tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3673149011378033450..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The Pro-Murder Position on AbortionVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12947588311756715642011-10-26T07:05:23.907-07:002011-10-26T07:05:23.907-07:00OneBrow,
I don't even mind doing some email d...OneBrow,<br /><br />I don't even mind doing some email discussion. I just think it is good for some of these debates to have some sort of an agreed end. <br /><br />I will read through your comments and perhaps give short answers later.<br /><br />Bless you,<br /><br />- tonyAnthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38412435857387731092011-10-26T06:07:58.081-07:002011-10-26T06:07:58.081-07:00Ilíon said...
Outside of the thief and fence (whic...Ilíon said...<br />Outside of the thief and fence (which meaqns some sort of robbery or burglary was involved), I don't see a valid state interest in restricting those people, either. <br />What's your interest in deciding under what conditions people may have sex, use recreational drugs, or decide to terminate their life?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41724675953912933192011-10-25T20:11:50.638-07:002011-10-25T20:11:50.638-07:00One(-far-too-simple)-Thought: "Why does the w...<b>One(-far-too-simple)-Thought:</b> "<i>Why does the woman have her rights diminished for engaging in a consensual activity?</i>"<br /><br />Why does a woman, or a man, have her, or his, rights (and liberties, including of movement) "diminished for engaging in a consensual activity"? It's all so unfair! to think that the prostitute, or the john, might be jailed for "engaging in a consensual activity". It's all so unfair! to think that the junkie, or the pusher, might be jailed for "engaging in a consensual activity". It's all so unfair! to think that the thief, or the fence, might be jailed for "engaging in a consensual activity". It's all so unfair! to think that the 'hit-man,' or the 'client' who hired her (*) to kill himself (should he survive), might be jailed for "engaging in a consensual activity".<br /><br />Life is just so unfair! There a <i>consequences</i>, all over the place!<br /><br />(*) that's just a little subversion of "gender-neutral language".Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36194414127357314632011-10-25T17:34:48.243-07:002011-10-25T17:34:48.243-07:00You wrote, “HeLa cultures are alive, of human disp...<i>You wrote, “HeLa cultures are alive, of human disposition (unless you are using a circular notion of disposition), and have human DNA.”<br /><br />I already explained my argument on immediate active potential or human disposition. A boulder has potential to become a sculpture but that doesn't mean that potential will most likely be realized within itself. </i><br /><br />A nonviable fetus also will not realize it's potential within itself, unlike a viable fetus. You are supporting the fetus using the potential of the woman's body to fill in the gaps for what the fetus can not do.<br /><br />Also, you really are using the notion of human disposition circularly, but I am taking that as meaning something like "of rational disposition" or "of sentient disposition", which you later put into that concept.<br /><br /><i>This does not answer my argument in the slightest. My point is that the reasons (yes reasons) you are giving for being able to exterminate a life within the womb can also be used outside the womb. </i><br /><br />The reason I am giving you is "the baby requires the woman to use her body to support it". A baby outside the womb does not make such a requirment of the woman to use her body; she can adopt out or turn over the baby, and thereby avoid using her body to support the infant. Thus, the reason that applies to the unborn within the womb does not apply to babies.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54437429023056542372011-10-25T17:34:25.141-07:002011-10-25T17:34:25.141-07:00I disagree once again. In fact, the idea sounds pr...<i>I disagree once again. In fact, the idea sounds preposterous (I have always wanted to use that word). Why does the woman get such a right to terminate something that cannot help its own existence which resulted from activity the woman engaged in? </i><br /><br />Why does the woman have her rights diminished for engaging in a consensual activity? <br /><br /><i>... I know enough to know that no one knows enough about these things to use them as a sole qualifier for a human person. </i><br /><br />As a legal matter, I agree completely.<br /><br /><i>Having arguments for acceptable ethics for ending a life does not validate a particular instance of ending a life. </i><br /><br />I agree. However, once it has been established that such circumstances exist, we can compare those circumstances to the circumstances of the relationship between the woman and the unborn.<br /><br /><i>Personhood would not be so much about “present” or “past sentience” but future sentience. Otherwise there is no protection for the sleeping infant or the comatose person.</i><br /><br />I assume you mean "not only" and "but also". I have said all along full personhood is not enough to make abortion legally proscribed.<br /><br /><i>One Brow wrote, “As I mentioned, the boundaries are not well-defined, but legally we need the fine, bright lines. So, any infant is decided to be a person in out culture (in some cultures, they have to reach a certain age first).”<br /><br />So would it be ok to kill an infant if a culture said it was? </i><br /><br />It would be legal. If you are asking me for my understaning of morality, I maintain that any unborn capable of living on its own at the time the pregnancy is aborted should be granted the opportunity to do so, while still holding that the woman is not required to wait until such a time to have the abortion.<br /><br /><i>The two do not seem philosophically different.</i><br /><br />As I have said, I support any fetus that is viable being allowed to live.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1853909313750356612011-10-25T17:33:33.968-07:002011-10-25T17:33:33.968-07:00Anthony Fleming said...
