tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1167362553350764672..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Legalizing murder: The argument from reasonable doubtVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger249125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77714974149325100112018-10-13T01:12:27.579-07:002018-10-13T01:12:27.579-07:00Let women decide when they *want* to make it happe...Let women decide when they *want* to make it happen.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2688385715171482362018-10-13T01:11:03.791-07:002018-10-13T01:11:03.791-07:00@One Brow and Chad
This was probably the most imp...@One Brow and Chad<br /><br />This was probably the most important exchange you had so far:<br /><br />"<i>(C) It is just to require involuntary servitude for people under certain circumstances. One such circumstance would be when you have willingly engaged in an activity that has produced an innocent life. <br /><br />(OB) So, you are making a commitment to a non-existent human when you have intercourse? What if you are using birth control? Does the acted-upon intent to not have a child mean that the child no longer has a right to attach itself your body?</i>"<br /><br /><br />As it was mentioned before, the pro-life position often has not-so-hidden motives of wanting to punish people for having sex just for fun. This was made pretty clear here: the implication is that every single sexual intercourse should be seen as potentially creating a new person, with rights, and the mother will have to take care of that person. It doesn't matter what the woman wants. Her rights to bodily integrity are void the second fertilization is in progress, simply because the process has the potential to yield a fully grown human being.<br /><br /><br />Now, that word 'potential' is really important here, because that's what I was asked to comment on, as it related to the article on Ed Faser's blog, where he talks about act vs potentiality, a concept I see as being detached from modern understanding of physics, chemistry and biology, but an interesting one nonetheless. If we grant that there's a potential human at some point, the problem remains: where's the line, and why?<br /><br /><br /><br />"Remember, women are born with all the eggs they are ever going to have, and they don’t make any new eggs during their lifetime. Women are born with approximately two million eggs in their ovaries, but about eleven thousand of them die every month prior to puberty. As a teenager, a woman has only three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand remaining eggs, and from that point on, approximately one thousand eggs are destined to die each month. This phenomenon is completely independent of any hormone production, birth control pills, pregnancies, nutritional supplements, or even health or lifestyle. Nothing stops this inexorable death of approximately one thousand eggs every month regardless of ovulation, ovarian inhibition, or stimulation."<br /><br /><br /><br />So why not save more eggs? Each of them is a potential human. It contains random copies of the mother's genes already; just needs some from a man too. What makes fertilization so special then? It can in a lab, or through sex. In either case, we're just talking about 1 more step in a biological process that may or may not result in a new human person to become self aware. Most of the times, it doesn't. Let women decide when they can't to make it happen. World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80249187082870237792018-10-12T05:57:58.162-07:002018-10-12T05:57:58.162-07:00Good stuff that you have shared here. We will have...Good stuff that you have shared here. We will have more informative and helping news from you.<br /><a href="www.phdassistance.com/services/phd-dissertation/phd-topic-selection/" rel="nofollow">PhD Topic selection help</a><br /><a href="www.phdassistance.com/services/phd-dissertation/phd-dissertation-full" rel="nofollow">PhD Thesis writing services</a><br /> <a href="www.phdassistance.com/services/phd-dissertation/phd-dissertation-full" rel="nofollow">complete PhD Research Methodology Chapter Writing Services</a><br /><a href="www.phdassistance.com/services/phd-dissertation/phd-dissertation-full//" rel="nofollow">PhD topic selection help</a><br />"<a href="www.phdassistance.com/services/phd-research-methodology" rel="nofollow">Research Methodology For Phd</a>"<br /><a href="www.phdassistance.com/services/phd-literature-review//" rel="nofollow">dissertation literature review writing services</a><br /><a href="www.phdassistance.com/services/phd-coursework/" rel="nofollow">PhD Assignment Help Service</a>PhdGuidancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03827002112925918159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69680022025726057302018-10-11T05:59:50.177-07:002018-10-11T05:59:50.177-07:00Chad Handley said...
