I see how you switched terms from "humans", which you first used, because you realized your mistake. And now you have inserted "person" as that doesn't then run afoul of your own statement.
I see an acorn as oak, and the fertilized egg as human. You are the one arguing for a personhood distinction now instead of humans having bodily autonomy. So what makes a person?
Peter, when God told him in vision to eat unclean meat, objected and did not do so, because the law commanded him not to do so. And so if he told me I could do these things (a better hypothetical might be if He commanded me to do them), I would ask questions. He eventually clarified to Peter, though not quite as simply as Peter would have probably preferred. Ultimately if God says I could do something, then I could.
In the same way gentiles were not required to be circumcised by the Acts 15 council, and while this was a problem to some in the church, it was still said to be a decision of the Holy Spirit, and so was correct.
How you take that passage to mean that you don't have the right to not be murdered in your sleep by your neighbour who wants your TV is beyond me.
I take your earlier posts as surrender on this point, and you are not a subjective moralist.
I never said anything about wanting the last word. You have me confused with another member.
Since you won’t confirm your view, I will assume that my understanding is clear. You made a moral distinction that it’s wrong to push morality on another person. Yet, you want to push this moral position on me. This is unsustainable.
If there's a person who wishes to give up such rights, then I'll accept it.
But it's safe to say that most people want to decide what happens to their own body.
Ah, so since it's got Human DNA, the argument is valid. But if it's got canine DNA, then the argument is invalid because... reasons.
There is no single point in time. It's a gradual transition. It's like asking what time does it stop being daytime and start being night time.
Quibbling about wordplay is a sure sign that someone can't actually address the argument.
So if I crush an acorn under my heel, will you tell people that I destroyed an oak tree?
So is this a yes you would go out and murder/steal/etc, or is it a no?
I can’t determine if you just don’t understand the argument, or you do understand and are just avoiding the consequences. When you neglect to address my point, it’s kinda murky.If you want to push your moral position on others, go right ahead. But don't be surprised when the person you are pushing your moral position onto tells you to leave in some rather rude language.
If you insist on deciding what I am saying rather than listening to what I have to say for myself, there is no point in having a discussion with you.
I can’t determine if you just don’t understand the argument, or you do understand and are just avoiding the consequences. When you neglect to address my point, it’s kinda murky.
Great.
But you still haven't built the argument for why everyone has bodily autonomy in the first place. And again you reduce everything to "want".
Do you ever have a moral principle that goes against what you might want?
I would think that includes the baby in the womb that pulls back from the pain of an abortion as its limbs are torn from its body.
Yes, a fertilized human egg has human DNA and is human. A canine fertilized egg has canine DNA, and is not human.
So then if you base bodily autonomy on personhood, shouldn't you then be protecting it all along so as to not violate your principles through misperception?
I assume you have some time that is definitely including personhood. Is it for instance the time of completed brain development, in the 20's or is it some time earlier?
So we may murder anyone, say, less than 25 years old?It is not a tomato. It is not a fish. It is person in development.
So we may murder anyone, say, less than 25 years old?
Maturation of the adolescent brain
The development and maturation of the prefrontal cortex occurs primarily during adolescence and is fully accomplished at the age of 25 years.
Where would we be without it? Without the right to bodily autonomy, someone else would be able to force you to do whatever they wanted without regards to your own desires. That's called slavery. Do you think that's a good idea?
Yeah. Quite a few times I've wanted to punch someone in the face, or tell them to go away in very rude language, but I have not done so.
Reconsidering fetal painOkay then, let's go with that.
In order to feel pain, the fetus (and don't even think about quibbling over the fact that I said fetus instead of person, human, baby, or whatever other word you want to use) requires a developed central nervous system. The clinical evidence indicates that a fetus can't feel pain until about 23 weeks post gestation.
"Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks." SOURCE
At this point, I will point out that nearly 99% of abortions take place before 14 weeks gestation. SOURCE
Yes, a fertilized human egg has human DNA and is human. A canine fertilized egg has canine DNA, and is not human.
So why the difference? Why is your argument valid for Humans but not for dogs?
That's like saying, "If there's no point in time when it stops being daytime and starts being nighttime, shouldn't we just always take it to be nighttime, even when the sun is out?"
You seem to think that irresponsible sex is any sex that is not done with the intention of producing a child.
Depends.
Why didn't you?
I would think that includes the baby in the womb that pulls back from the pain of an abortion as its limbs are torn from its body.
Reconsidering fetal pain
This discusses more recent data calling into question the necessity of the cortex for pain experience. They have a fairly restrictive copyright usage, so I won't quote from it here, but you can read the details.
That still would bring us to around the 14 weeks you reference below.
So would you then oppose any abortion after 14 weeks on the basis of potential pain experience?
You asked this before and I do not know what argument you are referring to.
a human fertilized egg is human.
a canine fertilzed egg is canine.
You haven't mentioned extending bodily autonomy to canines. But you did to humans, before changing it to persons. I was noting that if humans have bodily autonomy, that would then include the fertilized egg, as it is human, alive, and has its own unique DNA.
I think canines are living, have their own DNA. But I don't extend bodily autonomy to them.
Whether you think it is night time or daytime in a dusk scenario for instance is not a moral consideration. If you posit that people have bodily autonomy once they are persons then determining when that happens becomes important to moral considerations under that scheme.
Irresponsible sex is rejecting the results of your own choices and then exterminating the life that came from those choices.
If a fertile man and a fertile woman are having sex there is the possibility of life. And by engaging in sex, with protection or not, they are accepting that possibility.
I noted earlier the example of a man being responsible for child support. Now you note that all persons have bodily autonomy.
So should the man have to give a portion of his labor for 18 years if he doesn't want to? The law usually says yes. Because he made his choice when he had sex.
Other than cases of rape, the woman also made her choice when engaging in sex.
So you've criticised me for being inconsistent, yet you respond like this.
The source I provided specifically addresses this: "Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks."
You are excused. I did not stipulate the absolute truth of your source either.Excuse me, the source I provided indicates that pain experience doesn't occur until about 29 or 30 weeks. And I don't remember agreeing to discard my source and take yours as gospel truth.
So if I want to treat my dogs like garbage, beat them, starve them, make them work hard, etc, you wouldn't have a problem with it?
It's irrelevant whether it's a moral situation or not.
The fact that it's a situation where the transition from one state to another is vaguely defined is the issue at stake here.
As I said before, perhaps all women should stop having sex with men. After all, we can have sex with other women with no chance of pregnancy.
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?