Pro-choice friends

  • Thread starter Thread starter marypar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Farsight001 said:
Again, you clearly did not read my entire post. I specifically pointed out that future offspring is the archaic definition of the word so that you would not waste both our time making this argument.
Click to expand...
Okay, what’s your source?
 
spencelo said:
No. Singer says a rock isn’t sentient because it doesn’t have any capacity for pain and suffering – it lacks any capacity for awareness.
Click to expand...
And there is your distinction that you are missing - the rock lacks CAPACITY for awareness. It doesn’t just lack awareness. It doesn’t have the capacity for it. That is something much more. You might argue that an infant lacks awareness, but you cannot say it does not have the capacity for it because as it develops, as we all know, it gains that capacity.

This is why my answer earlier was simply “because it is a rock”. A rock, by it’s nature, cannot be aware. No matter how old it gets or what someone does to it, it will never be aware. An infant, however, either has (arguable) or gains (not arguable) awareness at some point, so it does have the capacity for awareness.
 
spencelo said:
Singer does not equate personhood with sentience. A being could be sentient and lack personhood.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say he did. But he and you did suggest that sentience was a necessary condition of personhood, so my point stands.
 
Stephen168 said:
I want the answer from you not a link
Click to expand...
That’s irrational: the link is a very helpful (and brief) summary and explains the matter better than I could. There’s no reason not to read through it.
Stephen168 said:
If Singer would say killing is wrong why does he say killing in infant is OK? Is just killing non-persons OK?
Click to expand...
Because killing can only harm persons. Please read the above link.
 
Farsight001 said:
And there is your distinction that you are missing - the rock lacks CAPACITY for awareness. It doesn’t just lack awareness. It doesn’t have the capacity for it. That is something much more. You might argue that an infant lacks awareness, but you cannot say it does not have the capacity for it because as it develops, as we all know, it gains that capacity.

This is why my answer earlier was simply “because it is a rock”. A rock, by it’s nature, cannot be aware. No matter how old it gets or what someone does to it, it will never be aware. An infant, however, either has (arguable) or gains (not arguable) awareness at some point, so it does have the capacity for awareness.
Click to expand...
You confuse “capacity” for “potential.” A fetus may have the “potential” for awareness but it doesn’t, in the early stages at least, have the “capacity” for awareness.
 
spencelo said:
That’s irrational: the link is a very helpful (and brief) summary and explains the matter better than I could. There’s no reason not to read through it.
Click to expand...
It’s not irrational to want you to think for yourself instead of just regurgitating what others have said.
Because killing can only harm persons. Please read the above link.
Click to expand...
No one has to read the link to know that this is patently false. Killing dogs harms dogs. Killing mosquitoes harms mosquitoes. Killing whales harms whales. And if you kill enough whales, killing them harms the entire planet by throwing of the balance of life.
 
spencelo said:
I quoted from the dictionary, and the quoted definition did not equate “offspring” with “unborn.”
Click to expand...
You quoted the modern definition from the dictionary. As you said, we are speaking of an 18th century document, so we must use the 18th century definition, which I did, and you did not. I don’t understand how this is difficult for you.
 
spencelo said:
You confuse “capacity” for “potential.” A fetus may have the “potential” for awareness but it doesn’t, in the early stages at least, have the “capacity” for awareness.
Click to expand...
No I do not confuse the two. It has the potential and it has the capacity. Again, this is another definition you clearly have wrong.
 
Farsight001 said:
I didn’t say he did. But he and you did suggest that sentience was a necessary condition of personhood, so my point stands.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid your point does not stand. You wrote: “So by your own claims, it would not be harm to torture an infant.” Because Singer recognizes that infants are sentient, and thus can suffer, it would be wrong to torture them.
 
Farsight001 said:
You quoted the modern definition from the dictionary. As you said, we are speaking of an 18th century document, so we must use the 18th century definition, which I did, and you did not. I don’t understand how this is difficult for you.
Click to expand...
Okay, so what’s your source? What 18th century dictionary are you using? You did not provide any definition from any such dictionary.
 
spencelo said:
I’m afraid your point does not stand. You wrote: “So by your own claims, it would not be harm to torture an infant.” Because Singer recognizes that infants are sentient, and thus can suffer, it would be wrong to torture them.
Click to expand...
But you’ve been arguing this entire time that infants are NOT sentient. Singer, I believe, clearly said they are not as well.
 
spencelo said:
Okay, so what’s your source? What 18th century dictionary are you using? You did not provide any definition from any such dictionary.
Click to expand...
Modern dictionaries sometimes include old definitions and specify as much. I used a version of the OED, which makes the clarification. I don’t know what 18th century dictionary they got it from. Being over a century old, they would not have to give credit anyway.

I really wish people knew how to use dictionaries properly, and the difference between a quality dictionary and a cruddy one.
 
Stephen168 said:
So you can’t articulate an answer?
Click to expand...
I’m tempted to respond by saying: “So you can’t educate yourself by reading an informative link?”

Yes, I can articulate an answer, but since you’re asking me about what Singer thinks, it’s best to go with the source. Hence the link.
Stephen168 said:
So Singer is OK with killing animals for food?
Click to expand...
He is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top