Issues other than abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This seems to be the same logic as those who get behind the steering wheel of an automobile under the influence of alcohol. They wind up in an accident. Someone in the other vehicle is killed. Dead is dead. The taking of a life is the taking of a life. Thou shall not kill. There is no astrix. No exception clause. Only in the case of self defense.
 
Vonsalza said:
The burden of proof lies with the affirmative claimant.
Click to expand...
This is not true when using deadly force. You are making the claim that leaves all police guns hot at all times. Could the hunter in the above scenario be innocent of manslaughter because he could not prove that the target was not known to be a person? Of course not. A person potential taking an innocent life has the burden to prove that the life is not an innocent life.

Even if the force is not deadly, can a doctor go with the idea that he doesn’t think a surgery is needed, but he can’t prove a negative, so he operates. The problem is you are using a philosophy concept on a legal matter. Taking life is a legal matter. So even though it is true that proof in a philosophical use is simply not possible, burden of proof is. It happens in every civil and criminal trial.

I totally disagree and reject your burden.
YourNameHere said:
This seems to be the same logic as those who get behind the steering wheel of an automobile under the influence of alcohol.
Click to expand...
This is a good example. Is driving while intoxicate morally acceptable because you cannot know that a life will be taken? So here is food for thought. Is there any other situation, except abortion, where an action that is a toss up on whether it will result in an innocent dead person, is legal?
 
Last edited:
Brendan_64 said:
The concept of ‘personhood’ seems to have been created in order to be able to define as a ‘non-person’ those whom they want to be able to kill. The purpose of the concept of ‘personhood’ would seem to be to create humans who are ‘non-persons’ Surely the onus is on the advocates of this concept to define the parameters and basis of this concept?

The dictionary definition of a person is, “a human being regarded as an individual”. As all human beings have an individual identity coded in their DNA, therefore the logical conclusion is that a human being is a person from conception.

Is the argument that certain humans are not individuals and therefore not persons? This position would seem to disregard established scientific fact.

To create a concept of ‘personhood’ where we have human individuals divided into undefined categories of ‘person’ and ‘non-person’, then surely the onus is on the advocates of this concept to define its parameters and basis?
Click to expand...
Hey, for the pro-life crowd and their supporters - I totally understand. Emotionally, you want to believe that.

But in the hard, cold world of logic and reason, the default position is “undefined”. Anyone who wishes to make a claim beyond that carries also the burden of proof.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
The burden of proof lies with the affirmative claimant.
Click to expand...
This is not true when using deadly force.
Click to expand...
Yes. Yes it is.
 
Vonsalza said:
The burden of proof lies with the affirmative claimant. If you think something is a person, it is on you to explain why.
Click to expand...
And you just made an affirmative claim - that’s its “something” rather than a “person”.
 
Last edited:
Then, shouldn’t we lean towards the safe side? An analogy…

You’re driving down a poorly lit country road, and see something moving around in the roadway around 100 yards ahead of you. Maybe a deer, maybe a human, you can’t tell.

Do you speed up and kill this being? I certainly hope not. You slow down, don’t kill it, and ascertain if it’s a human being or not.

Why don’t we do the same for the fetus?
 
Last edited:
Maximilian75 said:
Then, shouldn’t we lean towards the safe side? An analogy…

You’re driving down a poorly lit country road, and see something moving around 100 yards ahead of you. Maybe a deer, maybe a human, you can’t tell.

Do you speed up and kill this being? I certainly hope not. You slow down, don’t kill it, and ascertain if it’s a human being or not.

Why don’t we do the same for the fetus?
Click to expand...
The safe side is to be pro-choice.

If we’re unsure as to whether the fetus is a person, we still know its mother is a person.

Thus her agency is to be unimpeded. Thus, she has choice. A la “pro choice”.
 
They have distinct criteria hence there is an affirmative claim. Not every “something” is a person
 
If it’s a person, your agency destroyed the agency of the other, facilitating a manslaughter charge, or something akin.

A developing fetus literally had no agency. I’ve had 3 kids. It takes them a few months after birth before they develop anything approaching agency.
 
Vonsalza said:
A developing fetus literally had no agency. I’ve had 3 kids. It takes them a few months after birth before they develop anything approaching agency.
Click to expand...
So per that logic, it would be ok for someone go into a hospital and pull life support on all patients who have no cognitive function. Total insanity
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
A developing fetus literally had no agency. I’ve had 3 kids. It takes them a few months after birth before they develop anything approaching agency.
Click to expand...
So per that logic, it would be ok for someone go into a hospital and pull life support on all patients who have no cognitive function. Total insanity
Click to expand...
That’s ultimately what happens to them, honey.

Unless they’re from reasonably wealthy families.
 
Vonsalza said:
That’s ultimately what happens to them, honey
Click to expand...
And there you have it. Condoned murder. I’m talking about someone breaking into hospital and purposely killing everyone on life support w/o family consent and you all can read the reply
 
Aquinas11 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
That’s ultimately what happens to them, honey
Click to expand...
And there you have it. Condoned murder. I’m talking about someone breaking into hospital and purposely killing everyone on life support w/o family consent and you all can read the reply
Click to expand...
That’s reality. Medical care in the US is rationed by money. If you get put in a persistent vegetative state and you’re not wealthy, a timer just started on your life.

Someone’s gotta pay the freight. And when the money runs out, the machines get turned off.

When you don’t have enough tokens to pay the meter, they turn it off. Welcome to life.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Hey, for the pro-life crowd and their supporters - I totally understand. Emotionally, you want to believe that.

But in the hard, cold world of logic and reason, the default position is “undefined”. Anyone who wishes to make a claim beyond that carries also the burden of proof.
Click to expand...
If someone wants to come up with a new concept such as ‘personhood’ and a new category of human such as ‘non-person’ then the burden is on them to define the basis of this concept and support it with evidence.

It’s a bit like saying, “I’ve come up with this new concept, I’m not going to provide any evidence to support it, or even define its parameters, but nevertheless the burden is on the opposition to prove my concept to be false.”

The longstanding accepted definition of a person is an individual human. From conception a human life is formed, and from conception that human life is an individual. No dodging around using an undefined concept of ‘personhood’ is going to change that.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
A developing fetus literally had no agency. I’ve had 3 kids. It takes them a few months after birth before they develop anything approaching agency.
Click to expand...
On that basis, would you then be OK with infanticide up to 3 months?

And please define your concept of ‘agency’.
 
Last edited:
Personhood and the progression of rights it entails isn’t a novel concept.

Still births and miscarriages aren’t investigated because they’re not really people in the eyes of the law.

When they’re born they have some additional rights. They get a few more when they become teenagers. A few more when 18. A few more when 21. They can run for president at 35.

The Romans had a similar scheme. I think you were considered a Man at the Table when you turned 23.

Nothing new here, bud.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top