raphael_aa
Wild eyed liberal
:æ: said:
That's a very interesting point which I must admit I have never thought of.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
:æ: said:Lastly, the doctor (and you, I presume) seek to endow the zygote with greater rights than persons actually enjoy -- namely, the right to enslave the body of another person and inject it with hormones against her consent. No person enjoys that right, and every person enjoys the right to liberate themselves from such a violation with at least the minimum force necessary, which in this case only includes abortion.
:æ:
No it not a misrepresentation. The State pays for poor people to abort their children.:æ: said:Since abortion is an elective procedure, your statement is an obvious misrepresentation.
:æ:
:æ: said:Lastly, the doctor (and you, I presume) seek to endow the zygote with greater rights than persons actually enjoy -- namely, the right to enslave the body of another person and inject it with hormones against her consent. No person enjoys that right, and every person enjoys the right to liberate themselves from such a violation with at least the minimum force necessary, which in this case only includes abortion.
:æ:
Nice rationalization or euphamism. But I think we should be honest about the subject.MeetingPeopleIsEasy said:I dont see it as "elimination of children." I see it as eliminating cells that have the potential to become a living being.
In reality, the state offers aid to poor people to pay for their medical needs, and this includes abortion. It is not that the state campaigns for the elimination of poor people's children as it seemed to me you insinuated with your statement.DrFate said:No it not a misrepresentation. The State pays for poor people to abort their children.
:æ: said:Do you have any original thoughts? Or do you simply parrot the words of other that you think qualify as some type of authority on the matter?
Better to steal from Montgomery than to formulate your damning hypotheses.
Do you know what the fallacy of Argument by Authority is?
Is fallacy the only option?
His argument suffers several fallacies. The first is the fallacy of the beard. Despite the fact that life forms a continuum from non-personhood to personhood, that doesn't mean that we can't state with sufficiently high confidence that before a certain point the embryo or fetus is not a person.
So where is that point?
The second follows from this when he insists a zygote be alotted personhood based on its potential to become a person. Rights are not allocated based on potentialities, but rather realities. Children are not given the right to vote despite their potential to become 18 years of age, just as an example.
Sorry for all the parrot-talk but...
"In most legal systems, legal personality begins at live birth. however, there are several important exceptions to this general rule, such as the law of property which grants to a fetus yet unborn a conditional legal personality. That is to say, if a fetus is subsequently born alive it may immediately receive a legacy, obtain an injunction, have aguardian, or even be an executor, even though it was, at the critical moment, en ventre sa mere.
Moreover, according to a steadily growing number of recent cases in the area of tort law, a fetus can maintain an action for the death of a parent while it is still utero...Moreover, as of early 1965 eight American courts when dealing with cases in tort law followed a biological approach and now hold that life begins at conception, thereby according legal personality to the zygote ("The Unborn Plaintiff," Michigan Law Review)."
S. Innocents 70-71
Do I need to mention Conner Peterson?
Even so, its inherent potentiality to become a person is disputable. Without the use of the mothers womb and the nutrients from her blood, it doesn't have the potential to become a person. Persons, in ordinary language, are not only conscious and self-aware, but also metabolically autonomous. Neither a zygote, an embryo, nor a fetus feature metabolic autonomy.
Do you not see whom you have also eliminated with this assertion?
Lastly, the doctor (and you, I presume) seek to endow the zygote with greater rights than persons actually enjoy -- namely, the right to enslave the body of another person and inject it with hormones against her consent. No person enjoys that right, and every person enjoys the right to liberate themselves from such a violation with at least the minimum force necessary, which in this case only includes abortion.
Not only is this lunacy...this is probably the sickest example of Narcissism I have heard!
A nitpick: my statement doesn't quite "beg the question," but rather it simply raises your question. "Begging the question" is a type of logical fallacy which I did not employ.Crazy Liz said:This point begs an interesting question: With continuing advances in reproductive technology, "liberating oneself with the minimum force necessary" might not, at some point in the future, only include abortion. If a procedure could be developed to terminate a pregnancy without killing the fetus, could women and/or doctors be required to employ such a procedure, instead of abortion?
Insinuated? Stated! If you pay for something you will see more of it. It is a matter of economic policy. Aborted children are cheaper than dependent citizens or Subjects. Personally, I do not think people, like Roman Catholics, who oppose abortion on dire moral grounds should pay taxes for abortions. But then, I do not think Quakers should have to pay taxes for War either.:æ: said:In reality, the state offers aid to poor people to pay for their medical needs, and this includes abortion. It is not that the state campaigns for the elimination of poor people's children as it seemed to me you insinuated with your statement.
:æ:
Where he claims, "Personhood escapes all such definitional attempts, and the reason appears to be that personality is a transcendent affair: the subjective "I" can never be totally objectified without destroying it."ChiRho said:So where is that point?
What do you think this establishes other than the fact that only mothers have the right to decide to terminate their pregnancies?Sorry for all the parrot-talk but...
"In most legal systems, legal personality begins at live birth. however, there are several important exceptions to this general rule, such as the law of property which grants to a fetus yet unborn a conditional legal personality. That is to say, if a fetus is subsequently born alive it may immediately receive a legacy, obtain an injunction, have aguardian, or even be an executor, even though it was, at the critical moment, en ventre sa mere.
Moreover, according to a steadily growing number of recent cases in the area of tort law, a fetus can maintain an action for the death of a parent while it is still utero...Moreover, as of early 1965 eight American courts when dealing with cases in tort law followed a biological approach and now hold that life begins at conception, thereby according legal personality to the zygote ("The Unborn Plaintiff," Michigan Law Review)."
S. Innocents 70-71
Do I need to mention Conner Peterson?
I haven't eliminated anyone. Rather, I suspect you've only given my statements cursory thought, and in searching for a rebuttal failed to realize that I did not stipulate metabolic autonomy as the sole criterion for personhood, but rather as part of a set of necessary criteria.Do you not see whom you have also eliminated with this assertion?
Your lack of a rational rebuttal is noted.Not only is this lunacy...this is probably the sickest example of Narcissism I have heard!
The consequence of funding abortions for qualified individuals does not establish an evidential goal of the state to see more abortions happening, your paranoid fantasies notwithstanding.DrFate said:Insinuated? Stated! If you pay for something you will see more of it. It is a matter of economic policy. Aborted children are cheaper than dependent citizens or Subjects.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts, however.Personally, I do not think people, like Roman Catholics, who oppose abortion on dire moral grounds should pay taxes for abortions. But then, I do not think Quakers should have to pay taxes for War either.
By "necessary criteria," do you mean a set of criteria, each of which is essential - sine qua non? If metabolic autonomy is a necessary criterion of personhood, then I think Chi Rho has a point. You appear to have defined individuals dependent, for example, on intravenous feeding, as non-persons. Is this what you intended?:æ: said:I haven't eliminated anyone. Rather, I suspect you've only given my statements cursory thought, and in searching for a rebuttal failed to realize that I did not stipulate metabolic autonomy as the sole criterion for personhood, but rather as part of a set of necessary criteria.
I don't think that requiring intravenous feeding is incompatible with metabolic autonomy, and neither would individuals like Christopher Reeve be incompatible with it. The point is that persons do not depend directly upon the metabolism of another person when they are metabolically autonomous. They are reasonably considered a "self-contained system," if you will, even if that system requires additional mechanical assistance.Crazy Liz said:By "necessary criteria," do you mean a set of criteria, each of which is essential - sine qua non? If metabolic autonomy is a necessary criterion of personhood, then I think Chi Rho has a point. You appear to have defined individuals dependent, for example, on intravenous feeding, as non-persons. Is this what you intended?
:æ: said:I don't think that requiring intravenous feeding is incompatible with metabolic autonomy, and neither would individuals like Christopher Reeve be incompatible with it. The point is that persons do not depend directly upon the metabolism of another person when they are metabolically autonomous. They are reasonably considered a "self-contained system," if you will, even if that system requires additional mechanical assistance.
:æ:
Again, your lack of a rational rebuttal is noted.ChiRho said:! Nice try!
No need to respond to error that evident!:æ: said:Again, your lack of a rational rebuttal is noted.
Par for the course, I guess.
:æ:
It seems more like you don't have a response, and are simply only capable of this weak posturing of yours.ChiRho said:No need to respond to error that evident!
If you think that this follows "according to my logic," you should probably take a remedial course in the english language.I have an idea...next time you drive to a gas station that clearly states "Self-Serve," just wait there for someone else to pump your gas. Just wait there...according to your logic, there is a chance that the station still employees people to provide this service!
:æ: said:It seems more like you don't have a response, and are simply only capable of this weak posturing of yours.
If you think that this follows "according to my logic," you should probably take a remedial course in the english language.
:æ:
They are reasonably considered a "self-contained system," if you will, even if that system requires additional mechanical assistance.
What's to explain?ChiRho said:Gonna need some explainin, buddha!
I probably do have paranoid fantasies but not about the consequenses of economic policy or abotion.:æ: said:The consequence of funding abortions for qualified individuals does not establish an evidential goal of the state to see more abortions happening, your paranoid fantasies notwithstanding.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts, however.
:æ:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?