Total posts: 1,080
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Oh I'm just trying to make sense of what you said. The Abrahamic religions all clearly worship the same god, so I can't understand what distinction you've made if you agree that Jesus is the son of God and not God himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
My point was to avoid the "Muslim Ban" conversation. It was banning immigration from countries with high levels of terrorism, which tend to be Muslim countries. Check out France and tell me Trump's idea was bad.
The implementation was certainly bad. Some of the countries that were banned are relatively low risk for terrorism and there are some glaring omissions in terms of countries with terrorism risk. I mean, at the very least I'd expect a ban for the country of the nationals that caused 9/11. That and Trump previously calling for a muslim ban certainly does make you think
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus is the son of god no? Or is this that idea that jesus is both the son of god and is god himself?Jesus is the god of Christians. Allah is the god of Muslims. this is a plain fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Do you understand the difference between:
"These people are in need of help. We should help them in the name of charity and kindness"
and
"We deserve guns because that piece of paper says so"
???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Harry Reid was the leader of the senate democrats (who held majority in 2013) who is the one who implemented the nuclear option which allowed for simple majority confirmation of executive branch nominations and federal judicial nominations. This did not include Supreme Court appointments, which was later implemented by the republican majority.
The context behind this move was that republicans were stonewalling appointments with filibusters in an unprecedented fashion.
Or in otherwords, there were shitters on both sides
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I only believe human beings can be killed if it is a threat to another one's life.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
So human beings have a moral right to live, because they have a moral right to live? Are you familiar with circular reasoning?Human beings have a moral right to live.
Again, if you can't agree on this then why are you going through 19 pages of thread just for you to say humans can be murdered.
Well we've already agreed that human beings can be killed right? It's just a matter of why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Why does human beings having intrinsic value necessarily mean that they have the right to live?Because human beings are intrinsically valuable. If you can't agree with that then I don't know what you are doing on this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Why?and has the right ti live
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Why?Unless a women's life is in danger, they should not have the right to kill another human being. Again, where do you draw the line?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
A human being getting murdered is not relevant. Got it. Well, you have not changed my mind since you think it should not be illegal to murder human beings. Thank you for your time.
?????
A human being getting murdered is not relevant. -> In the context of the reasoning as to why abortion is currently permissible from a legal and moral perspective....
You think it should not be illegal to murder human beings. -> In the context that there will always be permissible reasons to kill other human beings both morally and legally.. not that murder is broadly permissible.
Like.. I can't be the only one to notice that you're engaging in extremely dishonest and unfaithful discussion right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
But it's not her body. It is the babies body inside of her.
You're being disingenuous. Pregnancy and abortion involves both the mother and the fetus's body. However in the context of describing why it is permissible from a legal and moral perspective, the fetus is not relevant.
Even as you devalue motherhood and claim pregnancy can impact her life negatively, what right does she have to murder another human being?
If you're asking this question again, it means you've understood nothing about my position and we're going back to the very start. Instead of asking a basic question about my position again and again, I would suggest you go back over the thread, and actually crystallize some of the positions I hold. That way you can answer your own questions before asking such dumb questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Self-defense you are saving your life. Euthanasia is morally dicey but in any case it is the person's decision to kill themselves. In abortion, you are forcing your will onto another human being.
I'm not sure what your point is. There is forcing of will in all of these cases. There are reasons for the permissibly in all of these cases. In abortion, it is deemed improper for the state to tell a woman what she may or may not do with her body. In addition, pregnancy impacts the woman's life negatively.
There is a difference between murder and killing.
As we've already discussed, the difference is in legality. All of these examples are legal to varying degree in different countries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
In regards to abortion no. We've already been over this, but there are plenty of circumstances where it is permissible both legally and/or morally to kill another human being. For example, abortion, self-defence and euthanasia.So it should not be illegal to kill a human being? You are ultimately giving them that right to kill another human being, just clarifying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
No. The right to bodily autonomy is the reason why abortion restrictions should not be a law. It's a subtle difference but a difference nonetheless even if the ultimate outcome is the same
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I don't. All abortion cases involve the right to bodily autonomy and hence this is automatically a sufficient reason for me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
So you have no self-morals? All your morals are based on society?
Everyone has their own personal blend of morals which are derived from society among other factors
What would you consider sufficient reason?
Already answered
Would you consider hormonal changes a sufficient reason to kill a human being?
No
Where do you draw the line?