I do not think that if you ar...Chad Handley said...<br /><i>I do not think that if you are stuck in an elevator with a person determined to give you the flu, that you have the right to kill them.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure a judge would agree. Do you have any idea how absurd you sound? You are saying it would be justified to kill someone to avoid getting the flu.</i><br /><br />What actions are they undertaking that lead you to the conclusion they are determined to give you the flu and to act upon that determination, and what are the alternatives you have at your disposal? Are you saying that if someone grabs your collar to sneeze in your face, you have no right to self-defense, because it's only the flu? I think not.<br /><br /><i>Your hypothetical doesn't establish anything more than that a person is not required to passively yield to an assault.</i><br /><br />Yes, you are responding to an assault by killing an innocent person. Everyone who has read our discussion knows this. Their right to life is now lesser to your right to to self-defense.<br /><br />By the way, just as the right to life is the foundation of the right to bodily integrity, the right to bodily integrity is the foundation of the right to self-defense. If the right to self defense can take supremacy over the right to life in certain situations, so can the right to bodily integrity.<br /><br /><i>Your attempt to use my response to that hypothetical and apply it to abortion ...</i><br /><br />is not happening, expect that I am evaluating how you weigh rights in different situations. We both agree that the right to life to life does not always trump rights like bodily integrity and self defense. Why should the concept of "assault", however defined, be the only key?<br /><br /><i>... by any reasonable standard, does not meet the definition of assault I've developed. </i><br /><br />You have yet to detail even one reasonable standard.<br /><br /><i>If you only have the right to bodily integrity because you have the right to life, then how could you deny the right to life in order to uphold the right to bodily integrity? You would be sawing off the branch you're sitting on.<br /><br />If you only have x because of y, you cannot deny y and keep x. Substitute "the right to bodily integrity" for x and "the right to life" for y.</i><br /><br />You only have the right to self defense (z) because you have x and y. Yet above, you assert z to deny x.<br /><br /><i>You understand that a law requiring involuntary servitude isn't simply by virtue of that fact unjust, right?<br /><br />There's this thing called "prison" you might want to look into.</i><br /><br />Interestingly, the 13th Amendment does allow for the involuntary servitude of those convicted of crimes. So, what is the metaphorical "crime" the woman commits that requires involuntary servitude?<br /><br /><i>It is just to require involuntary servitude for people under certain circumstances. One such circumstance would be when you have willingly engaged in an activity that has produced an innocent life. </i><br /><br />So, you are making a commitment to a non-existent human when you have intercourse? What if you are using birth control? Does the acted-upon intent to not have a child mean that the child no longer has a right to attach itself your body?<br /><br /><i>You can be required to use your body to work to provide financial assistance for your children. If you fail to do so, you can be sentenced to literal involuntary servitude in the form of a jail sentence.</i><br /><br />Last I checked, money doesn't come from a body, it's property. No, you can't be forced to work to pay for child support, although can be forced to look for work.<br /><br /><i>Nonsense. It would depend on why the law was required. If 100% of babies who weren't breastfed died, it would not be unjust to pass a law requiring women to breastfeed.</i><br /><br />What the percentile difference where the law becomes unjust? If the mortality rate is 1% vs. 0.9%? <br /><br />I find the contrast of these ignore-the-small-percentage arguments you make a curious contrast to the any-chance-an-embryo-is-a-person argument you make with other people interesting.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91511250127751574352018-10-10T23:11:00.577-07:002018-10-10T23:11:00.577-07:00@bmiller
I appreciate the effort to be relevant bu...@bmiller<br />I appreciate the effort to be relevant but you're confusing my interest with interacting with people in real-time for an apathy towards professional opinions. I assure you once again that this isn't the case. Au contraire, I usually don't have enough time to interact, so I mostly read professionals, including Feser as he's a favorite of many people here.<br /><br />Regarding specific arguments, I already have pending questions for Chad, should he find the time and interest to reply back, but it's getting lengthy already. More generally, it is the same principle again, why would I list arguments from other sources and try to debunk them if nobody here cares? I have already been accused of bringing up the concept of the soul... that being said, I'll gladly look at Feser's post again tomorrow and list where I agree and disagree. Hopefully this leads to some useful clarifications.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53049033179871554782018-10-10T21:30:10.249-07:002018-10-10T21:30:10.249-07:00BTW. I believe you are trying to be honest. For ...BTW. I believe you are trying to be honest. For what that is worth to you.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59381584255061368672018-10-10T21:23:08.847-07:002018-10-10T21:23:08.847-07:00@Hugo,
Where are your thoughts on abortion exactl...@Hugo,<br /><br /><b>Where are your thoughts on abortion exactly? You said I missed your 1 rebuttal; I am very worried to have missed what I assume are words of great wisdom, since you insist so much on how relevant your participation is. Yet, you wrote 1 more comment entirely about stuff that is off topic... why don't you insist on proving me wrong instead of insulting me?</b><br /><br />I am against abortion. You know this from our previous discussion. I have, *for the most part* restrained myself from engaging with you on this topic on this thread. I did link to an article on Edward Feser's blog that discussed a philosophical basis for rejecting abortion and a book of his that provided a more thorough background for that position. I personally think that you consider random people's ignorant opinions as a greater source of knowledge than those who are experts in the field is a bad decision, but go ahead, you put that on your resume.<br /><br />But the thread topic is Chad's argument not mine. So I'd rather you engage his argument, which is in itself unassailable.<br /><br /><b>"You are flabbergasted at the mere thought anyone could think differently than you."<br />That's what I meant by laziness. Even when writing an insult you cannot be logical or factually correct! </b><br /><br />You have shown no indication that you are in the least familiar with any of the various arguments against abortion. Least of all Chad's. Prove me wrong by listing the best pro-life arguments and why you think they are wrong. Start with Chad's. Then SLED. I'll give you the next arguments after you refute those.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17611477880453450802018-10-10T20:45:53.564-07:002018-10-10T20:45:53.564-07:00bmiller said...
"Probably not a good idea to ...bmiller said...<br />"<i>Probably not a good idea to drunk-post. Just a rule to consider.</i>"<br />Not the case today! But you were right on that once before.<br /><br />"<i>The topic is abortion, the reasons for and against. Maybe you're on the wrong thread.</i>"<br />Where are your thoughts on abortion exactly? You said I missed your 1 rebuttal; I am very worried to have missed what I assume are words of great wisdom, since you insist so much on how relevant your participation is. Yet, you wrote 1 more comment entirely about stuff that is off topic... <b>why don't you insist on proving me wrong instead of insulting me?</b><br /><br />"<i>You are flabbergasted at the mere thought anyone could think differently than you.</i>"<br /><b>That's what I meant by laziness. Even when writing an insult you cannot be logical or factually correct!</b> I just said that I am on a blog where I know people disagree with me; literally the last words of my last comment. You are either trolling again and didn't bother to read, or are just plain stupid. I don't have much evidence for the latter, good for you.<br /><br />"<i>Try to respond to Chad's argument to show you are sincere.</i>"<br />I have been 100% sincere to Chad and, if I missed some of his argument, I would love to talk more about it. The problem is that I do repeat the same thing a lot, as it keeps being avoided, so I think we ran in circles a lot already. Just like One Brow and Chad on the topic of bodily autonomy, which I believe is the primary issue but, at the same time, closely related to the notion of personhood as it is a non-issue if there's no 'person' impacted.<br /><br />You can try to if you actually want to still talk about the topic... there are reasons for abortion that include giving full autonomy to women over their body, which is what I believe trumps everything else. And then there are reasons to explain why we think women who choose an abortion are doing something wrong, or not, such as by trying to figure out when a human person started to have rights, and thus after how much time & development is it morally unacceptable to get rid of what is now a human with the right to life.<br /><br />Did you mention anything about that now? Did you point out what I missed?<br />No, instead you:<br />- implied I am drunk<br />- insulted my ability to recognize different opinions exist<br />- implied I may not be sincere<br />Nothing on topic, just more insult and thus... just trolling.<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25915371900877909312018-10-10T20:24:34.821-07:002018-10-10T20:24:34.821-07:00@Hugo,
and it is hilarious to reply to you
Glad...@Hugo,<br /><br /><b> and it is hilarious to reply to you</b><br /><br />Glad you're having a good time. Me too.<br /><br /><b>I do read it, and I appreciate it, but as I said many times, it's not relevant to the conversation and not why I am talking to people. </b><br /><br />Probably not a good idea to drunk-post. Just a rule to consider.<br />Now, I don't really care why you are "talking to people" other than when you talk to me. The topic is abortion, the reasons for and against. Maybe you're on the wrong thread.<br /><br /><b>I can find sources and divergent opinions easily on my own. That's why I am on a blog I disagree with after all...</b><br /><br />Apparently not. You are flabbergasted at the mere thought anyone could think differently than you.<br /><br />Try to respond to Chad's argument to show you are sincere.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87811271961133317872018-10-10T19:33:10.292-07:002018-10-10T19:33:10.292-07:00Btw, I must clarify that this is completely false:...Btw, I must clarify that this is completely false:<br />"I found it ironic that you claim you are interested in learning and when provided with materials from experts, you ignore it."<br />I do read it, and I appreciate it, but as I said many times, it's not relevant to the conversation and not why I am talking to people. I can find sources and divergent opinions easily on my own. That's why I am on a blog I disagree with after all...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42462763695053114982018-10-10T19:16:30.830-07:002018-10-10T19:16:30.830-07:00Yep, I do have more time these days for so-called ...Yep, I do have more time these days for so-called 'outburst', and it is hilarious to reply to you... because as expected, you just comment on the stuff on the side of the topic. You could have focused on the "I would love to know what that means", it was even in bold, but no, you're just whining again. You're so lazy.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28254571900206707742018-10-10T18:58:02.160-07:002018-10-10T18:58:02.160-07:00@Hugo,
Wow. What an outburst.
I'm not the o...@Hugo,<br /><br />Wow. What an outburst.<br /><br />I'm not the only one who noticed you've merely repeated assertions without reasons and you admit you've ignored opposing points of view. Sorry if you confuse hearing others' honest observations with an attack.<br /> <br /><b>and you have posted insults and trolling comments such as " Good luck Chad. You've been very patient."</b><br /><br />You take a compliment I gave to Chad as an insult to you. OK. That's weird.<br /><br /><b>...Rant about how bmiller's feeling are hurt....</b><br /><br />Sorry. My feelings aren't hurt. Don't worry.<br /><br /><b>Well, trolling is just for laugh, right? </b><br /><br />No. I found it ironic that you claim you are interested in learning and when provided with materials from experts, you ignore it. I really don't care what some random internet dude has to say about anything (of course present company excepted) unless they know what they are talking about. Your goal of learning may be to conduct a survey of all the uninformed opinions of everyone on the internet but it's not mine.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44290838336147097312018-10-10T15:06:55.696-07:002018-10-10T15:06:55.696-07:00bmiller said...
"My first observation wrt thi...bmiller said...<br />"<i>My first observation wrt this topic is that you merely repeat the same *opinion* without supporting reasons.</i>"<br />First of all, I am not sure you understand what my *opinion* is as I have been insisting a lot more about what the *facts* are and it's really hard to get people to even agree on that. Next, I provided so many different reasons for my argumentation that I am now accused of going off topic... I linked to diagrams and tried to get some feedback on that, I expressed clearly what I consider to be a grey area in determining personhood, I listed the facts that I am using and asked questions...<br />This was a cheap empty attack, more trolling.<br /><br />"<i>My second observation is that you ignore opposing points of view.</i>"<br />I am ignoring some of the opposing points of view, that is true. I don't care much about points of view that are not explicitly expressed here, in a comment box, because it's easy to find blogs/books with content we agree on. It's great to use these sources to form our own opinion, but if one is not able to express it themselves, it's not interesting to engage with that person. Might as well just go read the source and move on.<br />Plus, you see how I keep quoting Chad and how I was able to accurately describe a large part of his position, so I am definitely not ignoring opposing points of view from him.<br />This is thus just another empty attack, more trolling, no surprise.<br /><br />"<i>Those are the reasons that, for the most part I have not engaged you on this thread.</i>"<br />What a bizarre comment. You are engaging me right now! What I would agree with is that you have not tried hard to come up with your own reasoning, instead of posting links to people you agree with, being so lazy as to not even try to summarize in your own words, and you have posted insults and trolling comments such as " Good luck Chad. You've been very patient."<br /><br /><b>"<i>The only time when I did engage you this thread, I provided you with the opportunity to learn a principled argument against your position. You ignored it. This confirms my second observation.</i>"<br />I would love to know what that means. Is that why you switched to trolling?</b> You did write a couple of comments on other thread that show how you're looking for attention after all... You felt hurt that I missed one of your point? Grow up and stop whining if you want to engage. Just repeat the point and show how it's relevant. I don't care if you repeat good arguments; just find a compelling way to do so. Be creative!<br /><br />"<i><b>You're not interested in engaging nor learning;</b><br />Thanks for a final laugh.</i>"<br />Well, trolling is just for laugh, right? So I guess you're still in this mode of flip-flopping between want to appear like you care and just trolling for laughter's sake. Did you learn anything from this thread? Do you understand the position of someone like me? Do you get why we disagree and on what we disagree on exactly? I know I did learn a few things, especially from the parts I did not contribute to, with One Brow's approach.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82117023235335448492018-10-10T14:51:46.439-07:002018-10-10T14:51:46.439-07:00@Chad
The point of bringing up the concept of the...@Chad<br /><br />The point of bringing up the concept of the soul is that it's the only logical explanation I can see for labelling an embryo as potentially a person. I would love to be proven wrong, should there be some other reason, but I have not heard any. You certainly have not provided one. That would be something to learn on my end, from someone I am talking to, not from some other writer/blogger, as we can find anything in that case...<br /><br />And I must insist that it does matter whether one believes in an immaterial soul or not. We all know that there is a strong correlation between religiosity and opinions on abortion's legality. But what is never made clear, as it's not part of the surveys explicitly, is the following:<br /><br />Around <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/" rel="nofollow">80% of people who self-identify as not having any religious affiliation claim that abortion should be legal in all/most cases.</a> But this group also includes a lot of people who hold supernatural beliefs, including belief in some immaterial soul. <b>Therefore, when someone does not believe in a soul, the chances that they think there is a "person" to speak of at the beginning of a pregnancy must be getting closer to zero.</b> <br /><br />Moreover, the argument I presented and which included the soul was not only about the soul. The words 'material soul' and 'immaterial soul' were used as labels to convey a difference of opinion with the ethical position we hold when looking back at a person's development, and when their rights arise. But again, it could be something else, but you nor anyone else here have never said what it could be. If I simply missed it, please point it out...<br /><br />But so far, here's once again the closest thing to it that I got from you:<br /><br />I said:<br />"Because grown adults were all once babies, and babies were all once unborn, and unborn babies came from embryos, it is possible that one cell, created during the fertilization process, should be considered as falling under that label of "person", as it could potentially one day grow and be born as a baby. We can't know."<br /><br />And Chad agreed, saying:<br /><b>"I couldn't have said it better myself. Now, follow that insight to its only logical, ethical conclusion."<br /><br />Ok, I did. Now, why don't you?</b><br /><br />I not only expressed my position, which is consistent with a scientific understanding of human reproduction, but I also attempted to express a counter-position, a logical one. I think it does make sense for someone who beliefs in a soul to feel uneasy about the whole process. But nobody here has proposed anything at all, not even a rebuttal as to where I must be wrong.<br /><br /><b>So I'm still interested in learning 2 things: where do you think my argument breaks down, and whether you agree that we are using the same objective facts.</b><br /><br />And I think we may disagree on the latter as it seems to me that you don't really understand the fact that human fertilization is just some chemical reactions driving a biological process, a continuous one. You claimed that there is some line somewhere in there and I never got to know what you meant by that.<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53535550819335098472018-10-10T11:02:33.887-07:002018-10-10T11:02:33.887-07:00@Hugo,
My first observation wrt this topic is tha...@Hugo,<br /><br />My first observation wrt this topic is that you merely repeat the same *opinion* without supporting reasons. My second observation is that you ignore opposing points of view.<br /><br />Those are the reasons that, for the most part I have not engaged you on this thread.<br /><br /><b>while you provide no original thoughts at all. </b><br /><br />The only time when I did engage you this thread, I provided you with the opportunity to learn a principled argument against your position. You ignored it. This confirms my second observation. <br /><br /><b>You're not interested in engaging nor learning; </b><br /><br />Thanks for a final laugh.<br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30942062687845570342018-10-10T10:50:36.046-07:002018-10-10T10:50:36.046-07:00"Regarding Thomists, or anybody else you may ..."Regarding Thomists, or anybody else you may ot may not agree with, I personally don't care much about that here, as I can just go read myself. What's interesting in comment threads is to hear about real people's positions and why they hold them, in their own words."<br /><br />Okay, but no one in the comment thread is talking about souls other than you, and what you say about them is rather famously contradicted by people for whom souls do play a key part in their objection to abortion.<br /><br />So, what's the point of bringing up souls in a discussion with people uninterested in them, while ignoring the (rather famous and rather obvious) key points of people who *are* interested in them?<br /><br />"In other words, you said I did express your position perfectly once, then I went on to give the logical conclusion you asked about, with 2 versions, but now, nope, it's too conplicated to address. "<br /><br />It's too complicated to address, except to say (as I did) that every bit of it was totally irrelevant to my argument.Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62534731977308391522018-10-10T08:48:44.896-07:002018-10-10T08:48:44.896-07:00@bmiller
So your complain is both that I reuse the...@bmiller<br />So your complain is both that I reuse the same point and that I brought more points, while you provide no original thoughts at all. You're really just a sophisticated troll then. You're not interested in engaging nor learning; you're just whining, poking and insulting... Again, you do make some good points, usually short one-liners, but I suppose that's just to trigger more reactions.<br /><br />I had a great time reading all this and still enjoy the approach Chad and One Brow are taking as it's a different one. It's also long and repetive but I don't see that as a problem, and I can skip what I am not interested in. But you bmiller, prefer to tap your champion on the back and say 'wow you're patient' instesd of clapping at the sight of a nice discussion...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47571571713808764292018-10-10T08:13:27.697-07:002018-10-10T08:13:27.697-07:00"Sorry, I missed the step in your proof where...<br /><br />"Sorry, I missed the step in your proof where, even if the right to bodily integrity was a derived right, that made it a right of lesser significance and worthy of less respect. It can be a derived right and still be accorded equal respect. Have you been keeping that part in your back pocket?"<br /><br />If you only have the right to bodily integrity because you have the right to life, then how could you deny the right to life in order to uphold the right to bodily integrity? You would be sawing off the branch you're sitting on.<br /><br />If you only have x because of y, you cannot deny y and keep x. Substitute "the right to bodily integrity" for x and "the right to life" for y.<br /><br />"First, saying that there may be longer periods of involuntary servitude does not support your proclamation that a forced pregnancy is not involuntary servitude. You do understand that, right?"<br /><br />You understand that a law requiring involuntary servitude isn't simply by virtue of that fact unjust, right?<br /><br />There's this thing called "prison" you might want to look into.<br /><br />It is just to require involuntary servitude for people under certain circumstances. One such circumstance would be when you have willingly engaged in an activity that has produced an innocent life. I do not think it would be unjust to require you to take care of that life during a period of its development when no one else can.<br /><br />"As to your point, every state in the nation allows parents to make their children "wards of the state", and does not require them to bodily serve their children. If you give an infant up for adoption, and the adoption fails, the baby is not returned to the birth parent (absent some prior agreement). It's true you can be required to surrender property for the support of your child, but bodily service is not required."<br /><br />You can be required to use your body to work to provide financial assistance for your children. If you fail to do so, you can be sentenced to literal involuntary servitude in the form of a jail sentence.<br /><br />"Yes. Laws requiring breast-feeding would be unjust."<br /><br />Nonsense. It would depend on why the law was required. If 100% of babies who weren't breastfed died, it would not be unjust to pass a law requiring women to breastfeed.Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75443246595659454532018-10-10T08:13:13.221-07:002018-10-10T08:13:13.221-07:00"Sometimes reality denies us proportionate ac..."Sometimes reality denies us proportionate actions. Unless you are saying that if a person is determined to infect you with the flu, you have to stand there and let them."<br /><br />I do not think that if you are stuck in an elevator with a person determined to give you the flu, that you have the right to kill them.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure a judge would agree. Do you have any idea how absurd you sound? You are saying it would be justified to kill someone to avoid getting the flu.<br /><br />"Except, as you have argued, it is not. You have expressed your complete comfort with killing an innocent person who was attached to you. The fundamental rights of that innocent person did not disappear because of the actions of a third party. You just chose to downplay them."<br /><br />This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you. And I'm saying it more for the benefit of other people reading, so they can see why your argument fails, even though you stubbornly refuse to.<br /><br />Your hypothetical doesn't establish anything more than that a person is not required to passively yield to an assault.<br /><br />An assault that triggers the right to use potentially lethal force in self-defense requires, according to the totality of the argument I've represented here, either intent to do great harm, or a reasonable belief on the part of the person being attacked that they are in grave and/or imminent danger.<br /><br />Your attempt to use my response to that hypothetical and apply it to abortion requires regarding every pregnancy as an assault, when a healthy pregnancy clearly, by any reasonable standard, does not meet the definition of assault I've developed. <br /><br />Being knocked out and having my body penetrated by sharp implements in my sleep, however, DOES meet my developed definition of assault. Such a situation is not analogous to a normal pregnancy. It's much more directly analogous to a pregnancy due to rape. And if this hasn't been made clear, I support abortion rights if the pregnancy is due to rape. There's no inconsistency or special pleading in my position. If an innocent person in the form of an embryo becomes attached to a woman in the same way that an innocent person becomes attached to me in the hypothetical, I support the woman's right to abort. But a woman becoming pregnant under normal circumstances just isn't in that position. <br /><br />Now, if a pregnancy does reach the definition of assault I've developed, and the mother was raped or has a reasonable belief that the pregnancy represents grave and/or imminent danger to their health, I fully support her right to abort.Screwtape Jenkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13874779097608201662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41193537308125891232018-10-10T05:28:18.276-07:002018-10-10T05:28:18.276-07:00@Hugo,
