I don't think this thread is going anywhere. How's your day, skaloop? Do y'all do St. Patrick's day in Canada?
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.
Personally, I don't really care when personhood is attained; it would not change my views on abortion.
Quick question; do dead humans have personhood?
I don't think this thread is going anywhere. How's your day, skaloop? Do y'all do St. Patrick's day in Canada?
So you're either a child pretending to be a middle aged adult or just making a silly little attempt at humor. I'm not going to bother with this.
Though an argument could be made to give them some rights, and thus personhood so as to not desecrate their bodies. Some belief systems allow for that.
I don't think this thread is going anywhere. How's your day, skaloop? Do y'all do St. Patrick's day in Canada?
Of course. Gonna be hitting the pub tomorrow night with friends. If we can get in, of course; those places fill up fast for St. Paddy's Day, even on weeknights. That it's a Saturday this year probably means it will be a madhouse. We've got some fall-back options.
Hello to all,
Since this forum is open, anyone, whether against abortion or not, can answer. You can't control that.So this shall be my first post on this forum. I want to start off by saying these questions are meant for fellow Christians mainly, but anyone against abortion can answer.
It actually is not two questions. If you take the question, "What is a red dwarf?" and divide it up into "What does it mean to be red?" and "What is a dwarf?" the original question will remain forever an unanswered mystery.Mr. Egnor has asked me a single question: What is a human embryo? Now, I must stop there because this is really two questions. The first is "What is an embryo?" I hope we can safely set aside the question of what an embryo is. Let's say a group of two or more dividing cells that, in placental mammals, is between the zygotic and fetal stages.
So here the author is supposing that since he doesn't know why Mr. Egnor asked the question he did ask, he will disregard that question and simply answer a question that the author would prefer to answer.I don't believe it is the question Mr. Egnor wants answered though. That means there is something about that dangling modifier "human". That would make the second question "What is a human?" Now, perhaps I am wrong, but I believe this is the key question Mr. Egnor wants answered. If that is the question to be answered, why not simply ask that question outright? Only Mr. Egnor knows why.
Well, duh. Of course, that was not the question asked, but it is leading, circuitously, to the question the author really wants to answer. Does anyone else feel manipulated?So let me try rephrasing the question to better capture what I believe is being asked. "Is an embryo human?" That, is better, but I'm fairly certain that embryos associated with other animals aren't to be included, only those embryos undergoing gestation in an adult female of the species Homo sapien, commonly referred to as human. So lets use the word human in its common form to distinguish what class of embryos we are discussing. "Is a human embryo human?"
Well, this can't be right.
Here is where he dramatically shifts the goal posts, first by stating the the question is trying to prove something rather than be a real question, then by introducing the new concept of "fully human" rather than just "human".Instead of trying to prove the unborn is fully human, such a question simply assumes the proof is true.
Yes, indeedy. That is also more than a bit disingenuous as to intentional as this is the author's doing and not the original question. Kudos to the author for correctly identifying the fallacy that permeates his entire argument. All too many people think that "begging the question" means "the argument leads to a new question" rather than "the question assumes the answer".This logical fallacy is called, of course, "begging the question". I'm sure such an outcome was unintentional. Now, some will say that I have significantly altered the question.
Why should we believe the original question isn't the one that is really being asked? We do realize it isn't the one that is going to be answered here.I disagree based on the potential answers offered (especially answer 5) and think that I have clarified the question to better get at what is really being asked.
What?If I offended anyone in doing so, I apologize.
Not to the original question, but to the one the author wants to answer.Perhaps it is better to move on and look at the possible answers.
You can already see from his peculiar definitions how he will argue.<snip for brevity> So to clarify the present definitions:
Homo sapien - an individual, from the moment of fertilization on, with genomic content common to the hairless, social great ape originating on the planet Earth and endowed with certain rights by virtue of being a member of said species (2)
Human - see Homo sapien
Person(3) - see Human
Says who? Are not the sperm and ova alive already? He seems to go on to argue that a twin and a clone are not alive which is nonsense.<snipped for brevity>
Since life begins at fertilization ...
Help you what? Your goal is not clear.Thank you to all who wish to help.
Oh, I think you will.
What part were you addressing with that initial statement, anyway? The part about personhood not having a bearing on my views on abortion, or the part where I asked you a question?
I never said anything about rights or belief systems. I just asked if a dead human is a person. Some belief systems may allow for it, but most do not consider a dead human to be a person. Even when granted protections from desecration, a dead human still isn't a person; it's a dead human with certain protections. The fact that a dead human is generally not considered a person shows that equating human to person is faulty, and thus the whole "Homo sapiens = human = person" argument is faulty. Hence, incorrect, as I noted in my first response. And since whether it were correct or incorrect has no bearing on my views on abortion, I am not pointing out how it is incorrect just because it disagrees with my belief system, as you mistakenly asserted.
Is it better to dismiss what you fail see or to discuss it until you can see?While I appreciate the fact that you took the time to reply I clearly stated at the beginning that I don't require you to do so as it is not only a waste of my time, but also yours (I fail to see why you'd care about a post that attempts to define what a human is specifically for the purposes of going against pro-choice beliefs).
Oh, that is certainly not the only rational belief - I don't know that anyone actually believes it at all. It's more of a combo devil's advocate and straw man.Besides, the only rational belief for a pro-choice person is this one http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/ and After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics
Do you understand the concept of not being able to determine a single point in time in a gradual process and being able to say approximately?You also contradict yourself as you first state there is no point in time when a fetus becomes a person then you also state we can make an "intelligent" decision even though according to you there is no point in time when this happens.
That's rude. I thought her points were interesting as yours.Now stop wasting both of our time with this because you clearly didn't take the time to read what I asked. This is not meant to be a discussion about abortion itself.
I don't care what you believe. You shouldn't even care if I care. My opinion shouldn't matter to you, you need not justify anything to me.
What is the point of discussing then?
Is it better to dismiss what you fail see or to discuss it until you can see?
Oh, that is certainly not the only rational belief - I don't know that anyone actually believes it at all. It's more of a combo devil's advocate and straw man.
Do you understand the concept of not being able to determine a single point in time in a gradual process and being able to say approximately?
That's rude. I thought her points were interesting as yours.
Since this forum is open, anyone, whether against abortion or not, can answer. You can't control that.
It actually is not two questions. If you take the question, "What is a red dwarf?" and divide it up into "What does it mean to be red?" and "What is a dwarf?" the original question will remain forever an unanswered mystery.
So here the author is supposing that since he doesn't know why Mr. Egnor asked the question he did ask, he will disregard that question and simply answer a question that the author would prefer to answer.
This does not bode well for a good discussion.
Well, duh. Of course, that was not the question asked, but it is leading, circuitously, to the question the author really wants to answer. Does anyone else feel manipulated?
Here is where he dramatically shifts the goal posts, first by stating the the question is trying to prove something rather than be a real question, then by introducing the new concept of "fully human" rather than just "human".
Yes, indeedy. That is also more than a bit disingenuous as to intentional as this is the author's doing and not the original question. Kudos to the author for correctly identifying the fallacy that permeates his entire argument. All too many people think that "begging the question" means "the argument leads to a new question" rather than "the question assumes the answer".
Why should we believe the original question isn't the one that is really being asked? We do realize it isn't the one that is going to be answered here.
What?
Not to the original question, but to the one the author wants to answer.
You can already see from his peculiar definitions how he will argue.
Says who? Are not the sperm and ova alive already? He seems to go on to argue that a twin and a clone are not alive which is nonsense.
Help you what? Your goal is not clear.
Since this forum is open, anyone, whether against abortion or not, can answer. You can't control that.
It actually is not two questions. If you take the question, "What is a red dwarf?" and divide it up into "What does it mean to be red?" and "What is a dwarf?" the original question will remain forever an unanswered mystery.
So here the author is supposing that since he doesn't know why Mr. Egnor asked the question he did ask, he will disregard that question and simply answer a question that the author would prefer to answer.
This does not bode well for a good discussion.
Well, duh. Of course, that was not the question asked, but it is leading, circuitously, to the question the author really wants to answer. Does anyone else feel manipulated?
Here is where he dramatically shifts the goal posts, first by stating the the question is trying to prove something rather than be a real question, then by introducing the new concept of "fully human" rather than just "human".
Yes, indeedy. That is also more than a bit disingenuous as to intentional as this is the author's doing and not the original question. Kudos to the author for correctly identifying the fallacy that permeates his entire argument. All too many people think that "begging the question" means "the argument leads to a new question" rather than "the question assumes the answer".
Why should we believe the original question isn't the one that is really being asked? We do realize it isn't the one that is going to be answered here.
What?
Not to the original question, but to the one the author wants to answer.
You can already see from his peculiar definitions how he will argue.
Says who? Are not the sperm and ova alive already? He seems to go on to argue that a twin and a clone are not alive which is nonsense.
Help you what? Your goal is not clear.
abc123xyz said:She didn't answer what I wanted answered. So I dismiss it. I don't care if it's rude. She didn't take the time to answer my question and simply went ahead for the topics that stir up emotions in everyone and never get resolved. She clearly didn't care about answering my question.
There has to be an objective time when personhood is to be given, whether gradually or all of a sudden. Just because we can't yet identify that point doesn't mean it's not possible. Here I am arguing on behalf of pro-choice. Nice.
It's a logical conclusion to say if a fetus isn't a person in the womb, then it's also not a person outside the womb. We kill because it's not a person. How would birth change anything regarding personhood and whatever criteria are given for personhood?
If I were pro choice I would not only believe that, but also in involuntary euthanasia, and anything else that is related. I see nothing wrong with it once you allow for one to be killed off. After all, it's all about what meets a certain definition of personhood.
This means giving more rights to adult chimps than a handicapped infant. It's all about the degree of consciousness and abilities, as that is what personism would imply. If pro-choicers don't agree, perhaps they should read Peter Singer's philosophy a bit more.
No, abortion is about getting rid of unwanted humans, whether persons or not. If the mother has the right to decide when to do so, as it is not a person, then how is it really any different if you do so after birth, when the criteria for personhood isn't met? It's about getting rid of something that's unwanted, whether through killing or not. Abort means terminate, by the way.Abortion isn't about killing anything; that is incidental. Abortion is about removing the fetus. Unfortunately, modern medicine does not provide a method of keeping said fetus alive outside the womb, so death occurs. But death is not the primary intent the way it is in the other things you mention. So your weak attempt to equate abortion with killing a newborn or euthanizing someone against their will has no basis in reality.
No, abortion is about getting rid of unwanted humans, whether persons or not.
Wrong. It is about getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that a fetus is destroyed is completely incidental.
Further, I would like to hear you answer Skaloop's question. Are dead humans persons?
No, abortion is about getting rid of unwanted humans, whether persons or not.
If the mother has the right to decide when to do so, as it is not a person, then how is it really any different if you do so after birth, when the criteria for personhood isn't met?
It's about getting rid of something that's unwanted, whether through killing or not. Abort means terminate, by the way.
Since it doesn't matter how you do it, because the rights of the mother are more important than the rights of a fetus, it doesn't matter how you do it. It's about getting rid of the baby, which isn't given personhood status. If a mother feels more sad by yearning to have the baby back after adoption, her rights would be more important than that of a fetus who doesn't have personhood rights. It's about satisfying the mother (and father) by terminating the baby.
The same goes for euthanasia. Since the criteria for personhood isn't met in all humans,
even if they are adults, euthanasia is also about getting rid of non-human persons. That's why abortion is allowed. Because they're not a "person" according to a particular definition of that term. It's about persons not having to suffer by being burdened by non-persons. When it's involuntary, that is. I'm not talking about voluntary euthanasia.
Again, people who don't meet the criteria for "personhood", their will doesn't matter, since the will of persons matters more. Persons have rights. That's what abortion relies on. Personism.
You're just not willing to take it all the way, that's all. I actually have more respect (if you can call it that) for people like Peter Singer than pro choice people against involuntary euthanasia and after birth abortion. At least they're being honest not just with everyone else, but also with themselves.
I already answered it. It depends by belief system.
Not wrong at all. Abortion is about getting rid of a burden, a non person burdening a person. It's about deciding who gets to live up to their POTENTIAL for personhood and who doesn't.
You fail to see the big picture.
The difference between a fetus and an adult human is supposedly whatever criteria for personhood is met or not being met.
The reason for aborting is because it's a burden, or unwanted, to keep a non-person alive. The same reasoning thus can apply to infants and anyone else who doesn't meet personhood criteria. Perhaps the parents don't want to deal with having that infant live anymore all of a sudden. It's still not a person. It's still a burden on the parents.
Abortion is about ending a pregnancy.
Who says the criteria for personhood is not met after birth? Anyway, the difference is that there is no other way to keep a fetus alive, other than in its mother's womb. If she doesn't want it there, there are no other options. After birth, a baby can be taken care of by any number of other possible people, so if the mother doesn't want it, there are options.
Yes, it does mean that. Terminate as in "to end". Abortion ends (terminates) a pregnancy. The word terminate doesn't inherently have anything to do with killing.
Terminating the pregnancy. Like I said, the death of the fetus is incidental to that.
Says who?
And again, the difference between the burdens is that one burden can be taken on by someone else, so euthanasia is not the only option for removing the unwanted burden, while the other burden requires the mother's involvement and cannot be shouldered by anyone or anything else.
False. I don't care if one considers a fetus to be fully and completely a person with personhood. Abortion would then be about the rights of one person outweighing the rights of another person.
I don't take it all the way because there are too many steps missing in going from "a fetus is not a person" to "a newborn or old/diseased human is not a person."
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?