"I have no problems with any sort of killing of human beings as long as a sufficient reason is given with respect to the moral constraints of society."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I'm not sure what you're misunderstanding about
According to my logic I have no problems with any sort of killing of human beings as long as a sufficient reason is given with respect to the moral constraints of society. I deem reasons for abortion sufficient and so everything else follows, yes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
It is widely agreed upon that murder is wrong. I think we agree on that.
Which is a popular opinion. We can't actually determine whether murder is actually morally right or wrong based upon popular opinion by your argument right?
My point is people are not fully educated on what they are killing and what is going on during abortion.
That's certainly a dubious claim coming from someone who was unaware of the hormonal changes a women experiences during pregnancy. How is someone to take your point of view seriously when you seem to lack a general understanding of pregnancy and dismiss serious pregnancy concerns as "conveniences"?
If we agree murder is wrong, we are trying to logically follow under which circumstances we can murder a human being in the womb.Why aren't you against murder inside the womb?
You're using the wrong terminology. Murder is a legal term to describe unlawful killing. So essentially what you're asking me is why am I against the law. The problem here being that since we're arguing over what the law should be, you've presupposed that it is murder in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
But being widely accepted does not imply that they are morally right, right? Because this would be another example of ad populum. So essentially what you've said is that there are plenty of accepted moral standands, murder is one of them. But this doesn't tell me if they are morally right or not so we're back to square one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
How is moral rightness determined?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
<br>The majority of reasons, including the ones you cited, had nothing to do with a women's health or changing their body. It was purely economic or convenience. What would you deem a "sufficient reason?"
Those are reasons why abortion should not be controlled as opposed to reasons why abortions are requested. You'll note that bodily autonomy does not also feature in that list and yet it is a significant reason for pro-choice arguments.
Any reason given that is readily accepted by society at large is sufficient to me
This is the most used definition by pro-choicers and was straight from wikipedia.
I don't believe you could possibly argue that this definition is actually the one most used. Apart from this and regardless of where it came from, it clearly does not convey the meaningful differences between fetal viability and viability as used by you in the general sense and is hence flawed. The definitions I sourced from wikipedia clearly convey the differences
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Your slipping more and more into the insults category...this isn't how you want to go down, is it?
Have no fear. I shan't descend too far into insults. Instead I shall become progressively more condescending as it becomes more readily obvious that you lack depth in your understanding of my replies and this topic. Heavens!, I've done it again.
You yourself said, and what I've been talking about this whole time, is that personhood starts when a life becomes viable. In this case, that would be 22 weeks. Therefore, this 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. So given these are human beings, according to your own logic, again, why can they be murdered by a women?
According to my logic I have no problems with any sort of killing of human beings as long as a sufficient reason is given with respect to the moral constraints of society. I deem reasons for abortion sufficient and so everything else follows, yes?
I'm unsure what you're unclear about really as it seems to be rather clear to me
Another question- "Fetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus." (since your into the dictionary thing)
That's certainly one definition. But as you've obviously noted, that particular definition doesn't really encapsulate the idea of developed organs vs non-developed and the like and doesn't really distinguish fetal viability from any other viability.
Here are some definitions which better encapsulate the idea of fetal viability
"the point in a pregnancy at which, in the reasonable opinion of a medical practitioner, the foetus is capable of survival outside the uterus without extraordinary life-sustaining measures."
"reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus."
A baby can not survive outside the womb. It does not know how to care for itself. The fetus and the baby will both die on their own. So why is viability the marker for personhood?
Apart from this question being contingent on a flawed definition of viability, this has already been answered. Do you honestly think that we've gone through 15 pages of responses without you asking that question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
That's easy enough to answer. It doesn't. Because this isn't murder. This is abortion.
Do you understand why this isn't murder? Do you need to look it up in the dictionary?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You understand that a phrase is made up of individual words that may be found in the dictionary, which when combined may add up to a definition for a phrase as a whole?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I think the point is pertinent. The phrase is a dictionary definition. You have shown an utter disdain of dictionary definitions when it suits your purposes. So why bother when it's clear that you'll ignore me and run off with your imagination anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
It's a dictionary definition and is something you can certainly disprove by opening one. I'm aware that you have a particular disdain for dictionaries and definitions, judging by your conflation of fetuses with children but I would certainly recommend you giving it a go regardless
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Oh BS. A women being pregnant does not triumph murdering another human being. Most cases it doesn't pose a serious health risk. It may change some things in a women. Maybe you can't do certain things for 9 months. Boo hoo. You don't get the right to murder a human being because of this.
