Issues other than abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that given all the shades of grey and all the concerns, the best time to consider a developing homo sapien as a Person Deserving Full Protection of the Law is birth.

Basically what the law is now.
 
Vonsalza said:
I think that given all the shades of grey and all the concerns, the best time to consider a developing homo sapien as a Person Deserving Full Protection of the Law is birth.
Click to expand...
But why? Why this arbitrary line at birth? On what basis do you draw it there? I believe the ancient Greeks would abandon a new-born to die if they didn’t want it and that was legal. With your views on ‘agency’ (whatever that is) then would you logically object to the ancient Greek position on infanticide?

As to the concept of ‘personhood’ why are you unwilling to define this concept? What constitutes a person?

I will argue that a person is a living, human individual and based on science a human is therefore a person from conception.
 
Brendan_64 said:
But why? Why this arbitrary line at birth? On what basis do you draw it there?
Click to expand...
At that basis it is no longer biologically and actually dependent on its mother for continued survival.
I believe the ancient Greeks would abandon a new-born to die if they didn’t want it and that was legal. With your views on ‘agency’ (whatever that is) then would you logically object to the ancient Greek position on infanticide?
Click to expand...
I think early Christian communities would save them, right?

Either way, using my values to judge their values - especially as separated across such time space and culture, is a prefect example of anachronism.
As to the concept of ‘personhood’ why are you unwilling to define this concept? What constitutes a person?
Click to expand...
You just don’t like what I’m saying. I’ll make it clearer;

Personhood. Is. Progressive.
I will argue that a person is a living, human individual and based on science a human is therefore a person from conception.
Click to expand...
And where 100% of you guys defect from that standard is when I bring up that point that if they’re people from conception due the full protection of the law, then every stillbirth and miscarriage would require a police investigation to clear the mother from any wrongdoing in the death of a person.

Right? Right…

We don’t do that because we don’t fully consider them people. Certainly not “person” enough to override the agency of their mother.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
If we’re unsure as to whether the fetus is a person, we still know its mother is a person.
Click to expand...
“Personhood” is not a concept open to proof. It is an arbitrary definition that means neither more nor less than what it means to the person who defines it. That a fetus is a distinct human life from the moment of conception is provable; that’s why it is taught in embryology text books.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
You just don’t like what I’m saying. I’ll make it clearer;

Personhood. Is. Progressive
Click to expand...
To be honest that’s still pretty vague.
Click to expand...
If you were expecting a black and white dichotomy, of course. Absolutely any other answer would be unacceptably vague.
 
Ender said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
If we’re unsure as to whether the fetus is a person, we still know its mother is a person.
Click to expand...
“Personhood” is not a concept open to proof. It is an arbitrary definition that means neither more nor less than what it means to the person who defines it. That a fetus is a distinct human life from the moment of conception is provable; that’s why it is taught in embryology text books.
Click to expand...
Absolutely you’re right.

Its mother is also a distinct human life and the notion that she owes birth to a conceived life (even one conceived under dubious circumstance) is an opinion rather than a demonstrable fact.

As such, we must be pro choice to give these women the power to agree or disagree in a meaningful way.
 
Vonsalza said:
At that basis it is no longer biologically and actually dependent on its mother for continued survival.
Click to expand...
So it’s not about whether or not this human being is a person, it’s about how dependent they are on their mother? How dependent is a new-born baby on its mother? How dependent is a month old baby on its mother? On this basis infanticide would be morally acceptable.

The argument based on dependency means anyone who is dependent on another for survival is not entitled to live. The very elderly, the disabled, no automatic entitlement to life?

But this seems to have veered from whether or not a human being is a person to whether or not a human is dependent on another.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Its mother is also a distinct human life and the notion that she owes birth to a conceived life (even one conceived under dubious circumstance) is an opinion rather than a demonstrable fact.

As such, we must be pro choice to give these women the power to agree or disagree in a meaningful way.
Click to expand...
Your conclusion is not provable either; it is simply another opinion. If I am free to define personhood any way I choose, which is what your position requires, then I am as free to deny it to the mother as you are to deny it to the child. As you said, the mother (suggestive descriptor) is a distinct human life, as is the child, and the decision to grant human rights to one but not the other is no less arbitrary than choosing to grant rights to whites but not blacks, or to the master race but not Jews.

The problem with granting human rights to some humans but not others is that it is based on nothing more than the power to do so, and if you elect to allow the denial of rights on that basis you have no grounds to complain if someone else decides to deny those rights to you because they feel you too have become inconvenient.
 
Brendan_64 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
At that basis it is no longer biologically and actually dependent on its mother for continued survival.
Click to expand...
So it’s not about whether or not this human being is a person, it’s about how dependent they are on their mother?
Click to expand...
Sorta.

Remember that the issue is the right to have an abortion. While the baby is inside its mother, it is dependent on her for survival.

We pro-choicers simply argue that she doesn’t intrinsically owe this to the child. If she doesn’t want the child, she shouldn’t be forced to have it.

The baby may or may not bear agency/personhood - but mama most certainly does. So she gets to choose. Anything other is a violation of liberty.

She is, indeed, more a “person” than the fetus is.
 
Ender said:
Your conclusion is not provable either; it is simply another opinion.
Click to expand...
Sure, at some point there is an axiomatic disagreement that must be solved by conflict theory.

We had this conflict. My side won.
If I am free to define personhood any way I choose, which is what your position requires, then I am as free to deny it to the mother…
Click to expand...
SCREEEECH!!!

No, you’re free to deny it to yourself. Assuming you’re probably male, you even lack sufficient dominion to deny it to your wife.

This is why we’re pro-choice. We like to choose. You can choose. I can choose. Your wife can choose. Mine can choose. The lady down the street can choose.

Yay liberty, right!?!
The problem with granting human rights to some humans but not others…
Click to expand...
I’ve already told you that personhood is progressive.

When there’s a stillbirth or miscarriage, we don’t launch an investigation because we kinda know they’re not really people at that stage.
They get protection when they’re born.
They can get a bike license at 13 (where I live), drive at 16, smoke at 18, drink and shoot a handgun at 21 and run for prez at 35.

Personhood’s a progressive concept. The reality exists even if you don’t want to realize it.
 
Vonsalza said:
Sure, at some point there is an axiomatic disagreement that must be solved by conflict theory.

We had this conflict. My side won.
Click to expand...
Yes. This conflict can only be decided by which side has the power to implement its choice. This “conflict theory” is simple: the strong defeat the weak.
No, you’re free to deny it to yourself. Assuming you’re probably male, you even lack sufficient dominion to deny it to your wife.

This is why we’re pro-choice. We like to choose. You can choose. I can choose. Your wife can choose. Mine can choose. The lady down the street can choose.

Yay liberty, right!?!
Click to expand...
Nonsense, I can do whatever I have the power to do. That’s what your position not only allows but requires.
I’ve already told you that personhood is progressive.
Click to expand...
This is your definition. I have a different one, and as you are not bound by mine neither am I bound by yours.
Personhood’s a progressive concept. The reality exists even if you don’t want to realize it.
Click to expand...
There is no reality; you have abandoned that concept in favor of choosing to enforce personal standards. You can force this definition on others only if you have the power to do so. Once you lose this power the other side can force its definition on you. There is no basis for arguing that one group of humans has rights while another does not other than the arbitrary distinctions you define…while you have the power to do so.
 
Herein you do a picture perfect job of demonstrating the totalitarianism that underlies the pro life position.

Thankfully, we children of liberty know only victory against such.
 
By vague I meant not descriptive. And even if it’s gray there should be enough information to provide a guideline of sorts.
 
Last edited:
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Herein you do a picture perfect job of demonstrating the totalitarianism that underlies the pro life position
Click to expand...
I fail to understand.
Click to expand...
I’ll elaborate.

Under a pro choice legal scheme, you’re free to be ad pro life as you want. You just can’t force others to follow your lead.

Under a pro life legal scheme, women the country over had their freedom to choose taken from them. +1 for totalitarianism and despotism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top