Thak you for the discussio...Anthony Fleming said...<br />Thak you for the discussion as well. While I know you don't want to have more detailed deiscussion, could you indulge me with a one-word answer (if you think that will cover the response to the question)?<br /><br /><i>If however I was in some way responsible for the condition of the violinist AND I was the only person with the right qualities to help save them (by being hooked up to them for 9 months) then I would be morally obliged to help them live.</i><br /><br />Should a person be legally obligated to do so? For example, in some way a cellist destroys the kidneys or liver of the violinist, and the cellist is a perfect match for organ donation. We'd agree that morally, the cellist should donate one of their kidneys or half their liver. However, would you support the government marching the cellist to the hospital and forcibly removing the organ from them?<br /><br />In a general note, the distinction between what is correct morally (what pregnant women should do) and what is appropriate legally (what the government should require pregnant women to do) really are different questons. I've been trying to discuss legality.<br /><br /><i>Your response does not address my argument. The activity helped bring about the existence of a new human life. I just don't believe, especially from a naturalistic viewpoint, that the woman's cells, particles, etc that give her the ability to make consent are more valuable than cells, particles, etc that will bring about a full developed life capable of consent. </i><br /><br />I agree with you. I also don't believe that the woman's cells, etc. have more value that the fetus'. For abortion to be a legal procedure, all I need is for them to be equally valuable. To forbid abortion, you need to make the case that the fetus' cells, etc. are more valuable. Legally, it's not enough to say that a life is more valuable than nine months of forced servitude. A life is also more valuable than a house. However, in any jurisdiction in the USA where I can own a gun, it is legal for me to use that gun to kill a burglar. So, if you are using relative value, you'd have to establish even more relative value to make abortion illegal.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3632489812089219352011-10-25T16:16:57.441-07:002011-10-25T16:16:57.441-07:00toddes said...
As rad pointed out I used murder as...toddes said...<br /><i>As rad pointed out I used murder as an example (not the definition) of a violation of an individual's "absolute right to control his or her body". You're being purposely obtuse.</i><br /><br />All of my obtuseness is completely unintentional.<br /><br /><i>The subject of the post was whether Camille Paglia's position that "the freedom to do as one chooses with one's own body trumps the genuine right of the fetus to life" is logically consistent. I hold it is not. </i><br /><br />Perhaps you should delinate why a fetus has greater claim to determining the use of the woman's body than the woman, herself, has.<br /><br /><i>From everything you've wrote on this thread I've read nothing that addresses this. (Perhaps I've missed it, if so I aplogize.) Is Paglia holding a logically consistent position? If abortion is murder, do the rights of the woman trump the rights of the fetus? If so, why?</i><br /><br />The encroacher loses out to the encroached upon.<br /><br /><i>In the case of the woman, it was through her choices that the fetus came to be. </i><br /><br />It almost always comes back to controlling the behavior of women. Women who dare consent to sex must surrender their bodily autonomy.<br /><br /><i>Against this is the option of murder through abortion. How can you not see the disparate difference between the two?</i><br /><br />I do see a difference. I also recognize the legal ramifications of saying that the encroacher is not subject to removal. I see the desire to control women. If it was really a mtter of valuing the life of the fetus over the rights of the woman, there would be no exception for rape or incest. Saying that there is such an exception, against a general loss of rights, is basically saying that a woman surrenders her fundamental rights when she chooses to have sex.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90192704977626642792011-10-24T14:08:37.566-07:002011-10-24T14:08:37.566-07:00@One Brow,
As rad pointed out I used murder as an...@One Brow,<br /><br />As rad pointed out I used murder as an example (not <b><i>the</i></b> definition) of a violation of an individual's "absolute right to control his or her body". You're being purposely obtuse.<br /><br />The subject of the post was whether Camille Paglia's position that "the freedom to do as one chooses with one's own body trumps the genuine right of the fetus to life" is logically consistent. I hold it is not. <br /><br />From everything you've wrote on this thread I've read nothing that addresses this. (Perhaps I've missed it, if so I aplogize.) Is Paglia holding a logically consistent position? If abortion is murder, do the rights of the woman trump the rights of the fetus? If so, why?<br /><br />In the case of the woman, it was through her choices that the fetus came to be. Because of this she is being "forced" to allow someone else to use her body for support for a <b>finite</b> time. After this time, the baby can be put up for adoption or placed in the care of foster parents until such time as adoptive parents can hopefully be found.<br /><br />Against this is the option of murder through abortion. How can you not see the disparate difference between the two?toddesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7674696222137870952011-10-24T12:53:59.935-07:002011-10-24T12:53:59.935-07:00OneBrow,
You are welcome to have the last word i...OneBrow, <br /><br />You are welcome to have the last word in this discussion. Thank you for debating and arguing with me. If someone else responds to my points I may comment again. <br /><br />Rest assured that I will read your response.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14237178188581120832011-10-24T12:52:15.749-07:002011-10-24T12:52:15.749-07:00I wrote, “The baby could come into the world with ...I wrote, “The baby could come into the world with the mothers consent but then be taken out because the mother has not consented to allow it to take up more of her time, sleep, stress, etc.”<br /><br />I also wrote, “As you admitted, the arguments for being able to kill it within the womb vs. killing it outside have no fundamental difference. The philosophical reason you are giving for the mother to be able exterminate her child can be applied to a sleeping infant. I am sure you wouldn't advocate for this though. Isn't that a double standard?<br /><br />You wrote, “You have brought this up before, and I have responded before. Any woman (I refuse to call them mothers if they reject the role) who no longer wishes to care for an infant can relieve herself of that burden without killing it. As far as I know, every culture in the world has provisions for this. In the United States, there is both adoption and turning the baby over to the state government.”<br /><br />This does not answer my argument in the slightest. My point is that the reasons (yes reasons) you are giving for being able to exterminate a life within the womb can also be used outside the womb. Its not about whether “there is another way” the point is whether the philosophical grounds you are using to claim one action as acceptable can be consistently applied to other actions that few would claim acceptable (like killing a sleeping infant). It matters not whether adoption exists unless infanticide did not exist, yet we know infanticide does exist. Therefore, I am looking for you to provide a cogent view which allows abortion and condemns infanticide.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65002893276016115762011-10-24T12:47:50.961-07:002011-10-24T12:47:50.961-07:00You wrote, “As I mentioned, the boundaries are not...You wrote, “As I mentioned, the boundaries are not well-defined, but legally we need the fine, bright lines. So, any infant is decided to be a person in out culture (in some cultures, they have to reach a certain age first).”<br /><br />So would it be ok to kill an infant if a culture said it was? If so then would it be ok to rape an infant if a culture said it was? Telling me that “some cultures say this” does not validate doing it. I am assuming that killing a sleeping infant is wrong and always wrong. Feel free to argue that point if you wish. <br /><br />If it is wrong to kill a sleeping infant (which lacks sentience) then I fail to see why it is right to kill the unborn. The two do not seem philosophically different.<br /><br />Arguing that something requires present or past sentience (to be defined as a human person) does not protect the comatose person (which lacks present sentience) and would not allow pulling the plug on the brain dead person (which had past sentience). Saying that one must have both past and present sentience does not protect the sleeping infant, the sleeping person, or the comatose person. <br /><br />So, the definition of human must be more about “future” or potentially future sentience. Such protects the sleeping person, the comatose person, but justifies pulling the plug on the brain dead person. This is part of the definition of human disposition which leads me to your next comment. <br /><br />You wrote, “HeLa cultures are alive, of human disposition (unless you are using a circular notion of disposition), and have human DNA.”<br /><br />I already explained my argument on immediate active potential or human disposition. A boulder has potential to become a sculpture but that doesn't mean that potential will most likely be realized within itself. The boulder does not have a disposition to become a sculpture. The unborn have the inerrant characteristics and the inclination to possess the fully developed characteristics of a human being. This includes future sentience (like the sleeping infant or the comatose person), life, and Human DNA. They are inherently inclined to become a fully developed human being. The potential is immediate and active as a fully developed human being.<br /><br />We all have such a disposition even when we are drugged, in a sleep, or in a coma. <br /><br />I used the pumpkin plant analogy earlier to help make my point. Uprooting a pumpkin plant (no matter what stage of development) will kill the pumpkin plant. The immediate, active, and realizing potential or disposition of the pumpkin will be destroyed. <br /><br />HeLa cultures however, do not have such a disposition.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23397164264141662502011-10-24T12:40:48.567-07:002011-10-24T12:40:48.567-07:00You wrote, “Sentience is more than consciousness. ...You wrote, “Sentience is more than consciousness. I am sure that no unbron has sentience. Not being a neuroscientist, I don't have a prescise list, but my understanding is that we have identified the parts of the brain that create and store memories, process sensations, perform abstractions, engage in foresight and restraint, etc.”<br /><br />That doesn't really answer my argument. Sentience is more than consciousness yet consciousness is still very far from being understood, let alone sentience. I cannot find scientific information to show that we have yet isolated consciousness in the brain. BDK's blog has some info on this. As I believe I found on his blog, consciousness may have multi-faceted definitions. It may be stored in multiple modules with multiple mechanisms or maybe single module with multiple mechanisms. I am far from scratching the surface of understanding all the neuroscience behind consciousness which is why I do not use such terms as sole qualifier to define a human person. In fact, it seems that our perception (at least visual and auditory) happens as an “unconscious inference.” So much for classifying a human by sentience alone. In fact, I believe some of our knowledge of perception from the object world is “inherited” or “learned” through natural selection and “stored' by genetic code. I got that from BDKs blog quoting Richard Gregory a psychologist and professor of neuro-psychology. Perception is part of our sentience. <br />While I know very limited on this subject, I know enough to know that no one knows enough about these things to use them as a sole qualifier for a human person. <br /><br />You wrote, "Notice you still refer to a "brain-dead person". Sometimes it is legal, and even ethical, to kill a person."<br /><br />While I agree that there may be morally acceptable instances to end the life of a person, your response does not address my argument. This argument is not about whether it is sometimes ok to end a life but whether it is ok to end the life of the unborn. Having arguments for acceptable ethics for ending a life does not validate a particular instance of ending a life. Personhood would not be so much about “present” or “past sentience” but future sentience. Otherwise there is no protection for the sleeping infant or the comatose person.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5748212935885883292011-10-24T12:36:53.053-07:002011-10-24T12:36:53.053-07:00OneBrow,
You wrote, “You can't grant consent ...OneBrow,<br /><br />You wrote, “You can't grant consent to a person that doesn't exist yet. At the time the woman has sex, there is no zygote/embryo/fetus. What you're saying amounts to saying she is granting consent to the man to use her body for several months.”<br /><br />Your response does not address my argument. The activity helped bring about the existence of a new human life. I just don't believe, especially from a naturalistic viewpoint, that the woman's cells, particles, etc that give her the ability to make consent are more valuable than cells, particles, etc that will bring about a full developed life capable of consent. If consent is the thing valued then the human life inside the mother (that came into existence within the woman and partially from the woman) is just as valuable (physically) as the woman's consent. <br /><br /><br />You wrote, “No person has the right to access the body of another person, even for the purposes of survival...Therefore, the personhood of the unborn is not relevant to the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.”<br /><br />I disagree once again. In fact, the idea sounds preposterous (I have always wanted to use that word). Why does the woman get such a right to terminate something that cannot help its own existence which resulted from activity the woman engaged in? I don't see how this right to consent is validated over a human life that cannot help its own existence. This is where “the violinist” thought problem falls short. The existence and condition of the violinist was not brought about by decisions and actions of the person who would be hooked up to them for 9 months. Therefore, the case of the violinist, one is not morally obliged to save the violinist as the cost of their own body. <br /><br />If however I was in some way responsible for the condition of the violinist AND I was the only person with the right qualities to help save them (by being hooked up to them for 9 months) then I would be morally obliged to help them live.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43648949412534811322011-10-24T10:38:14.644-07:002011-10-24T10:38:14.644-07:00@OneBrow
I dont think that toddes gave a definiti...@OneBrow<br /><br />I dont think that toddes gave a definition of murder. He merely stated that it is <b>a</b> "violation of an individual's "absolute right to control his or her body""radhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15971384998033929481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47985401080226822472011-10-24T06:33:58.044-07:002011-10-24T06:33:58.044-07:00rad said...
Well, then you obviously dont know lib...rad said...<br /><i>Well, then you obviously dont know libertarianism, because self-ownership ("absolute right to control your body") is the only fundamental right in libertarianism from which all other rights are derived.</i><br /><br />The definition is being used to support forcing a woman to allow someone else support her body, and is so broad that forcing an allegedly drunk driver to blow into a breath analyzer (or face arrest) is murder. I would hope libertarianism is more serious than that.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5199720192178984572011-10-22T08:51:49.492-07:002011-10-22T08:51:49.492-07:00OneBrow,
I will respond later today. Just wanted ...OneBrow,<br /><br />I will respond later today. Just wanted to let you know I didn't forget about you.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31285414517770054002011-10-22T06:56:38.605-07:002011-10-22T06:56:38.605-07:00OneBrow:
"That's the oddest definition o...OneBrow:<br /><br />"That's the oddest definition of murder I have ever seen"<br /><br />Well, then you obviously dont know libertarianism, because self-ownership ("absolute right to control your body") is the only fundamental right in libertarianism from which all other rights are derived.radhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15971384998033929481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66443416504542043922011-10-22T06:38:40.306-07:002011-10-22T06:38:40.306-07:00toddes,
That's the oddest definition of murde...toddes,<br /><br />That's the oddest definition of murder I have ever seen, and I'm not sure it's at all accurate. Would you be willing to support it in more detail?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86481876352123497412011-10-21T09:56:25.975-07:002011-10-21T09:56:25.975-07:00One Brow,
However, the affirming of a right is di...One Brow,<br /><br /><i>However, the affirming of a right is different from affirming that the right existed pre-birth.</i><br /><br />Paglia already affirmed this right in her admission that abortion is murder. <br /><br />1. According to Paglia, abortion is murder<br /><br />2. Murder is a violation of an individual's "absolute right to control his or her body"<br /><br />3. Abortion occurs prior to birth<br /><br />4. Therefore (according to Paglia), an individual's "absolute right to control his or her body" exists prior to birth<br /><br />Her later statement that the state has no authority to intervene is an extension of this affirmation.<br /><br />So it appears that Paglia's position is inconsisitent. Which, all in all, is not surprising.toddesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2696294001833263412011-10-21T08:11:04.246-07:002011-10-21T08:11:04.246-07:00Anthony Fleming said...
This is why I used the ter...Anthony Fleming said...<br /><i>This is why I used the terms of life, human disposition, and DNA to help make the definition. Such terms can provide protection for the sleeping infant, the comatose person, and justify pulling the plug on the brain dead person. </i><br /><br />HeLa cultures are alive, of human disposition (unless you are using a circular notion of disposition), and have human DNA.<br /><br /><i>You wrote, "No such difference traits exist. The difference is in the use of the woman without her consent. It is upon you to show the relevance of the non-existence of difference traits outweighs the right of the woman to use her body as she sees fit."<br /><br />I see that each person should be valued and that a person should not be extinguished because the "natural order of things" is uncomfortable to someone else. </i><br /><br />There is a difference between "making me uncomfortable" and "living off of my body".<br /><br /><i>Also, it seems a little inconsistent to say it should be legal (even though it is wrong) to destroy a living human being because it could not control coming into existence (through the actions of the female host) because the female host did not give consent. Then, at the same time to define a human person only by sentience.</i><br /><br />Legal standards will usually not perfectly reflect a real situation. I do not pretend that what I mean by 'genuine personhood" can be a legal standard.<br /><br /><i>You wrote, "No such difference traits exist. The difference is in the use of the woman without her consent. It is upon you to show the relevance of the non-existence of difference traits outweighs the right of the woman to use her body as she sees fit."<br /><br />The baby could come into the world with the mothers consent but then be taken out because the mother has not consented to allow it to take up more of her time, sleep, stress, etc. <br /><br />As you admitted, the arguments for being able to kill it within the womb vs. killing it outside have no fundamental difference. The philosophical reason you are giving for the mother to be able exterminate her child can be applied to a sleeping infant. I am sure you wouldn't advocate for this though. Isn't that a double standard?</i><br /><br />You have brought this up before, and I have responded before. Any woman (I refuse to call them mothers if they reject the role) who no longer wishes to care for an infant can relieve herself of that burden without killing it. As far as I know, every culture in the world has provisions for this. In the United States, there is both adoption and turning the baby over to the state government. Therefore, it is not necessary to kill the infant to remove it from the woman's care. You can respect the rights of the infant without impinging on the rights of the woman to control her own body.<br /><br /><i>I wrote, "Giving more value or rights to the woman and her choice over of the unborn is just choosing one set of human cells with human DNA over another set of human cells with human DNA. With that kind of viewpoint why would it be wrong for me to kill any fully developed human person?"<br /><br />I still think this applies. The human life-form that came into existence depends on the mother for survival, as it will when it is born. Consent and reasons for consent is extremely subjective. </i><br /><br />Are willing to say that any time person A depends upon some part of person B's body for survival, that person A has a right to it? Can you formulate a coherent theory of consent to individuals that do not yet exist?<br /><br /><i>If it is ok for someone to destroy living being with human disposition and DNA because it did not get "consent" (though it 'supposedly' lacks sentience) for its existence then what protects all the rest of us who are also just living cells?</i><br /><br />If any time person A needs some part of your body to live (say lobe of your lung), what proticts you from having to give up a lobe of your lung?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66935010107096729972011-10-21T08:10:29.726-07:002011-10-21T08:10:29.726-07:00Anthony Fleming said...
If you respond to my previ...Anthony Fleming said...<br /><i>If you respond to my previous comment I will respond once more and let you have the last word. I don't like debates that run on for days and days and I have my own work to get done :)<br /><br />Bless you,</i><br /><br />Thank you for noting this in advance. I'll try to make our reminaing conversaiton as productive as I can.<br /><br /><i>The whole "use of woman's body without consent" doesn't seem to work in any case of abortion that did not result of incest or rape. She used her body in a way that could bring about a human life.</i><br /><br />You can't grant consent to a person that doesn't exist yet. At the time the woman has sex, there is no zygote/embryo/fetus. What you're saying amounts to saying she is granting consent to the man to use her body for several months.<br /><br /><i>I agree. So this option does not even need to be discussed which is why I am curious you are bringing it up. </i><br /><br />One of the arguments is that the unborn person should be allowed to continue to develop naturally. I am pointing out tht such a position is not in opposition to early pregnancy termination.<br /><br /><i>I completely disagree. Person hood is completely relevant to all of our protections and rights. </i><br /><br />No person has the right to access the body of another person, even for the purposes of survival. Therefore, the full personhood of an unborn does not confer to that unborn the right to access the body of the woman, even for the purposes of survival. Therefore, the personhood of the unborn is not relevant to the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.<br /><br /><i>Claim "woman's rights" all you want but the fact will still stand that a human person has been destroyed for the sake of someone's "choice" because of that person's choice (in most instances). </i><br /><br />Yup. People get destroyed in executions and wars, as well, by the choice of other people. You don't get to claim access to another person's body simply because you will die without it.<br /><br /><i>You wrote, "Genuine personhood (as opposed to merely being part of the human species) requires the current or past possession of sentience, which at a minimum requires sufficient brain development to support sentience. "<br /><br />Would you be so kind to point out to me which module and mechanisms within the brain are the source of consciousness? <br /><br />The unborn have detectable brain waves after just 40 days. Are you sure there is no consciousness?</i><br /><br />Sentience is more than consciousness. I am sure that no unbron has sentience. Not being a neuroscientist, I don't have a prescise list, but my understanding is that we have identified the parts of the brain that create and store memories, process sensations, perform abstractions, engage in foresight and restraint, etc.<br /><br /><i>Secondly, using "past sentience" has holes in it. I think it would be ok for us to "pull the plug" on a brain dead person. They have no sentient future. It would not be ok to pull the plug on a comatose person; they have a potential sentient future.</i><br /><br />Notice you still refer to a "brain-dead person". Sometimes it is legal, and even ethical, to kill a person.<br /><br /><i>Saying that they should have "sentience" or "past sentience" not only neglects the brain dead person but also assumes the value and validity of past sentience. I see no reason why this has to be the case. </i><br /><br />I was offering my standard for personhood. Feel free to offer another, but I think you will have trouble finding a simple, non-circular definition that does not include entities you would not normally ascribe personhood to and also does not exclude entities that you would normall ascrbe personhood to.<br /><br /><i>If sentience in and of itself if valued then what protects the sleeping infant?</i><br /><br />As I mentioned, the boundaries are not well-defined, but legally we need the fine, bright lines. So, any infant is decided to be a person in out culture (in some cultures, they have to reach a certain age first).One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19278530163902427822011-10-20T18:55:20.149-07:002011-10-20T18:55:20.149-07:00For those that can't see it, final line was jo...For those that can't see it, final line was joke. Don't punish rapists by killing their kids. What woman would want to go through such a proof in court of law? Murder is worse than rape, it would be a mutilation of justice to have woman prove she was raped just so she can kill someone's baby. Sorry not funny joke I guess.AnonFundyhttp://idiot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21423171113312958672011-10-20T18:52:20.470-07:002011-10-20T18:52:20.470-07:00Thanks again for nobody bringing up a violinist in...Thanks again for nobody bringing up a violinist in this thread. Refreshing to see a long discussion about abortion when you assume the fetus is a person without having to deal with that silly violinist case and subsequent discussion in the literature. Good to see people are not tainted by the "peer-reviewed" literature on this topic.<br /><br />It is about values. Do you value the inside person less than the outside person? What if it were reversed: getting pregnant meant being the inside person would you want them to have the right to terminate you? The inside-outside boundary is arbitrary is the point. Once you have taken on the role of nurturer by getting pregnant, you cannot suddenly decide to murder your charge.<br /><br />As for rape/incest: if the woman can prove it in court of law, then she can have an abortion.AnonFundyhttp://idiot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82167667503798568032011-10-20T16:17:44.981-07:002011-10-20T16:17:44.981-07:00Virtue: Choosing not to harm another, even when th...Virtue: <a href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44973215/ns/today-today_health/" rel="nofollow">Choosing</a> not to harm another, even when the law says you can.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27248270793853569822011-10-20T15:41:55.051-07:002011-10-20T15:41:55.051-07:00Isn't it amusing to see 'atheists' ass...Isn't it amusing to see 'atheists' asserting the reality of transcendant and inalienable rights? I mean, regardless of how "confused" they may be on just what those rights are? And, I mean, especially given the immediately prior thread?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com