You didn't really address the point there
Is pregnancy a critically life altering event? If not, why not?
Give me one example of when I have insulted you.
? I didn't say that you had
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
A critically life altering event is extremely rare. Pro-choicers use this argument as representative of the whole abortion argument, when in fact is a very minute percentage of cases. I will repeat,"Personal freedom is not more morally valuable than a human being."Literally the overwhelming majority it is not a threat to the women's life or a "critically life altering event." So answer the question at hand and please explain why, in a normal abortion case, a human being can be murdered.
Pregnancy is a critically life altering event
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
What a stupid thing to say when I've been criticising you the entire thread for doing just this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I'm confused. You're aware that being inside of a womb means being inside of a woman. You're aware that carrying a fetus entails significant impact to the woman. Yet you're still asking such a moronic questionAnd? Why does it matter? Why can I murder a human being inside the womb, but not outside?
Personal freedom is not more morally valuable than a human being. If that is your position, I have nothing else to say.
Personal freedom + the impact of a critically life altering event. I really dislike how you only take one part of what I've said, and then frame it as if it's all I've said. You did the same thing with bodily chemicals changes before. It's incredibly dishonest.
I would just pray that you change your heart to be against murder of innocent children.
Personally I just pray that you gain some intellectual integrity. I haven't repeated so much shit and been so strawmanned ever apart from one particular gun nut that inhabits these forums.
And again fetus =/= children. The etymological background of a word is not equivalent to the common parlance or dictionary definition of a word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Literally the top example of the list you gave me said the women "was not ready for a baby." Yeah, that's convenience.
I personally don't describe critically life altering events or restrictions to my personal freedom as convenience. Like, for example if I got cancer, I wouldn't say getting cancer was inconvenient.
Why do you get to kill another human being because you don't want it? Using your logic, I can kill my 2 year old because I don't want it. They are both human beings, one is inside the womb, one is outside. What's the difference?
???
One is inside the womb. One is outside. That's the difference
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
So you believe a small human being is worth a lot less than a mid-age human being that a women can kill a baby out of convenience?
You've minimized the impact to the women by using the word "convenience" and you've maximized the moral considerations by using the words "baby" and "small human being". My position has not changed and unless you actually frame my position as it has been stated instead of dishonestly like this, we won't be getting anywhere.
They are both human beings, why are you discriminating against the smallest ones?
Again, my position has not changed and this question is covered by the previous post. If you keep asking for the same thing, you won't be getting a different reply
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I don't know what you mean. My logic simply dictates that there should be moral considerations before proceeding with an abortion on the basis of personhood, but ultimately I simply do not believe that the moral value of fetuses outweigh the moral value of womanly well-being and their bodily autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I am aware of that, but I am talking about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions when the baby IS viable. Don't change the argument. This is what I have been discussing.
Oh pardon me. Anyone could've mistaken your meaning when you refer to "most abortion cases", which of course are before viability. But you know, I had thought you were discussing abortion from conception. So I can't really see how focusing on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions will help.
Let's take out rape, incest, and cases that can severely do damage to a women's health. What other sufficient reasons are there that give you the right to murder another human being in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters? What reason is possible that overcomes another human's right to live?
I mean.. pick one
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I mean.. nothings really changed has it?
You asked me if another human being can be murdered if it changes a women's body chemistry to which the clear answer is no. However this has never been my position and is quite clearly a strawman
Amajority of abortion cases occur before viability. Hence a majority of abortion cases do not involve a human being being aborted. As a corollary, that means that this is not murder. Finally, what's at risk is not just a women's body chemistry as has been repeatedly outlined in this thread and I would say abortion is permissible for those factors. So I would definitely say that given sufficient reason all abortion at any stage is permissible
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
So you believe another human being can be murdered if it changes a women's body chemistry?
Not really
<br>Why does the right to live have less moral value than a women's health?
It doesn't
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Oh apologies. The problem with my previous reply is that it assumes you've read and understood my previous responses. How silly of me to assume you've done either.
Remember, moral value is not some boolean value. There is an implicit comparison of moral value when deciding such matters. For example, the moral value of a fetus and the moral value of a woman's bodily autonomy. The weighting of the result of this comparison determines what society deems as wrong and right. My previous answer should follow
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Again, don't keep going back to societal norms and societal morality. Think about it LOGICALLY.You have yet to respond to what I've said. I will repeat it "If you think it should not be restricted to kill a human being inside the womb, even it has gained personhood, in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, then why can't I kill my 2 year old that has gained personhood?"Forget about legality and society, killing my 2 year old is logically consistent with your position. Care to defend your position?
I have responded to what you've said. I just don't think you've understood my responses.
Do you recall when I said there were instances where I think it would be ok to murder infants? The same applies here to your 2 year old. The context behind this reasoning is that there should be a sufficient reasoning to do either.
Now your contention is that this reasoning is subjective and hence you can murder either for whichever you like as long as you deem your own reasoning sufficient. This is absolutely correct assuming there is no moral constraints that you are subjected to.
Now, as it turns out, there are such constraints. Specifically, society has already dictated and upper bound what you may or may not do and what is considered wrong and correct. There is pressure to comply either in the form of social pressure, or legal pressure. Failure to comply means you will be penalized in some form by society.
Now in our society, it is absolutely prohibited to murder 2 year olds for the reasons that you gave. And hence it is wrong as judged by society.
Aborting zygotes and whatever is generally grey area for the reasons of parental health and wellbeing in society. So I'm happy to give my opinion on that matter in particular.
You saying forget about society is absolutely idiotic, because society dictates what is wrong and right.
Exactly. This is the whole problem with your argument. A sufficient reason is subjective and can't be sustained.
Sure it can. Just establish an upper bound on sufficiency. We already do this with many systems in place already. Being threatened with a gun is a sufficient reason to shoot someone. Stealing your tic-tac is not.
That's why we must use concrete facts to determine what something is. Life is inherent or its not. You are living, or you are dead. One is living from conception. Philosophical subjective reasons do not work in creating laws. You said just take the most popular idea and use it as the law. That is bogus. That is completely subjective, and just because something is popular does not make it right. Concrete facts are the only way to fix this.
Our laws are based on morals. Morals are subjective. Hence it really doesn't matter if a law is based on subjectivity, because all laws are based on subjectivity. Also there really is no right or wrong answer to this particular topic. Hence it doesn't really matter if a law is objectively right as long as it is consistent. Finally I believe in majority rules. So what they decide would be right anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Meh, slavery is pretty bad even economically speaking. It hinders innovation. Just look at the Confederacy before the Civil War. I believe they had one factory at the beginning. Slavery left them in the past. There really aren't any good aspects of it morally or economically speaking.
I know nothing about slavery in the confederacy but to me it is clear that having slaves to perform menial repetitive tasks would be immensely beneficial in terms of economics. Low-wage labour is already highly valued, which is why such tasks are outsourced to places like China. I can only imagine that no-wage labour would be even more highly valued.
You're taking a difference of opinion to mean that nothing can be right. Apply that to politics. We disagree, but one of us is correct about any given issue.
I don't think any one answer is correct about any position in politics. There are certainly right answers with respect to what you personally value but to state that there is an objective correctness is silly.
In the same way, we can measure outcomes of certain moral value systems and determine which are better. Looking at the unrest in the Middle East, I think we can definitively say they don't have a very good way to live, morally, economically, or really any other way.
I don't think you can definitively say this for a couple of reasons
1. The most obvious reason is that the middle east has been subject to a large amount of western inference and some portion of the unrest can be attributed to that. Any conclusion you make without factoring in the impacts of such interference is not going to be accurate.
2. Evaluating a different systems moral framework with respect to your to own moral framework results in a subjective evaluation, not an objective one. For example, Saudis living in Saudi Arabia are generally happy with living in Saudi Arabia despite your misgivings about sharia law.
A seed would be sperm, the ground would be the egg in this analogy. A tiny apple just sprouting on the tree would be the fetus. And by what you said " have less value than an apple because of the level of care and time required for them to become an apple" you would be saying that children have less value that adults, morally speaking. More effort went into making them a ripe apple, after all. In this case, the tree might need more water and sunlight to produce the apple, but you are protecting the apple and adding to the bushel. Don't destroy an apple a few months before it is ripened! Just because it is a tiny, budding apple that isn't currently edible doesn't mean it is worthless and disposable.
Your analogy really doesn't make sense to me. Plant reproduction is already analogous to animal reproduction. Why would you ignore that and make up your own analogy.
In this analogy the seed should be the zygote, the flower and the pollen that made the zygote would've been the egg and the sperm. The ground would be the uterus. The seed spouting into a sapling is the maturing of the zygote into adult hood and the producing of the apple represent reproductive maturity.