Your discussion about abortion with Chad h...@Hugo,<br /><br />Your discussion about abortion with Chad has gone the same way as it did with me. You merely repeat that your opponent is wrong because it is just so obvious you are right. Over and over again. No other reason given, no attempt to understand the opponent's position.<br /><br />I got tired of that. Don't know if Chad is yet or not.<br /><br />But this certainly looks like the behavior of a NPC.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13536420516961627242018-10-09T21:58:44.008-07:002018-10-09T21:58:44.008-07:00@Chad
I had a bit more time to reread your respon...@Chad<br /><br />I had a bit more time to reread your response carefully. First, I won't blame you for being tired of the topic. I agree...<br /><br />Regarding Thomists, or anybody else you may ot may not agree with, I personally don't care much about that here, as I can just go read myself. What's interesting in comment threads is to hear about real people's positions and why they hold them, in their own words. Again, it's easy to just point to someone we agree with!<br /><br />Finally, regarding your own position:<br />"...my particular argument, which only requires that it is not publicly demonstrable whether or not the embryo is a person."<br />The problem is that you literally said nothing to justify that claim, except 1 thing: to keep going backward in time from adults with right and get to the ethical conclusion that you find obvious. But why do you find it obvious?<br /><br />You won't tell... you said it isn't because of an immaterial soul, but what is it then? Maybe you're too tired of this thread to answer, fine, but hopefully you can understand my position as to why this does seem to be the only reason. That's what I expressed in details above, but that nobody will even attempt to correct. <br /><br />In other words, you said I did express your position perfectly once, then I went on to give the logical conclusion you asked about, with 2 versions, but now, nope, it's too conplicated to address. Oh well, too bad, nothing more to learn, and that's always my goal so it's alright.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78669353549152026172018-10-09T20:23:32.121-07:002018-10-09T20:23:32.121-07:00lol, you're so good at trolling bmiller!
Some...lol, you're so good at trolling bmiller!<br /><br />Sometimes you want more info, links, arguments; sometimes there's too much and you just write useless comments and insults... but you do contribute relevany things sometimes, so you're really trolling only on occasion. It's quite clever really.<br /><br />But what you never do afaik is contribute with detailed original content. Probably above your pay grade. It's much easier to just link to others you agree with.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33649430318909664272018-10-09T18:23:11.108-07:002018-10-09T18:23:11.108-07:00NPCNPCbmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18312902253257791922018-10-09T12:04:23.758-07:002018-10-09T12:04:23.758-07:00Hey, quick note... I am not sure why the idea of t...Hey, quick note... I am not sure why the idea of the soul is seen as to outlandish here. There was no argument presented to explain why we should consider a 1-day old embryo a person. It's always all about what we cannot know. Well, biologically speaking, we actually know a lot about the process and how not special it is. There is therefore no reason at all to think there is a person suddenly being created during the fertilization process. It is really just what I listed above: some random DNA arrangement. The only thing I can think of that makes a difference is whether there is an immaterial soul. Please feel free to explain what else it could be, why we should consider that it's possible that there is a person to speak of at that stage, but I saw none of that here in this 200+ comment-long thread.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48281513715587862062018-10-09T12:03:33.658-07:002018-10-09T12:03:33.658-07:00bmiller's comments on RCC history are in line ...bmiller's comments on RCC history are in line with my understandings, although I would put the start of the RCC later than he might. Another topic for another thread.<br /><br />There is disagreement among scholars on the level of disagreement in the early church, but it seems untrue that all abortions were considered homicide in early Christian history by all Christians. <br /><br /><br />One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.com