Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 02-12-2020, 05:25 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Mind you, I personally think that fetal viability (or some arbitrary timespan approximating it reasonably well, since there's no one-size-fits-all rule for determining exactly when a fetus is viable) is a reasonable and sensible place to draw the line for assigning full human personhood to a fetus. But it's not an objective approach to determining personhood. Because, as I said, there isn't one.
Actually that is an objective way of determining personhood, so long as your rules for determining/approximating fetal viability are reproducible and universally applicable. Something doesn't have to be universally liked to be objective, it just has to not vary based on the status of the observer. And the rule "You're a person once you hit fifteen months and not a moment earlier" does not vary based on perspective or opinion.

And for the record, depending on how accurate I believe the estimate to be, I too would consider fetal viability to be a reasonable cut-off point for elective abortions. (Medically necessary ones are another matter, of course.)
  #252  
Old 02-12-2020, 05:59 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
You ask any pro-life person whose rights are greater, the mother or the fetus, and I guarantee you they will answer "the fetus." Or "the baby."

I do wish every woman considering abortion would let the child be adopted by a homosexual couple. It would certainly put a stick in the pro-life wheels.
The right to life would seem to trump the right not to be inconvenienced. So it's not a level playing field also consider that it is most often the case that the willing act of the mother put her and the new person in that condition.
  #253  
Old 02-12-2020, 06:09 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
The right to life would seem to trump the right not to be inconvenienced. So it's not a level playing field also consider that it is most often the case that the willing act of the mother put her and the new person in that condition.
A person's right to life would seem to trump the right not to be inconvenienced. If we're not talking about an actual person all bets are off - a cow's right to life doesn't trump the inconvenience of me not having a hamburger.
  #254  
Old 02-12-2020, 07:01 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Actually that is an objective way of determining personhood
Nope. What it is is an objective way of assessing personhood status of an individual if you're already arbitrarily decided that rights-bearing personhood = fetal viability.

But there's nothing objective about the original choice to equate those two characteristics or to declare that the latter determines the former.

Last edited by Kimstu; 02-12-2020 at 07:02 PM.
  #255  
Old 02-12-2020, 07:15 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
The right to life would seem to trump the right not to be inconvenienced.
Methinks kanicbird has never been pregnant. I haven't either, but my wife and daughters have and it can be more than an inconvenience. Worth it when the child is wanted, for sure, but not a walk in the park in the rain.

Inconvenient for me, a bit more than inconvenient for them.

Last edited by Voyager; 02-12-2020 at 07:18 PM.
  #256  
Old 02-12-2020, 10:26 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
And for the record, depending on how accurate I believe the estimate to be, I too would consider fetal viability to be a reasonable cut-off point for elective abortions. (Medically necessary ones are another matter, of course.)
Current record for most premature baby was set in 1987 at 21 weeks 5 days gestation. Elective abortion limit in even the most liberal state (Oregon) is 20 weeks. Neat how that works out, innit?
  #257  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:41 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Current record for most premature baby was set in 1987 at 21 weeks 5 days gestation. Elective abortion limit in even the most liberal state (Oregon) is 20 weeks. Neat how that works out, innit?
Is this true? I thought NY passed a law that basically got rid of limits and made it a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.

I think relying on fetal viability for a limit is a mistake -- the lower limit for viability may continue to come down, but those fetuses have serious medical needs and often have many problems that continue later in life. Will the parents be on the hook for caring for a, say, 18 week old fetus that they don't want if the doctors say they think they can get it to survive?

I think Canada's law is the way to go. That is, no abortion law and it's between a mother and her doctor. They seem to be dealing with it just fine. I guess the concern in the US is that our doctors are evil psychopaths who just want to kill children or something -- maybe it's true. Maybe we're special that way.
  #258  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:00 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,459
Pregnancy is not (as the anti-abortion crew describe it) a "temporary inconvenience." It is a major, life altering event. Not every pregnant woman thinks she can raise a child or hand her baby over to two strangers like a sack of potatoes. Yet those are the only two options the anti-abortion people give her.
  #259  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:53 AM
Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,001
Most zealous pro lifers have as the basis of their belief a religious conviction that human life is sacred; that a fetus (and an embryo, for that matter) are human life; and that therefore deliberate termination of a human life is wrong.

If you just want an effective argument for the vast majority of folks who hold such a position, use this one:

You believe there is life after death.
You believe this eternal life is substantially more significant than our temporal existence on earth.
You believe in hell for those who reach an age of accountability.
You believe dead embryos and fetuses do not reach an age of accountability and therefore are not sent to hell.

Abortionists have therefore saved far more souls than did Billy Graham. They have a 100% success rate in delivering a soul into eternal bliss.

According to your paradigm, where exactly is the tragedy for a dead fetus who goes right to heaven without risk of reaching an age of accountablity, at which point he risks eternal damnation?

  #260  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:55 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,459
The anti-abortion people I've spoken to KNOW that the girl having the abortion is going to have to stand before God and be punished for her actions. They don't believe this, they know it with every fiber of their being.

And abortion carries many health risks, including giving men "teh gay." However, the temporary inconvenience of pregnancy carries no risks whatsoever.

Last edited by Annie-Xmas; 02-13-2020 at 10:58 AM.
  #261  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:00 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
A person's right to life would seem to trump the right not to be inconvenienced. .
Pregnancy can be an ecstatic joy; or it can be a life-threatening disaster; or it can be some of both; or it can be somewhere inbetween.

It is not a god damned "inconvenience".
  #262  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:17 PM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,459
Since pregnancy does not happen to men, many see it as an "inconvenience." Like rape, only lasting longer.
  #263  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:51 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 306
Theres an excellent book called Freakonomics, which speculates that the crime rate went down precisely because there weren't as many unwanted children being born, and unwanted children are more likely to end up criminals.(once abortion was legalized)
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone

Last edited by SuntanLotion; 02-13-2020 at 12:51 PM.
  #264  
Old 02-13-2020, 01:50 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Is this true? I thought NY passed a law that basically got rid of limits and made it a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.

I think relying on fetal viability for a limit is a mistake -- the lower limit for viability may continue to come down, but those fetuses have serious medical needs and often have many problems that continue later in life. Will the parents be on the hook for caring for a, say, 18 week old fetus that they don't want if the doctors say they think they can get it to survive?

I think Canada's law is the way to go. That is, no abortion law and it's between a mother and her doctor. They seem to be dealing with it just fine. I guess the concern in the US is that our doctors are evil psychopaths who just want to kill children or something -- maybe it's true. Maybe we're special that way.
Elective abortion has the 20 week limit--medically necessary abortions do not have a limit, as is proper. 20 weeks gives a woman plenty of time to know she's pregnant, make up her mind whether or not to carry to term and take care of business if she's not ready to be a parent. If after 20 weeks it's determined the fetus is nonviable for the host of reasons in the realm of possibility then a therapeutic abortion is required.

Viability is not, as we can see, an endlessly lowered expectation--the current record preemie was born in 1987 so in 33 years of medical advancements we haven't managed to keep any baby born before 21 weeks alive. There's a hard limit to viability--organ development is on a standard schedule and without placental support there's just no way for a preemie baby to manage the trick of growing its bits so until we figure out an artificial placenta--basically, until we develop an artificial womb--it's not gonna happen. And if we figure out an artificial womb then the question might very well become moot because why go through pregnancy if you can test tube up a fetus and bung it into a machine to bake?
  #265  
Old 02-13-2020, 02:13 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Nope. What it is is an objective way of assessing personhood status of an individual if you're already arbitrarily decided that rights-bearing personhood = fetal viability.

But there's nothing objective about the original choice to equate those two characteristics or to declare that the latter determines the former.
Then there's nothing objective about personhood at all, and your entire argument and position is nonsensical. Whether or not something qualifies as a person has always been a matter of arbitrary definition, and if you can't accept that arbitrary definitions can be objective then there is no such thing as objective personhood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Pregnancy can be an ecstatic joy; or it can be a life-threatening disaster; or it can be some of both; or it can be somewhere inbetween.

It is not a god damned "inconvenience".
For the record, I am not the one who came up with that verbiage. I was just carrying it forward because it wasn't the part of his statement I was addressing. One picks their battles, and I picked the other one.
  #266  
Old 02-13-2020, 02:56 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Elective abortion has the 20 week limit--medically necessary abortions do not have a limit, as is proper. 20 weeks gives a woman plenty of time to know she's pregnant, make up her mind whether or not to carry to term and take care of business if she's not ready to be a parent. If after 20 weeks it's determined the fetus is nonviable for the host of reasons in the realm of possibility then a therapeutic abortion is required.
....
Thanks for that clarification on the NY abortion law. Ignorance fought!
  #267  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:15 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
By using the word "life?" If the term was pro-fetal-life I'd have no issues, but life itself is a lot broader term with broader implications. After all, who could be against their life and the life of their loved ones?
So should pro-choice movement rename itself to be pro-abortion-choice? No of course not, we all understand that we are talking about choice in the abortion context. Just as we all understand that pro-life is referring to life in the pregnancy context.

Quote:
But their position is choose life or we'll throw you in jail, right? An organization that advocated for carrying a fetus to term could be consistent with a pro-choice position. (As long as it's done honestly, not through a so-called support center with a hidden agenda.) But they're not satisfied with just trying to convince people, are they?
No, they think it's murder. If you thought it was murder would you be satisfied with the ability to try and convince people not to commit murder or would you make it illegal and throw people in jail?
  #268  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:17 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Oh look, an obviously false statement.

There is not a single pro-choice person who believes that abortion is murder. It's not that they want not to believe it, they simply don't.

The quoted post is a great example of not being able to comprehend positions other than your own. You believe that a fetus dying counts as murder, thus everyone else must believe that too.

That's fair.

Read We're wolves not werewolves's quote and tell me again how you think the pro-lifers aren't accusing their opponents of being pro-murder.
I don't disagree. Pro-lifers certainly seem to consider abortion to be murder.
  #269  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:22 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
You ask any pro-life person whose rights are greater, the mother or the fetus, and I guarantee you they will answer "the fetus." Or "the baby."
They will probably quibble that the right to live is of a different order of magnitude from the right to have an abortion.

Quote:
I do wish every woman considering abortion would let the child be adopted by a homosexual couple. It would certainly put a stick in the pro-life wheels.
I'm not sure why we don't actively market adoption to gay couples. Their divorce rates are about half of what you get with heterosexual couples (at least for now) and domestic violence (at least report4ed domestic violence) seems to be substantially lower. I don't understand how someone would think that orphans are better off in foster care than adopted by a gay couple.
  #270  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:28 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Most zealous pro lifers have as the basis of their belief a religious conviction that human life is sacred; that a fetus (and an embryo, for that matter) are human life; and that therefore deliberate termination of a human life is wrong.

If you just want an effective argument for the vast majority of folks who hold such a position, use this one:

You believe there is life after death.
You believe this eternal life is substantially more significant than our temporal existence on earth.
You believe in hell for those who reach an age of accountability.
You believe dead embryos and fetuses do not reach an age of accountability and therefore are not sent to hell.

Abortionists have therefore saved far more souls than did Billy Graham. They have a 100% success rate in delivering a soul into eternal bliss.

According to your paradigm, where exactly is the tragedy for a dead fetus who goes right to heaven without risk of reaching an age of accountablity, at which point he risks eternal damnation?

Well each of those fetuses could have grown to have a dozen more kids that would go to heaven. You are eating your seed corn. Basic soul farming economics. Duh.
  #271  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:30 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Since pregnancy does not happen to men, many see it as an "inconvenience." Like rape, only lasting longer.
Yeah. Like 18 years longer.
  #272  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:43 PM
Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Well each of those fetuses could have grown to have a dozen more kids that would go to heaven. You are eating your seed corn. Basic soul farming economics. Duh.
My anti-pro-life argument is not to dissuade pro-lifers from getting an abortion themselves.
They will decide that for themselves.

It's to dissuade them from the notion that abortion in general should be proscribed when, in fact, it saves souls net net.
  #273  
Old 02-13-2020, 03:49 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
The anti-abortion people I've spoken to KNOW that the girl having the abortion is going to have to stand before God and be punished for her actions. They don't believe this, they know it with every fiber of their being....
I would say they KNOW they will be judged by God (as we all will). Repentance negates any punishment anyway, and I'd say they just don't believe that, they know that with every fiber of their being. All she has to do it cry out to God about the mistake she made in her life then all is well with her soul. Like anything else it's ultimately between them and their God

Last edited by kanicbird; 02-13-2020 at 03:50 PM.
  #274  
Old 02-13-2020, 04:21 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I don't disagree. Pro-lifers certainly seem to consider abortion to be murder.
Actually they don't. While they will happily call pro-choice people murderers because they like slander and believe that their opponents being muderers justifies literally anything they might want to do, they don't actually believe that abortions are murders. If they did they'd be WAY more outraged over the hundreds of thousands of government-sanctioned murders going on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I don't understand how someone would think that orphans are better off in foster care than adopted by a gay couple.
It's because they think that gay people are sinners and will corrupt the innocent children into sin.
  #275  
Old 02-13-2020, 05:23 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Actually they don't. While they will happily call pro-choice people murderers because they like slander and believe that their opponents being muderers justifies literally anything they might want to do, they don't actually believe that abortions are murders. If they did they'd be WAY more outraged over the hundreds of thousands of government-sanctioned murders going on...
Where do you get this? Many pro-life people take it not only as murder, but murder of the most innocent, which differentiates it from the execution of a God condemned criminal who let the courts send him to Hell for Him. Praised be His name.
  #276  
Old 02-13-2020, 05:31 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Where do you get this? Many pro-life people take it not only as murder, but murder of the most innocent, which differentiates it from the execution of a God condemned criminal who let the courts send him to Hell for Him. Praised be His name.
Because, while there is some murder of abortion doctors and bombing of abortion clinics, the vast majority of anti-choicers do little more than tut. They do not react to persons who have gotten abortions the same way that they react to actual murderers. And of course there are those who get abortions themselves (or demand that their lovers get abortions) when they're suddenly in that situation; you could argue that these sorts of folks would also murder somebody if the situation ever came up, but I don't think that that's how that plays out in reality.
  #277  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:04 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,696
What is a "person"? Can only those in the species H. sapiens sapiens be "persons"? What about all the many other human species, some of which have only been inferred, not discovered? (cite) How far up the evolutionary ladder must one be to gain personhood? Have mandrills souls? Are they "persons"? Do puppies taking their first breaths possess souls? Why or why not?

Why do souls exist? Do they grant an evolutionary advantage? If not, why bother?

Suppose humanoid embryos gain souls at conception. (Not "moment of conception", which doesn't exist.) Vast numbers will not survive gestation and nativity, discarded as miscarriages and stillbirths. They supposedly go to heaven. But they've had no outside existence, no experiences, can't talk, have nothing to say. Heaven thus overflows with mute mindless micro-ghosts. Is that where rational people want to spend eternity?
  #278  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:17 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 20,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... And of course there are those who get abortions themselves (or demand that their lovers get abortions) when they're suddenly in that situation; ...
An abortion is always a bad idea, unless you need one.
  #279  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:20 AM
Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 59,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I'm not sure why we don't actively market adoption to gay couples. Their divorce rates are about half of what you get with heterosexual couples (at least for now) and domestic violence (at least report4ed domestic violence) seems to be substantially lower. I don't understand how someone would think that orphans are better off in foster care than adopted by a gay couple.
The anti-abortion zealots I've talk to believe gay parenting is "child abuse" because children need a mother and a father. If a lesbian gets pregnant by rape, she should be forced to give birth and then forced to either give up her child or her lesbian lifestyle.

It's odd that the group who screams loudest against gay parenting because children need a mother and a father support single mother hood, yet not lesbian motherhood. Of course, the anti-abortion movement is known more for their hypocrisy than their consistency.
  #280  
Old 02-14-2020, 07:52 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So should pro-choice movement rename itself to be pro-abortion-choice? No of course not, we all understand that we are talking about choice in the abortion context. Just as we all understand that pro-life is referring to life in the pregnancy context.
I'd say much of the pro-choice movement is pro-other choice also, like the choice of who to marry. It's the inconsistency that's the issue here.
Quote:
No, they think it's murder. If you thought it was murder would you be satisfied with the ability to try and convince people not to commit murder or would you make it illegal and throw people in jail?
Being rational, I'd want a lot more reason that I or they "think" it's murder. It's murder because they say a fetus is a baby and they say that because they define it to be that way.

I "think" they are fascist scum, but that doesn't mean I should have the right to bash their heads in.
  #281  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:00 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I "think" they are fascist scum, but that doesn't mean I should have the right to bash their heads in.
Wouldn't it be awesome, though, if there was a scientifically validated test for fascist scummery and a social convention that permitted taking an axe-handle or a baseball bat to such people?
  #282  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:21 PM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,187
We humans have a long history of killing people under special circumstances. Generally we look back on these arguments and see them as foolish and self-serving. It is hard to accept that this time our generation really does have the special circumstances that eluded our ancestors.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #283  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:27 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
We humans have a long history of killing people under special circumstances. Generally we look back on these arguments and see them as foolish and self-serving. It is hard to accept that this time our generation really does have the special circumstances that eluded our ancestors.
Perhaps I'm missing your point - unwanted pregnancies are hardly a new thing for humanity for which we have to create a rationalization; abortion in various forms (usually medically unsafe ones) goes back into antiquity.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #284  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:35 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Wouldn't it be awesome, though, if there was a scientifically validated test for fascist scummery and a social convention that permitted taking an axe-handle or a baseball bat to such people?
What an excellent science fiction story that would make!
  #285  
Old 02-15-2020, 03:17 AM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Perhaps I'm missing your point - unwanted pregnancies are hardly a new thing for humanity for which we have to create a rationalization; abortion in various forms (usually medically unsafe ones) goes back into antiquity.

My writing skills seems to be declining. Perhaps I was unclear. I suspect making justifications for killing is almost always self-serving and morally suspect. We kill people. That is our nature. Trying to say it was justified in the special moral situation we find ourselves in seems to be just a way to convince ourselves.


Kill who you must. Spare us the justifications.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?

Last edited by Paul in Qatar; 02-15-2020 at 03:18 AM.
  #286  
Old 02-15-2020, 12:46 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
What an excellent science fiction story that would make!
A society that could do that could also, I expect, produce a scientifically validated test for people who enjoy beating on other people with axe handles and baseball bats, whether their motivations were fascist or otherwise.

Then maybe we could let such people whale on each other and leave the rest of us alone. (Though I'm afraid that if the test included everybody who had an occasional impulse to go at someone with a baseball bat, even if they weren't actually likely to do it and probably wouldn't actually like it if they did, just about all of us would be included in "such people".)
  #287  
Old 02-15-2020, 04:41 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
A society that could do that could also, I expect, produce a scientifically validated test for people who enjoy beating on other people with axe handles and baseball bats, whether their motivations were fascist or otherwise.

Then maybe we could let such people whale on each other and leave the rest of us alone. (Though I'm afraid that if the test included everybody who had an occasional impulse to go at someone with a baseball bat, even if they weren't actually likely to do it and probably wouldn't actually like it if they did, just about all of us would be included in "such people".)
Perhaps you're confusing a story about the impact of such an ability on society with advocacy of it?
  #288  
Old 02-16-2020, 10:25 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
A society that could do that could also, I expect, produce a scientifically validated test for people who enjoy beating on other people with axe handles and baseball bats, whether their motivations were fascist or otherwise.
Does that correlate with testosterone levels? Many men would be de-nutted or proactively incarcerated. Perhaps humans should be have hormone monitors implanted with LEDs showing propensity for violence. Their ears are red? Tranq-em, Danno!

Bioelectronics are the coming thing, I tell you. Neural implants in everyone for wireless linkage to the hive-mind net, and horniness monitors to broadcast I WANNA! Fertility and pregnancy monitors in all females to show who's off-limits. Hormone monitors for violent surges in everyone. We'll be watched over by AI machines of loving grace.
  #289  
Old 02-17-2020, 05:20 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
My writing skills seems to be declining. Perhaps I was unclear. I suspect making justifications for killing is almost always self-serving and morally suspect. We kill people. That is our nature. Trying to say it was justified in the special moral situation we find ourselves in seems to be just a way to convince ourselves.


Kill who you must. Spare us the justifications.
Presuming you're talking about abortions, I maintain that abortions aren't killing anybody. So any explanations aren't justifications of murder, it's an attempt to explain why the person is just flat wrong about their perception of reality.

You could tell somebody that eating a cake is murder. (No, really, nobody can stop you.) If that person then tried to explain to you that no, eating a cake isn't murder, that person isn't trying to justify murder.
  #290  
Old 02-17-2020, 09:57 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Then there's nothing objective about personhood at all
Exacty. I've been consistently pointing out that personhood is a social construct that we as a society undertake to define via arbitrarily chosen characteristics, rather than an objective scientific fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2
and your entire argument and position is nonsensical.
Uh, no, there's nothing nonsensical about recognizing that how we as a society choose to define personhood is not objective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2
Whether or not something qualifies as a person has always been a matter of arbitrary definition, and if you can't accept that arbitrary definitions can be objective
...then you understand the difference between a social consensus, such as the consensus we as a society have arrived at concerning the arbitrary definition of what we choose to consider "personhood", and an objective scientific fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2
then there is no such thing as objective personhood.
Correct. There isn't.

I mean, maybe you're choosing to interpret the term "objective" in some other sense, and that's fine too. But if you mean "objective" in the sense of factual, impersonal, non-human-determined reality, as in "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind", then the social construct of "personhood" does not qualify.

Last edited by Kimstu; 02-17-2020 at 09:59 PM.
  #291  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:31 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
I mean, maybe you're choosing to interpret the term "objective" in some other sense, and that's fine too. But if you mean "objective" in the sense of factual, impersonal, non-human-determined reality, as in "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind", then the social construct of "personhood" does not qualify.
In the sense of factual, impersonal, non-human-determined reality, words have definitions. It is an objective fact that in standard english the word "red" refers to a color. Absent the context the arrangement of lines and curves forming "red" has no objective meaning, but if the context is included in the analysis then objective statements can be made about the lines and curves' meaning within the context.

In this discussion the context of standard english is assumed, and thus the term "person" can, and does, have objective meaning.

There is just disagreement about whether certain things meet the criteria, and much of that disagreement is based on people arguing from a conclusion and bending whatever they need to to reach the conclusion they're arguing from.
  #292  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:37 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
In the sense of factual, impersonal, non-human-determined reality, words have definitions.
Human words have no definitions outside of human-determined reality. Or are you referring to the magical theory of True Names?

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
It is an objective fact that in standard english the word "red" refers to a color.
1) Depending on context, even when it refers to a color, it can refer to significantly different colors. "Red" hair is objectively not the same color as a "red" stop sign.

2) It also refers to a political position. In fact, it refers to two different political positions, which claim to be opposed to each other.
  #293  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:49 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Because, while there is some murder of abortion doctors and bombing of abortion clinics, the vast majority of anti-choicers do little more than tut. They do not react to persons who have gotten abortions the same way that they react to actual murderers. And of course there are those who get abortions themselves (or demand that their lovers get abortions) when they're suddenly in that situation; you could argue that these sorts of folks would also murder somebody if the situation ever came up, but I don't think that that's how that plays out in reality.
With many political causes, you have a tiny minority who truly feel it in their bones and guts that something is right/wrong, and then you have the majority who only intellectually sense that something is so.

So, as you point out, most pro-lifers don't go around bombing clinics (or hold funerals for miscarriages) because a fetus doesn't feel the same, on a visceral level, to them, as a born person. It's similar to how many people believe or claim climate change is going to destroy the planet, but don't actually do anything violent or drastic to stop that impending doom. Brain knowledge vs. visceral feeling.
  #294  
Old 02-18-2020, 06:55 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Human words have no definitions outside of human-determined reality. Or are you referring to the magical theory of True Names?
I'm referring to the magical theory of we're talking about an english word. This is not magic and claiming that there are no objective facts about things in context is false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
1) Depending on context,
Snip. Yes. Context matters. And contexts do in fact exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
With many political causes, you have a tiny minority who truly feel it in their bones and guts that something is right/wrong, and then you have the majority who only intellectually sense that something is so.

So, as you point out, most pro-lifers don't go around bombing clinics (or hold funerals for miscarriages) because a fetus doesn't feel the same, on a visceral level, to them, as a born person. It's similar to how many people believe or claim climate change is going to destroy the planet, but don't actually do anything violent or drastic to stop that impending doom. Brain knowledge vs. visceral feeling.
Yep. It demonstrates pretty clearly that they don't in fact believe that fetuses are people, no matter what they are willing to claim for the sake of argument.
  #295  
Old 02-18-2020, 07:03 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Yep. It demonstrates pretty clearly that they don't in fact believe that fetuses are people, no matter what they are willing to claim for the sake of argument.
They believe, but don't feel - or believe, but the costs of acting on it are too great. Even if you're someone who does truly viscerally feel that abortion is murder, the fact that you'll face life imprisonment or execution for bombing a clinic is still a deterrent.
  #296  
Old 02-18-2020, 07:27 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
They believe, but don't feel - or believe, but the costs of acting on it are too great. Even if you're someone who does truly viscerally feel that abortion is murder, the fact that you'll face life imprisonment or execution for bombing a clinic is still a deterrent.
I don't believe that there's a cognitive separation between your actual beliefs and how you feel about the things you actually believe. If you ever find that your reactions do not align with how you cognitively think your beliefs would lead you to react, it's time to reassess.

And there's certainly a sliding scale of reactions, but the vast majority of them don't rise to even the least sort of reaction I'd expect if, say, actual babies were being killed at the rate abortions are performed. So they clearly believe that abortions are not great, but they are not as bad as, say, bashing in a baby's head with a rock.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017