The seed won't become a sapling for many years. During this time the sapling will need to be protected from the elements and disease. The soil around it will need to have the right nutrients and pH balance. Other plants shouldn't be grown near it to steal nutrients, compete for resources or disrupt the careful ecosystem of the soil surrounding the sapling. If I let it continue to grow, I will be rewarded with a tree that provides apples, but oh no, I don't have the time or money to take care of the sapling and it will definitely die if I don't provide both and at the same time it is taking up that plot of land that I need for more productive enterprises. What should I do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Your society has a moral framework that determines whether what we do is right or wrong in that society. In that moral framework, killing a 2 year old has been definitively deemed to be wrong unless you have sufficient reason to do so. What that sufficient reason might be is anyones guess however I can be quite certain that the reasons you gave are insufficient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
What are you talking about? I just answered your question. Your attention span is getting increasingly short. Perhaps you should take a break
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Oh I should've been more clear. If you feel your justification for something is sufficient, go right on ahead. In terms of your personal morals, you should be a-ok. Just don't be surprised when the police knock down your door because your personal morals run afoul of society's moral framework. I personally think you would be wrong to murder a 2 year old, but that's just me because I actually understand the positions I've made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Because murder of a human being without sufficient justification is wrong?
Human life is not scientific fact. What you have done is listed a handful of related scientific facts, waved your hands over them and then concluded that human life is scientific. You haven't been able to respond to my arguments and have continued on with your drivel. Explain to me why this isn't an example of close mindedness
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Ok, so my infant has gained personhood. I have applied moral considerations that it has personhood. I can choose to kill it because it is not viable and therefore can not survive on its own. That reasoning is sufficient, who are you to tell me that my subjective feelings of when I can kill my child are not sufficient.This is the reasoning that you applied to fetus's. After 22 weeks, when it has gained personhood, the women can choose to kill it based on her own reasoning.
I am using facts for my argument. Life starts at conception. I'm not using subjective feelings to determine when it is ok to kill the baby. Facts don't care about your subjective feelings.
You: Life starts at conception
Me: Here's an argument as to why life doesn't start at conception
You: I don't care. Life starts at conception
Me: But you didn't even respond to my argument
You: I don't care. Life starts at conception
Like.. if you want an example of someone close-minded, it's yourself. Simply because you won't engage with any ideas outside of your preconceived notions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, from my point of view, they are hurting another human being. Could you elaborate on how they aren't devoid of moral value? What moral value does a fetus have?
When left to natural processes, it will become a human being
I think they kill gays just because they are gay. I don't think they necessarily have to have engaged in any lude activity, but that could vary by country. Through mistakes, we can learn about what is good and bad. Certainly that is one way. The entire civilized world has outlawed slavery because it has learned from its mistakes. Just because some of the third-world country hasn't figured that out yet doesn't make them correct in what they do.
Which is your subjective judgement but is not an objective judgement. There are a great many benefits to slavery which make it subjectively good (which is why it has been so prevalent in history even today) but I wouldn't say that this judgement is objective either
It would be more like having a very very tiny apple. They are human, they don't become a human. Just because they aren't a fully developed(or ripened) apple, doesn't mean that they aren't an apple. A braindead person would be a rotten apple in this case. It has become corrupted in some fashion that prevents it from ever being an edible apple again. You are advocating destroying an apple instead of letting it reach its full, juicy, and delicious potential. Fun analogy :P
We already have a name for a very very tiny apple. It's called a seed. Which is not equivalent to an apple but may become an apple with sufficient care. They aren't equivalent to an apple and in fact have less value than an apple because of the level of care and time required for them to become an apple. I am advocating for the destruction of the seed, because it's not worth the time and effort needed to turn it into an apple and because by planting it, it will adversely effect the ecosystem around it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
She can also decide if she wants to kill her 2 year old, according to your reasoning.That's based on what you said. I logically followed your reasoning. Want to defend that, or do you concede?Yeah, making 7 tiered logically inconsistent philosophical arguments can do that.
Perhaps you should explain to me, with reference to what I've written why it is permissible to kill a 2 year old
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Great. So it's all subjective. I can essentially kill my 2 year old because I applied "moral considerations" but after all it can't survive on its own, so that is my reasoning.
Certainly, with your own twisted reasoning, but certainly not with any of mine.
That is the problem. Who decided if the reasoning is sufficient? That is all subjective territory and it's nonsense. That's why we have to use concrete facts about life- Something is either alive, or it is not.
The mother. Because it's her body, her womb and she is the ultimate decider.
We fundamentally disagree about the morality of when a women can kill her baby or not, so I don't think this is going anywhere.
That's not the reason that this isn't going anywhere. It's not going anywhere because you're not engaging with personhood as a concept and are instead handwaving it away. Since personhood is my entire defense, it means that there's very little of substance to engage you with. That and we keep circling back to the same topics because either you don't understand my positions or you don't care enough about my positions to not look stupid when you it becomes obvious you don't know them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You said you don't think abortions should be restricted at any time period in the pregnancy, even though in the 3rd trimester a baby gains "personhood." So if you aren't going to apply the personhood argument to restricting 3rd trimester abortions, then in what sense are you applying the "personhood" argument?
It's in the sense that attaining personhood is when you should apply moral considerations first, then proceed if your reasoning is sufficient. Before then, I don't give a shit. Abort away.
Excuse me, homosapien is the species, human is the family. Upon conception, that organism becomes a part of the human family, hence the name "human life."
Hominidae is the family. Human is short for human being. Of which homo sapiens is membership of only once attaining personhood
So because it may change a women, that gives her the right to kill an innocent life?
Well it was the collection of reasons that I gave. And yes, I believe that gives her sufficient reason to get rid of a non-human
Do you not believe in the founding of our country that everyone has the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"
I personally don't give a shit about your country but given that zygotes are not a "one", I do not believe they fall under that particular umbrella
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It isn't entirely out of the question to punish people for their biological urges. Anger is a biological urge. Anger can lead people to assault and batter someone. We punish that. And we aren't even punishing the urge in this scenario. We are punishing you for shirking responsibility via ending another's life.
Sure. We punish people when their biological urges harms another human being. However these "lifes" aren't human beings and while they aren't entirely devoid of moral value, that value is nothing compared to a developed human being
There are certain acts and attitudes that are subjective and there are things that are objectively wrong. I don't care how anyone tries to twist it, murdering innocent people is always wrong. Raping people is always wrong. Enslaving people is always wrong. Now there are reasons that you believe what you believe. There are reasons they believe what they believe, but not agreeing doesn't make it subjective. Some reasons are better than others.Your attitudes on homosexuality are subjective, whether you promote or discourage it. Throwing them off of rooftops for it would be objectively wrong.
No, these are subjective wrongs and rights. Of which is defined via your inheritance of your society's moral framework which was developed through a long history of mistakes. You're perfectly happy to say slavery is objectively wrong now, but there's a good chance you would've been happy to say that slavery was objectively right 400 years ago. The correct answer is that slavery is neither objectively wrong or right, but is subjective with respect to your society. Same with every other example. Throwing homosexuals off of rooftops is subjectively right if I believe they spread their homosexuality around and give HIV by merest touch.
Ok, before I say this, let's not waste time with the protecting sperm/egg argument. They are not human, but a zygote is, which is why I don't care about sperm and eggs. Now, if someone is brain dead, sure, they are human and you can "pull the plug". And while the fetus doesn't have brain waves, they are not brain dead, as in their brain isn't irreparably damaged. They are growing. Just because they aren't to a specified level of development doesn't make them worthless. You can't kill pre-pubescent children because they haven't developed their reproductive organs. The same applies to a fetus.
That's rather the point. A zygote is not a human being. I view them in the same light as the matrix example people as before. The only thing that separates the two is that zygotes can become human beings. I don't believe that we should ascribe future value to the present. If I want an apple, I expect an apple and not an apple seed. And hence they have less moral value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Not really. Have qualified people submit their ideas for personhood and applicability. Submit the top n ideas for a vote. Apply the most voted for optionThis is just not plausible. There are way too many varying opinions that it is not rational to try and agree on a philosophical concept of "personhood."
Disregarding that, when would you say personhood starts and how would you apply it morally, if you are not going to apply it to the abortion argument?
I've already answered when I think personhood starts
As for the second bit, can you elaborate what you mean?
It is a scientific consensus that a new human organism is made at conception through meiosis, with it's own unique DNA and pre-determined body features, etc. We call this the start of "life." Human is simply the species that is assigned to an organism.
Homo sapiens is the species, not human. Why is the creation of a new homo sapiens individual the same as a new human individual?
Oh please. Because she can't do certain things for 9 months, that gives her the right to kill a baby? What do you even mean by "it changes her body chemistry?" This seems like a bunch of BS excuses.
Why do you feel like you should engage in a discussion you are profoundly ignorant in? Are you that masochistic that you enjoy being called an idiot? Here, do some reading
Created: