Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Albion · 11-01-2002, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Yes you did say he had.

...sigh...No I didn't, I said "you MIGHT find." Which is not the same at all. On the other hand, I didn't see where all he'd contributed were inane one-liners and insults either.

Pseudonymph · 11-01-2002, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:


...sigh...No I didn't, I said "you MIGHT find." Which is not the same at all.

If that's what you truly meant...then my mistake. But hopefully you can see the confusion...

Quote:

On the other hand, I didn't see where all he'd contributed were inane one-liners and insults either

They're not hard to find. But for the sake of keeping the conversation flowing, I'll neglect to list them out here.

Mageth · 11-01-2002, 11:51 AM

Correct but totally unrelated.

Then why did you bring it up?

We let people in comas go because they have little chance of surviving on their own.

If that's your criteria, then would you be satisfied if abortion was restricted to fetuses before they have any chance of surviving on their own?

Not because they are an incovienence or bother.

A gross misrepresentation of most women's difficult decision.

An unborn child is almost certainly going to live and become a member of society.

Do you know the percentage of fetuses that are spontaneously aborted during pregnancy?

Clutch · 11-01-2002, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Clutch: Something that completely lacks a mind cannot be said to be a person.

Sirenspeak: Ok...Please respond to my question as to why we simply do not kill comatose people. They in essence do NOT have a mind.

Actually, we do kill comatose people. All the time. Even though we are rightly cautious about redrawing the boundaries of the right to life to exclude a human who has previously been inside, we remove comatose humans from the support systems and environments that sustain them -- and it is typically the family members who loved the now-ex-person most, who make the decision to do so.

Quote:

Unborn children have a better chance of becoming productive members or society.

Unborn fetuses do have a better chance, yes, if we're talking about comatose humans whose brains have been very badly damaged. So what? The question is not whether they would become "productive members of society". The question is whether they are persons now. Whether you like it or not, you actually need an argument -- with, like, reasons and such -- to get from 'X could possibly become an F" to "X is an F now". Fetuses could become persons. Doesn't make them persons now.

I actually gave examples of how our reasoning about moral enfranchaisement and the attribution of rights commonly rules out extending the rights of some subsequent stage back into an earlier stage. Did you read them?

Quote:

I ask again...when does the fetus have what you call a "mind"?

No fetuses have minds. If you mean, when do humans develop minds, the answer is "gradually". Ten year-olds clearly have them; two-celled organisms do not. So what's your point? That "has a mind" is a vague predicate does not help your case, since vague predicates have clear instances notwithstanding. Just because there is no sharp point at which red becomes non-red does not make every point on the colour spectrum red; just because there is no sharp point at which humans develop minds does not mean that they have minds at every stage.

Quote:

And I'm still curious as to how you can continue to erect these rediculous strawmen about how people want to invade a womans privacy.

I'm quite curious myself about your reading, now. I have made no such claim -- not once. Perhaps you should actually reply to the actual content of my actual post.

Pseudonymph · 11-01-2002, 12:08 PM

Clutch...my last comment was not intended at you directly. I apologize. I will respond to your and mageths posts in as timely a manner as possible...but right now there is much work to do here at my job. I will respond as soon as possible.

Dr Rick · 11-01-2002, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirenSpeak:
I perused this thread and by found mostly inane one-liners about sperm and sandwiches and insults by Rick. That's not what I'm looking for.

You must have been reading your own posts.

Your hypocrisy does not make your insulting and irrational arguments any more persuasive.

Quote:

Originally posted by SirenSpeak:
Rick...at what point does an embryo become a person?

Had you actually bothered to read the thread instead of persisting in your mud-slinging rants, you would have encountered this exchange on the first page:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Basically my position is that abortion is wrong because a fetus is a person and it is wrong to kill people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This begs the questions: what makes a fetus a person? For that matter, what makes anything a person? Finally, what is the connection between personhood and abortion?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would make exceptions in the case of pregnancies that seriously threaten the mothers life...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? If a fetus is a person, what is the justification for allowing it to be aborted under one set of circumstances but not another?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say a fetus has a much greater potential for intelligence since there is no guarantee mental retardation will ever be cured.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So does a gamete, then; shall we now make each sperm a "person?"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find defining human beings on the basis of their developmental stage or IQ to be totally unsatisfactory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your definition is no less subjective; how is it better?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If humans are not persons until they reach their potential, then children would not qualify and people who are elderly whose potential is mostly used up would not qualify either.
I think perhaps the quality of being valued by others in whose care you have been placed in is the deciding factor of if you are a person or not.
I think that is very sad. The very young and the very old then cease to be people when people cease to want them around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The same could be said of sperm; must we now extend the title of "person" to each and every gamete?

Rick

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Dr Rick · 11-01-2002, 12:32 PM

...and also this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Are you saying since personhood is hard to define then it is Ok to kill others?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, and no.

I'm not saying personhood is hard to define; I'm questioning the relevance and utility of framing the abortion debate this way in the first place.

What does the defintion of "person" have to do with the abortion debate?

I've never said it was okay to kill "others," but I still wonder how you condone the killing of spermatocytes but not fertilized ova?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to your second point the justification for abortion when it threatens the mother is self defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion is a 'defense' of the maternal self.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am being consistent here. People have a right to respond with deadly force if it is the only way to preserve their own lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following this logic, what right other than self-preservation is there to kill a sperm?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then yopu say my definition of a person is arbitrary. I am not aware I gave a definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You did, to some degree: you claim a priori a fetus is a person.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the personhood of gametes. I disagree.
A sperm is not a person. It does not have the qualities that babies in and outside the womb have in common. It is a portion of a persons body therefore it is a part of a person and cannot enjoy individual status as a person.
The same cannot be said of a fetus in the womb. It is a distinct entity from the mother and not just a part of her body.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of the qualities you listed here apply anymore to a zygote than a gamete.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't seem to object to it being called a parasite. So I don't think you really disagree that a baby is a seperate entity than the mother. You have no justification for saying a fetus is not a person. It is just convenient to do so for your pro-life stance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You probably meant my "pro -choice" stance.

The same is true of you; you have no justification for saying a sperm is not a person, but it is just convenient to do so for your pro-life stance.

Rick

Dr Rick · 11-01-2002, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirenSpeak:
...I'm still curious as to how you can continue to erect these rediculous strawmen about how people want to invade a womans privacy.

The US Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade upholding a woman's freedom of choice was based on her right to privacy.

Quote:

...the right to swing my fist(do what I want) ends where another's nose(rights of another) begins.

...and speaking of inane one-liners...

Rick

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Mageth · 11-01-2002, 01:12 PM

...and speaking of inane one-liners...

And quite ironic to boot. Her rights end where another's rights begin, indeed.

Clutch · 11-01-2002, 01:29 PM

I think that SirenSpeak is correct to claim that privacy has nothing to do with it. (That Roe v Wade was justified in those terms does not make it reasonable; if anything it makes the decision fragile.)

If fetuses are persons, privacy is irrelevant; there is no general right to kill persons in the privacy of your own home. The question is whether they are persons. And, perhaps, whether their being persons would provide a morally sufficient reason for a woman to lose legal control of her womb during pregnancy. Neither of these are privacy issues; the latter has more to do with whether there are morally sufficient reasons for forcing someone to give up a kidney to save another person (to use JJ Thomson's famous example).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-01-2002, 11:51 AM	#133
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Correct but totally unrelated. Then why did you bring it up? We let people in comas go because they have little chance of surviving on their own. If that's your criteria, then would you be satisfied if abortion was restricted to fetuses before they have any chance of surviving on their own? Not because they are an incovienence or bother. A gross misrepresentation of most women's difficult decision. An unborn child is almost certainly going to live and become a member of society. Do you know the percentage of fetuses that are spontaneously aborted during pregnancy?

11-01-2002, 12:08 PM	#135
Pseudonymph Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 813	Clutch...my last comment was not intended at you directly. I apologize. I will respond to your and mageths posts in as timely a manner as possible...but right now there is much work to do here at my job. I will respond as soon as possible.

11-01-2002, 12:32 PM	#137
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	...and also this: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by GeoTheo: Are you saying since personhood is hard to define then it is Ok to kill others? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, and no. I'm not saying personhood is hard to define; I'm questioning the relevance and utility of framing the abortion debate this way in the first place. What does the defintion of "person" have to do with the abortion debate? I've never said it was okay to kill "others," but I still wonder how you condone the killing of spermatocytes but not fertilized ova? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to your second point the justification for abortion when it threatens the mother is self defense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abortion is a 'defense' of the maternal self. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am being consistent here. People have a right to respond with deadly force if it is the only way to preserve their own lives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following this logic, what right other than self-preservation is there to kill a sperm? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then yopu say my definition of a person is arbitrary. I am not aware I gave a definition. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You did, to some degree: you claim a priori a fetus is a person. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As far as the personhood of gametes. I disagree. A sperm is not a person. It does not have the qualities that babies in and outside the womb have in common. It is a portion of a persons body therefore it is a part of a person and cannot enjoy individual status as a person. The same cannot be said of a fetus in the womb. It is a distinct entity from the mother and not just a part of her body. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None of the qualities you listed here apply anymore to a zygote than a gamete. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You don't seem to object to it being called a parasite. So I don't think you really disagree that a baby is a seperate entity than the mother. You have no justification for saying a fetus is not a person. It is just convenient to do so for your pro-life stance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You probably meant my "pro -choice" stance. The same is true of you; you have no justification for saying a sperm is not a person, but it is just convenient to do so for your pro-life stance. Rick

11-01-2002, 01:12 PM	#139
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	...and speaking of inane one-liners... And quite ironic to boot. Her rights end where another's rights begin, indeed.

11-01-2002, 01:29 PM	#140
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	I think that SirenSpeak is correct to claim that privacy has nothing to do with it. (That Roe v Wade was justified in those terms does not make it reasonable; if anything it makes the decision fragile.) If fetuses are persons, privacy is irrelevant; there is no general right to kill persons in the privacy of your own home. The question is whether they are persons. And, perhaps, whether their being persons would provide a morally sufficient reason for a woman to lose legal control of her womb during pregnancy. Neither of these are privacy issues; the latter has more to do with whether there are morally sufficient reasons for forcing someone to give up a kidney to save another person (to use JJ Thomson's famous example).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.