Difficult abortion thought experiments

selfinflikted · Mar 16, 2012

abc123xyz said:
And? Actually, I edited that bit BEFORE you answered. You just didn't check. I also kept editing it afterwards. The answer was already there, however.

Who cares. You edited it while I was responding to your other post. No point in arguing about that now. I'm just glad you stepped up to the plate, sort of.

abc123xyz said:
I didn't mean it in a scientific term.

Then it's going to be difficult to continue a dialog if we cannot agree on the terms used. You are using human and person interchangeably and again, those terms are not the same scientifically, legally, or otherwise.

abc123xyz said:
I clearly said this goes into metaphysics and such, what we mean exactly by human.

Perhaps we should stray from the metaphysical, then.

abc123xyz said:
There's a difference between human and a dead human.

This is where we would insert a "Well, duh!".

abc123xyz said:
The dead human is what REMAINS of a human.

No, the dead human is what remains of a person.

abc123xyz said:
It's not an actual human.

It is an actual human, just not living and certainly not a person.

abc123xyz said:
It's merely the matter that made up the human.

It's merely the human matter that made up the person.

abc123xyz said:
Nonsense simply because you disagree. Nice. Very philosophical of you. Protections means a right, you can't give rights to non-persons.

Protections doesn't mean rights, necessarily. Wildlife refuges are "protected" sites, but that does not mean that the land has "rights."

abc123xyz said:
All ethics are based on emotions as without emotions we'd have no values. Rationally speaking, you can't justify morality without appealing to how we value certain things. We FEEL death is wrong. There is no mathematical calculation for it. I always find it so funny when "rationalists" come here and tell us the rational basis for morality. Maybe moral rules can be decided upon using reason, yet the initial motivation to preserve life, preserve ourselves, help one another... That's based on emotion.

I can think of quite a few decided "morals" that are only based on emotion that are unequivocally immoral. So no, not all morals are, nor should they be, based in emotion.

abc123xyz said:
Also, stop using those petty smileys. It really makes you look childish.

Forgive that I don't acquiesce as I've never been one to care much what others think of me. I have much more entertaining things to think about.

Paradoxum · Mar 16, 2012

abc123xyz said:
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).

I talk on here because I find it interesting. Though I wasn't going to argue against the pro-choice position, I do sometimes give points against my own position just for the sake of interest. I believe discussion are argument equips one with better discussion and debate skills and arguments.

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

Since you keep saying you don't want to talk about this, it will suffice to say I disagree and have reasons to disagree.

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. Also, how can you make an "intelligent" choice if there's no information by which to decide objectively when to abort or not? It's merely arbitrary. The brain continues to develop well after birth anyway.

Perhaps intelligent is the wrong word, but what I mean is that one must make a practical decision about when to draw the line. The line will be somewhat arbitrary, but a line must be drawn.

Your definition of personhood is arbitrary as that is a fuzzy concept which has changed from time period to time period and culture to culture:

My definition is fuzzy because I haven't finished thinking about how to define it. Also I didn't write much about it to explain my position.

A person (plural: persons or people; from Latin: persona, meaning "mask") is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, the precise definition of which is the subject of much controversy.
In ancient Rome, the word "persona" (Latin) or "prosopon" (πρόσωπον: Greek) originally referred to the masks worn by actors on stage. The various masks represented the various "personae" in the stage play, while the masks themselves helped the actor's voice resonate and made it easier for the audience to hear.[1] In Roman law, the word "persona" became used to refer to a role played in court, and it became established that it was the role rather than the actor that could have rights, powers, and duties, because different individuals could assume the same roles, the rights, powers, and duties followed the role rather than the actor, and each individual could act in more than one role, each a different "person" in law.
The concept of a "person" was further developed during the Trinitarian and Christological debates of the first through sixth centuries. Since then, a number of important changes to the word's meaning and use have taken place, and attempts have been made to redefine the word with varying degrees of adoption and influence. Many modern speakers of colloquial English conflate the meanings of role and actor, which can result in some confusion when they try to enter into legal discourse."

The history of a word is rather irrelevant to how it is currently being used, or how it should be used in more technical discussions.

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.

You seem to be filled with anger... I mean no offence against you. I was being nice and then you were mean to me

Difficult abortion thought experiments

selfinflikted

Under Deck

More options

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

More options

Similar threads

Difficult abortion thought experiments

selfinflikted

Under Deck

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency