The Holocaust and slavery entirely reflect such a view of "the majority does decide matters such as when individuals are entitled to protection and when they are not."

So again you concede SJ's point.

Quote

I might blame you if I had to spend my last days in agony because people like you do not believe in "death with dignity" laws. I certainly do blame you for opposing laws to mitigate climate change and to remove a woman's right to control her own pregnancy.

Why? Are you suggesting there's something objectively wrong with that in which one need feel guilty about?

Quote

I also blame you for opposing a publicly funded health care system that would allow us to compete with other nations that not only have cheaper health care but healthier populations. What you don't seem to understand is that we both propose different solutions to achieve the same goals, and you cannot accept the fact that I think your proposals are doomed to failure.

Problem with your view is it's tantamount to simply killing people because they're sick to save those who are healthy. I'm sure simply executing those on well-fare will be able to free up finances to devote to climate changes and such. Just make up a list of arbitrary qualities that they lack so you can distinguash them as 'nonpersons' and execute them in good concious. If the majority signs off then you have nothing to complain about, right?

Quote

You keep confusing description with prescription. I do not take the position that the majority point of view is ipso facto the most desirable point of view.

Then you are entirely inconsistent as that is the only authority you frequently appeal to for your arguements.

Quote

Women should have a right to choose regardless of majority opinion. And it is just one opinion among many. I believe that, because I think that a society where women have more control over pregnancies would lead to a more stable society in the long run.

See? You can't help but appeal that their exists an objective morality that let's women control their pregnancies regardless of majority views even while denying it exists.

Quote

That wasn't my point, though. My point was that a potential should not be confused with an actuality. The life of an embryo--an entity that is not yet a thinking being--should not be allowed to trump the rights of an actual person. Taking away a woman's right to choose does just that.

The problem of course is that you have no idea what defines an "actual", and it wouldn't matter anyway as "Words mean what we think they mean." If the meaning changed that blacks weren't included as "actual perons" you'd have nothing to complain about. Indeed if some arbitrary parameter was set and you fell short you would be taken advantage of as well.

Quote

Sheer nonsense. The vast majority of embryos never make it to maturity. Fertilized human eggs die in vast numbers every day, and that has nothing to do with abortion laws.

Children don't make it to adulthood either, but no one thinks they potentially will turn into birds on their own power.

Quote

Me and my ilk actually have gotten our way. Roe v Wade is settled law, and your dire prediction has proven to be slippery slope nonsense.

More like Niem

jfoxton · « **Reply #195 on:** April 21, 2009, 04:23:26 PM »

Hi - I tried to read everything you guys have tossed back and forth on this issue and I don't think I saw what I'm going to put forth. If its already been hashed - forgive me. The scriptures contain the answers, in general if not specific, at least in my mind, to all the modern dilemmas. I have been the Chairman of the Board for our local (formerly called Crisis Pregnancy Center) CareNet Center, where, by the way, the use of the sonogram has resulted in over 90% of women keeping (read not aborting) their babies. Since most of the lost operate by sight and not by faith, they see the baby (not fetal tissue or other obfuscating term) and most of the time the motherly (protective) instinct kicks in. The operative word here is "baby". In Luke 1:41 the "baby" leapt in Elizabeth's' womb - modern verbage would not (and especially abortion suppliers) not call a baby a baby because we have all held babies and they are quite precious and helpless and need to be protected until they are out of their teens (a little funny there). The term for baby in Luke 1:41 and other places where the baby is still not born refers to that which is conceived up until about the toddler stage. God is not confused. If He calls a preborn human a baby than thats what it is. Of course I speak to those who hold the Word as the final authority. Another angle to approach this on is: God says He opens and closes the womb. Check out your Strong's' or other good concordance by looking up womb (KJV), not child, children, baby etc. If God is the author of life, and He is, then to purposely end that life by what we call (medical procedure) abortion is the taking of innocent blood (murder). The moral precepts of the OT have not be abrogated by, but are affirmed by the NT. I am aware of a couple that, based on scripture, committed to leaving the "how many children" issue up to the author of life. Kathy, who had given birth to 3 large headed infants surrendered her "rights" to determine how many. God gave her a dream that very night that He shut her womb! They have ceased to practice birth control and now practice God control. I do not recommend practicing anything that is beyond your present level of faith - be it according to your faith! As you can see, I don't see abortion as a stand alone subject but as the end of a long process of devaluing God's purposes and Person.
Enough for now. Blessings

End Bringer · « **Reply #196 on:** April 21, 2009, 05:54:31 PM »

Quote from: jfoxton on April 21, 2009, 04:23:26 PM

Hi - I tried to read everything you guys have tossed back and forth on this issue and I don't think I saw what I'm going to put forth. If its already been hashed - forgive me. The scriptures contain the answers, in general if not specific, at least in my mind, to all the modern dilemmas.

Which should certainly be authoritative to Christians. As the rest of the nation/world generally doesn't accept it one must find other reasoning to convince. But I generally agree with SJ that the best way to end abortion is convert more people to Christianity and have them properly educated, yet still the legal battle must be fought. If secularists want to impose their views on us, then it's fair game for the other way around.

Copernicus · « **Reply #197 on:** April 22, 2009, 10:56:42 AM »

Quote from: jfoxton on April 21, 2009, 04:23:26 PM

Hi - I tried to read everything you guys have tossed back and forth on this issue and I don't think I saw what I'm going to put forth. If its already been hashed - forgive me...

No problem. Welcome to the board.

Quote

The scriptures contain the answers, in general if not specific, at least in my mind, to all the modern dilemmas...

You are not alone in your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. I think that the scriptures are no better than tea leaves when it comes to giving moral guidance.

Quote

I have been the Chairman of the Board for our local (formerly called Crisis Pregnancy Center) CareNet Center, where, by the way, the use of the sonogram has resulted in over 90% of women keeping (read not aborting) their babies. Since most of the lost operate by sight and not by faith, they see the baby (not fetal tissue or other obfuscating term) and most of the time the motherly (protective) instinct kicks in...

If that is the way women truly feel, then they will not get an abortion. This is not about forcing them to have an abortion. It is quite another thing to insist that women who do not share your feelings and opinions should be forced to bring the pregnancy to term. They have a right to make their own choices.

Quote

The operative word here is "baby"....

Usage determines what words mean. Normal usage suggests that they are fetuses before they are born and babies afterward. Arguments over word usage are semantic games that obscure the real issues here--when and why society has a right to dictate to a woman how she will deal with her pregnancy. That is something that she should have control over.

Quote

...Another angle to approach this on is: God says He opens and closes the womb. Check out your Strong's' or other good concordance by looking up womb (KJV), not child, children, baby etc. If God is the author of life, and He is, then to purposely end that life by what we call (medical procedure) abortion is the taking of innocent blood (murder). The moral precepts of the OT have not be abrogated by, but are affirmed by the NT. I am aware of a couple that, based on scripture, committed to leaving the "how many children" issue up to the author of life. Kathy, who had given birth to 3 large headed infants surrendered her "rights" to determine how many. God gave her a dream that very night that He shut her womb! They have ceased to practice birth control and now practice God control. I do not recommend practicing anything that is beyond your present level of faith - be it according to your faith! As you can see, I don't see abortion as a stand alone subject but as the end of a long process of devaluing God's purposes and Person.
Enough for now. Blessings

I have no problem at all with you and like-minded others following your religious ideals and your conscience. It is when you try to impose it on those who disagree with it that the problem begins.

jfoxton · « **Reply #198 on:** April 22, 2009, 08:21:56 PM »

Ultimately, God rules. The fact that everyone has developed their own understanding of "right and wrong" doesn't mean that there isn't a perfect and just perspective. If it was all ideologies/beliefs battling against one another, there would be no end. If the Word of God/Bible is correct (hasn't missed yet) we are close to concluding this age. The Word declares the beginning to the end - there is start and end to what we call history and there's plenty of details about the persons, nations, armies etc. etc. that cannot be thoughtfully dismissed. The sad thing is, most will defy God to their dying breath. The Word does not paint a pretty picture and states clearly that the road to destruction is broad and many travel it while the way to life is narrow and few follow it. Most find this type of verbage very uncomfortable, as did many who heard the words directly from the Savior's mouth. Jesus didn't leave any room for categorizing Himself as anything but God in the flesh. The Jews even stated (while they tried to stone Him) that He made Himself equal with God (blasphemy if He wasn't). Your destiny lies with what you do with Jesus Christ.

Copernicus · « **Reply #199 on:** April 25, 2009, 12:22:52 PM »

Quote from: jfoxton on April 22, 2009, 08:21:56 PM

Ultimately, God rules...

That is debatable.

Quote

The fact that everyone has developed their own understanding of "right and wrong" doesn't mean that there isn't a perfect and just perspective. If it was all ideologies/beliefs battling against one another, there would be no end...

Actually, it is all ideologies/beliefs battling against one another, and it will not end until human beings end. Nobody has a lock on the truth, and people who believe in a perfect and just perspective argue incessantly with each other over just what that perspective is.

Quote

If the Word of God/Bible is correct (hasn't missed yet) we are close to concluding this age...

This has been argued by Christians since the Bible came into existence. Every generation thinks that the Bible is about its times.

Quote

The Word declares the beginning to the end - there is start and end to what we call history and there's plenty of details about the persons, nations, armies etc. etc. that cannot be thoughtfully dismissed...

Actually, there are plenty of details in the Bible that can and have been thoughtfully dismissed. Religious folks tend to cherry-pick which passages to take seriously and which to dismiss or explain away.

Quote

The sad thing is, most will defy God to their dying breath. The Word does not paint a pretty picture and states clearly that the road to destruction is broad and many travel it while the way to life is narrow and few follow it. Most find this type of verbage very uncomfortable, as did many who heard the words directly from the Savior's mouth. Jesus didn't leave any room for categorizing Himself as anything but God in the flesh. The Jews even stated (while they tried to stone Him) that He made Himself equal with God (blasphemy if He wasn't). Your destiny lies with what you do with Jesus Christ.

You are entitled to your opinions on that score. Other Christians see things in a different light. I have no dog in the hunt for truth in the Bible.

Author Topic: Abortion 2 (Read 21296 times)