Pro-choice friends

  • Thread starter Thread starter marypar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Farsight001 said:
One of those men is not a philosopher and another one, if he’s the one I’m thinking of, just presented an argument that since abortion is allowed, so should killing a child outside the womb. Not the kind of philosopher I want to, or anyone should, be listening to.
Click to expand...
They’re ALL philosophers (one dead).
 
Stephen168 said:
But does Singer claim that the Ability to be harmed is the determining factor in sentience? That is Spencelo’s claim.
Click to expand...
Singer is saying that sentience implies the capacity for pain or suffering. Again consider a rock: why is it not sentient?
 
spencelo said:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

No mention of progeny.
Click to expand...
Pardon, I was using the wrong word. I meant posterity, which also means future offspring. It has more definitions today, but when it was written, it did not.
 
Farsight001 said:
Pardon, I was using the wrong word. I meant posterity, which also means future offspring. It has more definitions today, but when it was written, it did not.
Click to expand...
Source? And even if it did mean “future offspring,” why does that necessarily imply the unborn?
 
spencelo said:
Source? And even if it did mean “future offspring,” why does that necessarily imply the unborn?
Click to expand...
The dictionary is my source. Sheesh. Have we not been over this already? Have I not made it a point to discuss and try to bet specific about the meaning of words repeatedly?

And how would it not imply the unborn? What is the unborn besides future offspring?

You have a preconceived position on things and you are warping the meanings of words to fit that position.
 
Stephen168 said:
Yet, he claims killing an infant is OK. Is he claiming infants can not suffer pain?
Click to expand...
No. He’s saying that infants are not persons, and killing only harms persons. It would still be wrong to torture infants.
 
spencelo said:
That’s a question-begging, circular answer.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the answer is just that obvious because the question itself was unnecessary to begin with.

How do you know 2+2=4? Because it is. That’s just the way it is.
 
Farsight001 said:
The dictionary is my source. Sheesh. Have we not been over this already? Have I not made it a point to discuss and try to bet specific about the meaning of words repeatedly?

And how would it not imply the unborn? What is the unborn besides future offspring?

You have a preconceived position on things and you are warping the meanings of words to fit that position.
Click to expand...
If you want to interpret the Constitution according to its original intent or meaning, then you need to use a 18th century dictionary, not the modern one. The modern definitions, however, do not necessarily imply that “offspring” are the unborn.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/offspring
 
spencelo said:
No. He’s saying that infants are not persons, and killing only harms persons. It would still be wrong to torture infants.
Click to expand...
Why? He argues that a horse is higher on the chain of personhood than an infant. Without personhood, there is no sentience from what he and you have suggested, and without sentience, one cannot do harm. So by your own claims, it would not be harm to torture an infant.

Though we both know you don’t believe that. Furthermore, this shoots your argument in the foot anyway because what is it to rip a fetus limb from limb, but torture? It would still be wrong to torture them, and yet you are defending it.

And killing only harms persons? Ridiculous. So all those teenagers who sickeningly snap puppy’s necks and post the videos on youtube are not killing?
 
Stephen168 said:
Are you saying Singer would claim it is not sentient because is it not a person?
Click to expand...
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.
 
spencelo said:
If you want to interpret the Constitution according to its original intent or meaning, then you need to use a 18th century dictionary, not the modern one. The modern definitions, however, do not necessarily imply that “offspring” are the unborn.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/offspring
Click to expand...
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.
 
Farsight001 said:
Why? He argues that a horse is higher on the chain of personhood than an infant. Without personhood, there is no sentience from what he and you have suggested, and without sentience, one cannot do harm. So by your own claims, it would not be harm to torture an infant.
Click to expand...
Singer does not equate personhood with sentience. A being could be sentient and lack personhood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top