Ethicists: Magicians who can make people “disappear for real”
Here’s the thing – they’re right. If you accept their premises, they’re absolutely right.
The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.
An ethicist’s job is like a magician’s. The main job of both is to distract you from the obvious. The magician uses sleight of hand to pretend to make people disappear. But when ethicists do it, people disappear for real.
It’s almost a pro-life argument in that it highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.
~ Matthew Archbold, responding to the Journal of Medical Ethics researchers who argue for infanticide as an extension of abortion, National Catholic Register, February 27
[Image via economistmom.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Wish I could like this into infinity.
An ethicist can justify anything depending on his or her basic premise. That is why people need to be taught to beware of all the mission and core standards in all institutions including religious denominations. It was only by the grace of God that I ended up attending a Catholic nursing school where the sanctity of life was was firmly established. Even back then over 50 years ago, there were the “Sibelius types” that were insiders trying to defy the basic tenents of Catholic ethical standards. Always beware of sheep in wolves clothing!!!!! They walk among us every day.
Thank you! I have been saying this. Everyone is so horrified but this is the natural end of the abortion argument. Humans are no longer persons by virtue of simply being human. Now there are arbitrary hoops to jump through in order to achieve and RETAIN personhood. Personhood and our worth as person is now something that can be stripped away at a moment’s notice. We can thank abortion for taking us down this slippery slope. This is the logical outcome of a society that starts questioning the worth of some segment of the population. It will lead to the dehumanizing of all segments of the population.
“They throw around this term “potential person” like it’s a real thing. As if it’s science. But there’s no such thing as potential persons. It’s anti-science. There’s defenseless people. Maybe that’s what they mean. In fact, isn’t that really the point. There’s defenseless people and indefensible ethicists.”
– Also by Matthew Archbold
The Blunt amendment died in the Senate by a small margin
So you’re saying David Copperfield is the Anti-Christ? ;)
Tyler: “They throw around this term “potential person” like it’s a real thing. As if it’s science. But there’s no such thing as potential persons. It’s anti-science. There’s defenseless people. Maybe that’s what they mean. In fact, isn’t that really the point. There’s defenseless people and indefensible ethicists.” – Also by Matthew Archbold
To be serious, though, no, that’s not it. It’s not “science” that is involved, and science doesn’t pronounce upon personhood (nor upon morality, for that matter). Personhood is a societal construct, an attributed status.
It absolutely blows my mind that most supporters of abortion consider themselves righteous crusaders for social justice, passionate humanitarians who are fighting for equality and freedom. Because abortion “rights” are just the latest manifestation of a very old, very damaging, tendency in the human race:
Arbitrarily deciding that you own someone else’s body. That you get to make their decisions for them. That you can use or discard them as you like, with no repercussions, because they aren’t really human.
There’s always an excuse for this kind of thinking. You aren’t really human, and I own you… because you’re a woman. Because you’re black. Because you’re disabled. Because you’re Jewish. Because… because… because…
Because you aren’t born yet.
And don’t give me that crap about “my body, my choice.” It isn’t your body in question. If I get pregnant, I don’t suddenly sprout new DNA, and a second brain, and a second heart, and a penis or a second vagina. It’s someone else’s body that is temporarily hanging out inside my body as a normal stage of human development. Early fetuses don’t look much like infants who don’t look much like toddlers who don’t look much like second-graders who don’t look much like adults. None of that makes them any less human. None of that makes them any less valuable. And I don’t own them. Not at any point during their development. They are human beings, and they own their bodies and their lives from long before they’re able to grasp such a concept.
As a woman, who has done extensive study of all the horrible ways that women have been mistreated and murdered and abused and owned, just because they’re women, it makes me sick to imagine buying into that kind of thinking. I refuse to behave as though I own someone else’s body, someone else’s life, for arbitrary reasons that might make things a little easier for me. I will not redefine humanity for my own convenience.
And once you start drawing those arbitrary lines, it’s hard to stop. Because if you think you get to redefine humanity for your own convenience, why not re-draw the lines? Make them just a little wider. If the mere act of passing through the birth canal (or being pulled out in a C-section) is enough to define a being’s personhood, then why shouldn’t ‘self-awareness’ or ‘ability to contribute to society’ or (as the science fiction author Philip K. Dick proposed in ‘The Pre-Persons’) ‘ability to do algebra’ also be adequate to define personhood?
It’s the logical next step, as a few abortion supporters have been brave enough to admit. And it’s a form of thinking that is just as wretched now as it has been throughout the history of humanity.
Many in the pro-life community saw this logical extension long ago. Indeed, our own President, by voting against the Born Alive Protection Act, sees infanticide merely as an extension of the heinous crime of abortion.
The same mindset that allows people to slay an unborn child (they are not persons), is the same mindset that enables slavery, infanticide, euthanasia… The list goes on. Where will it end?
This article is actually quite refreshing. At least its authors are intellectually honest and consistent, compared to most pro-aborts who offer unbelievably absurd, non-nonsensical arguments as to why killing a baby is wrong, but killing that same baby before she is born is okay.
I believe this article is a gift to the pro-life community; we should all share it with pro-abortion people.
These two ethicists cannot prove they are self-aware. In fact – they can’t prove they have anything called personhood at all!
Except for one thing – their bodies.
So to conclusively demonstrate their personhood is not impacted by the physical destruction of their bodies, I suggest they throw themselves into a wood chipper. Then, on the other side, they can claim victory that their personhood remains.
They are not advocating the destruction of a person – but the destruction of a body.
Their argument is invalid because they assume (beg the question) that a body and person are unique and separate attributes – a point they cannot prove conclusively.
Chris: These two ethicists cannot prove they are self-aware.
Chris, they don’t have to. That’s the *one* thing they know, implicitly. Beyond that, we get into assumptions.
They don’t have to prove it RIGHT NOW. But as a certain child actor’s ex-wife has proven: One fall down a flight of stairs and someone else can pull the plug on you before you even have a chance to recover.
So go ahead, dehumanize people: your plug can be pulled at will by someone else any time that you are no longer physically strong enough to defend yourself.
And by pro-life standards, ninek, it wouldn’t matter if the incapacitated person’s body were a site of medical experimentation, as long as they were still breathing. Because when it comes down to it, people should give up control of their bodies for the greater good of society, no?
Doug: “To be serious, though, no, that’s not it. It’s not “science” that is involved, and science doesn’t pronounce upon personhood (nor upon morality, for that matter). Personhood is a societal construct, an attributed status.”
So you say, but to what end is personhood a societal construct, an attributed status?
Megan, how about just (temporarily) giving up control of your body for the greater good of YOUR CHILD??
Jill,
God made people. When people try to solve problems and leave God out of that process, their solutions never work. (When I say God, I mean neither “religion” nor “religious precept interpretation by modern-day Pharisees”). What happened in Germany did not shock the world enough to keep it from happening again only a scant 40 years later. Today, all kinds of “intelligent” people are finally being honest about what they really want to do with “other” groups/kinds of people: get rid of them. The reasons don’t matter. Until people accept what they are and to Whom they must answer, the killing of man by will not stop…that is, unless He pre-empts the slaughter with a Personal Appearance! ;)
I didn’t give up control of my body during pregnancy. I was still me. I was still a person with rights. I was still able to drive a car and work and pay my bills and speak freely and think for myself. I just had another human being inside me, with a heartbeat of her own, for a nine-month period, until she was born and I could take care of her *outside* the womb.
Megan, you have astutely quoted the macabre Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He was obsessed with vivisection and cared little whether experimentees had any choice in what happened to them. He especially wanted to vivisect inmates on death row. Most of the people that Kevorkian helped kill WERE NOT TERMINALLY ILL. Not that that would make it right, it doesn’t, but last time I checked depression and suicide “ideation” are treatable mental health conditions.
So, yep, you and Kevorkian concur, don’t you?
Keep pushing for death, and one of your fellow pro-deathers will be able to pull the plug on YOU. We pro-lifers will fight for your right to live, but as you can see by over 50 million babies dead since 1973, we can’t save you all.
Does thinking about your own child as if they were some sort of rapist…like, a stranger on the street who just decided to climb up into you or something…rather than your very own son or daughter, who they were, brought into the world by you and their father and depending upon you to care for them and nurture them as any mother should do for her child…does that help you feel better about what you did, Megan?
Doug said: Chris, they don’t have to. That’s the *one* thing they know, implicitly.
Doug – you’re making my case.
Effectively the child doesn’t have to prove themselves either.
Self-awareness doesn’t require an entity to communicate that awareness to others.
What is being discussed is a test for inclusion/exclusion to be acted upon a physical human being. That’s no more rational than saying middle-aged academic Australian bio-ethicists who advocate destruction of newborns should themselves be destroyed.
Drawing random lines in the sand leads to the insanity seen during the French Revolution.
“Their argument is invalid because they assume (beg the question) that a body and person are unique and separate attributes – a point they cannot prove conclusively.”
The authors haven’t assumed that at all. The abstract is not the entirety of their argument, it’s the roadmap for it. You’re confusing their objectives for their premises.
Dr Alberto Giubilini is one of the authors of “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” He also wrote “What is the Problem with Euthanasia?” See the abstract from the Institute of Medical Ethics – http://tinyurl.com/7ztxupl
Sounds like the guy is the latest version of Peter Singer. Yikes!
(I don’t see “ethicist” as some sort of dirty word. An ethicist might feel that there is not a good enough reason for abortion to be legal, for example.)
Doug said: “Chris, they don’t have to. That’s the *one* thing they know, implicitly.”
Doug – you’re making my case. Effectively the child doesn’t have to prove themselves either. Self-awareness doesn’t require an entity to communicate that awareness to others.
Guess what – I don’t disagree, there. ;) :) I don’t think that is the argument, either. I don’t want women denied legal abortions any more than I want them forced to have abortions against their will. You want the unborn life to continue, first and foremost. We disagree. I look at the issue with an eye to “Is there a good enough reason to deny the woman’s wishes?” She is, after all, undeniably a thinking, feeling person.
____
What is being discussed is a test for inclusion/exclusion to be acted upon a physical human being. That’s no more rational than saying middle-aged academic Australian bio-ethicists who advocate destruction of newborns should themselves be destroyed.
Drawing random lines in the sand leads to the insanity seen during the French Revolution.
As far as people on earth, we’re always a little bit “random” in that some moral opinions do differ from place to place. There are things occurring right now, somewhere, that you and I both would say are wrong and immoral, though the local culture holds them as moral.
Agreed that the unborn are “physical human beings.” The question, in addition to how do we treat pregnant women, is how do we treat them. What do we mandate, what do we prohibit, what do we leave to the personal choice of the pregnant woman.
It’s not “science” that is involved, and science doesn’t pronounce upon personhood (nor upon morality, for that matter). Personhood is a societal construct, an attributed status.”
Tyler: So you say, but to what end is personhood a societal construct, an attributed status?
Tyler, as social animals we have the idea of rights – how we want ourselves (everybody in society) to be treated. (Life and liberty are obviously big deals here.) Status/rights are to the end of trying to ensure that we’re treated like we want to be, or, if we’re not so treated, that there be a sufficient reason for it.
I certainly can understand you and many others wanting the unborn to be included as “legal human beings,” i.e. having the right-to-life attributed and possibly full personhood granted. The rub is that there’s also the pregnant woman to consider.
I look at the issue with an eye to “Is there a good enough reason to deny the woman’s wishes?” She is, after all, undeniably a thinking, feeling person.
Umm…I can look at it with that eye, too. And it still comes out “OF COURSE! Another human being’s entire life-her child-OF COURSE outweighs her ‘What I really wanna do right now is…’ Duh.” As far as the, “She is, after all, undeniably a thinking, feeling person.”…SO WHAT? The other human organism in question is every bit the human being she is, and her capacity to do things is irrelevant.
What do we mandate, what do we prohibit, what do we leave to the personal choice of the pregnant woman.
Let’s use the precedent of what we “leave to the personal choice” of mothers of children that are already born. That excludes any sort of legal choice to kill their child.
Doug: “Tyler, as social animals we have the idea of rights – how we want ourselves (everybody in society) to be treated. (Life and liberty are obviously big deals here.) Status/rights are to the end of trying to ensure that we’re treated like we want to be, or, if we’re not so treated, that there be a sufficient reason for it.
I certainly can understand you and many others wanting the unborn to be included as “legal human beings,” i.e. having the right-to-life attributed and possibly full personhood granted. The rub is that there’s also the pregnant woman to consider.”
____
You skipped ahead in a critical discussion. You did not answer my question. You responded to my question about the end of “personhood” by telling me to what end rights/status are directed. Please tell me to what end the social construct of ”personhood” is directed.
Xalisae: Umm…I can look at it with that eye, too. And it still comes out “OF COURSE! Another human being’s entire life-her child-OF COURSE outweighs her ‘What I really wanna do right now is…’ Duh.”
No, it doesn’t necessarily outweigh what she wants. It’s at issue. It’s a question, X.
____
As far as the, “She is, after all, undeniably a thinking, feeling person.”…SO WHAT? The other human organism in question is every bit the human being she is, and her capacity to do things is irrelevant.
So that’s what the argument/discussion is. It’s our various feelings and thoughts at work, and the pregnant woman is much more closely involved than you or I (unless you’re the one pregnant). It’s not “irrelevant” – why do you think there are so many people in favor of legal abortion in the first place?
You skipped ahead in a critical discussion. You did not answer my question. You responded to my question about the end of “personhood” by telling me to what end rights/status are directed. Please tell me to what end the social construct of ”personhood” is directed.
It’s the same thing, Tyler. Personhood is society saying, “one of us,” in effect. The status of person is variously the same as having full rights attributed, being a legal human being, being a citizen (or not), etc. Personhood *is* a status, it’s having some rights attributed, it’s society deeming something to be there.
Not trying to be obtuse here, if I’m still not speaking to what you mean. Personhood is directed at trying to achieve what we want – the general protection of those in society.
Doug: “It’s the same thing, Tyler. Personhood is society saying, “one of us,” in effect. The status of person is variously the same as having full rights attributed, being a legal human being, being a citizen (or not), etc. Personhood *is* a status, it’s having some rights attributed, it’s society deeming something to be there.
Not trying to be obtuse here, if I’m still not speaking to what you mean. Personhood is directed at trying to achieve what we want – the general protection of those in society.”
—–
Can we say that the social construct “personhood” is directed at determining which human beings and other entiities in a society are considered persons?
No, it doesn’t necessarily outweigh what she wants. It’s at issue. It’s a question, X.
Really? Then if the wants of parents outweigh the lives of their children, I should be able to let my kids starve to death legally so I can use the money I save feeding them to pay for things that I want. WHY CAN’T I, DOUG?! THE LAW IS OPPRESSING ME!!!
It’s our various feelings and thoughts at work, and the pregnant woman is much more closely involved than you or I (unless you’re the one pregnant).
Well, I’ve explained my thoughts and feelings to you. It’s pretty obvious that an entire lifetime > 9 or so months of someone else’s time/discomfort. I still don’t get where you come up with a mother’s want to prematurely end a temporary situation outweighing the interest of her child keeping their very life. And, once again, why does how closely one is involved in a situation make their actions any more legitimate? A parent who abuses their born child to death is pretty damned close in their involvement to that situation, but it doesn’t legitimize what they did.
why do you think there are so many people in favor of legal abortion in the first place?
Lots of reasons. People think that just because something is legal means it is right. People don’t like to think of themselves as “bad people” who did something very, very wrong. People don’t like to think of their friends or loved ones as “bad people”, so they defend horrible things in a knee-jerk reaction without thinking about what has actually happened. Some people just absolutely lack empathy or compassion, so they side with the party who is more persuasive instead of the party who is in need of the most aid. Into which category do you think you fall?
Xalisae: Really? Then if the wants of parents outweigh the lives of their children, I should be able to let my kids starve to death legally so I can use the money I save feeding them to pay for things that I want. WHY CAN’T I, DOUG?! THE LAW IS OPPRESSING ME!!!
You can say that, X, but when they really are ‘children,” when they’re thinking feeling persons themselves, when they’re not inside the body of a person, when they’ve already had full rights and personhood attributed, then it’s a different deal. Nobody’s really going to spend time arguing that. Abortion’s quite a separate thing, i.e. it’s a real issue.
___
Well, I’ve explained my thoughts and feelings to you. It’s pretty obvious that an entire lifetime > 9 or so months of someone else’s time/discomfort. I still don’t get where you come up with a mother’s want to prematurely end a temporary situation outweighing the interest of her child keeping their very life.
Well, that’s your feeling about that “entire lifetime.” I’m not saying you ‘shouldn’t’ feel that way, but when it’s the pregnant woman herself that is disagreeing with you then it’s quite understandable that many will take her side.
____
And, once again, why does how closely one is involved in a situation make their actions any more legitimate?
I’m saying the wishes of the pregnant woman are coming from somebody much more involved in the situation, versus us discussing things on a message board, for example. She is the person with cares, one way or another, that is by far the closest to the situation.
____
A parent who abuses their born child to death is pretty damned close in their involvement to that situation, but it doesn’t legitimize what they did.
They’re not closer than the thinking, feeling, born child, and with that situation there’s no significant disagreement about it anyway.
____
“why do you think there are so many people in favor of legal abortion in the first place?”
Lots of reasons. People think that just because something is legal means it is right. People don’t like to think of themselves as “bad people” who did something very, very wrong. People don’t like to think of their friends or loved ones as “bad people”, so they defend horrible things in a knee-jerk reaction without thinking about what has actually happened.
That has nothing necessarily to do with abortion, though.
___
Some people just absolutely lack empathy or compassion, so they side with the party who is more persuasive instead of the party who is in need of the most aid. Into which category do you think you fall?
Very good question, X. Is it possible to really “have empathy” with an entity that isn’t aware or emotional, that has no awareness at all? If we have empathy with or for “Z,” isn’t there some necessary identification with Z’s feelings, and hence, would not Z have to have feelings in the first place?
Meanwhile, we most certainly can have empathy with the pregnant woman. I see people personifying the unborn, projecting their own feelings, etc., but there’s ‘nobody’ there yet as far as caring about anything. The sadness, if any, when such an entity dies isn’t on their part, it’s on the part of other observers. I care more about the feelings and liberty of the pregnant woman. You care more about the life of the unborn. The abortion debate is about the different cares that people have.
On the part of the unborn, there’s no caring at all. If there is an abortion, or a miscarriage, or if there never was conception in the first place, there’s no difference, there. The difference, if any, is with respect to born people thinking about it.
Can we say that the social construct “personhood” is directed at determining which human beings and other entities in a society are considered persons?
Tyler, it’s only human beings, and personhood *is* the attributed status. It’s society deeming that certain rights should apply. Personhood isn’t “directed” or “aimed” at the determination. It’s in place when the determination has already been made.
Is “childhood” directed at determining which human beings are considered children? Heck no – as above, it’s in place (or not) when the determination has already been made. Saying to someone, “You’re no longer a child – you’re full-grown and 18 years old,” is an example of the status not being attributed.
Doug: “Tyler, it’s only human beings, and personhood *is* the attributed status.”
I agree personhood is attributed to human beings.
Doug: “It’s society deeming that certain rights should apply.”
You are jumping ahead of the the game here. Rights only apply to persons. Society must first determine who are persons.
Doug: “Personhood isn’t “directed” or “aimed” at the determination.”
This is an incomplete sentence. This is not like you.
Doug: “It’s in place when the determination has already been made.”
With this sentence you are affirming that personhood is directed at determining who are persons.
Doug: “Is “childhood” directed at determining which human beings are considered children? Heck no – as above,
Wrong – please see your next sentence, which contradicts your own negative reply.
Doug: “it’s in place (or not) when the determination has already been made.”
I agree. Childhood is directed at defining who are and aren’t children.
Doug: “Saying to someone, “You’re no longer a child – you’re full-grown and 18 years old,” is an example of the status not being attributed.”
I agree with this sentence – someone aside from the “child” is determining who is and isn’t a child.
_____
4 of your 7 sentences state that personhood is directed at identifying which human beings are persons. One sentence is incomplete, one sentence discusses human rights, and one sentence contradicts the 4 sentences that affirm that personhood is directed at identifying which human beings are persons.
If you want to rest your entire argument on your one contradictory declarative sentence we can simply stop the discussion now.
Doug: “It’s society deeming that certain rights should apply.”
Tyler: You are jumping ahead of the the game here. Rights only apply to persons. Society must first determine who are persons.
Nope, it’s not “jumping ahead.” It’s the same thing. At birth (whether one agrees that the line should be drawn there) is when full personhood is accorded. That means that rights are deemed to apply. It’s not that “person” is deemed to be present without rights applying, it’s that it’s just one thing – the attribution of status.
___
Doug: “Personhood isn’t “directed” or “aimed” at the determination.”
This is an incomplete sentence. This is not like you.
I agree that an incomplete sentence isn’t like me. ;) Thanks for that. :) However, why do you think it’s an incomplete sentence? It’s not.
___
Doug: “It’s in place when the determination has already been made.”
With this sentence you are affirming that personhood is directed at determining who are persons.
Tyler, I’m not totally sure I know what you mean. Personhood is the status of being a person. When the determination has been made (again, whether one agrees with society’s position on it) then that’s it. You seem to be picturing personhood as somehow different from “person,” but other than personhood meaning “the state of being a person,” what disconnect between the two are you proposing? What, exactly, do you mean when you say, “personhood is directed…” What is “directed”? Do you mean it’s a conscious function?
Doug: “Is “childhood” directed at determining which human beings are considered children? Heck no – as above,
Wrong – please see your next sentence, which contradicts your own negative reply.
Doug: “it’s in place (or not) when the determination has already been made.”
I agree. Childhood is directed at defining who are and aren’t children.
Good grief…. :/ Again, what do you mean be “directed”? I’m saying that childhood really is not “directed” at anything. It’s the state of being a child, or the time period when we say the term applies. It didn’t come about as a concept, later to be filled with certain meanings. It came about because the meanings were in use.
_____
4 of your 7 sentences state that personhood is directed at identifying which human beings are persons. One sentence is incomplete, one sentence discusses human rights, and one sentence contradicts the 4 sentences that affirm that personhood is directed at identifying which human beings are persons. If you want to rest your entire argument on your one contradictory declarative sentence we can simply stop the discussion now.
Holy crow, wild man, just hold on here…. :) There’s no agreement that personhood is “directed” at anything, as you are portraying it. Gotta find out what you really mean, there.
Doug: “Nope, it’s not “jumping ahead.” It’s the same thing. At birth (whether one agrees that the line should be drawn there) is when full personhood is accorded. That means that rights are deemed to apply. It’s not that “person” is deemed to be present without rights applying, it’s that it’s just one thing – the attribution of status.”
That is Doug (and some socieities) determining when he thinks a human being should be considered a person (at birth). Thanks again for agreeing with the statment that personhood is directed at determining when human beings are considered persons.
___
Doug: “Personhood isn’t “directed” or “aimed” at the determination.”
“I agree that an incomplete sentence isn’t like me. Thanks for that. However, why do you think it’s an incomplete sentence? It’s not.”
It is an incomplete thought. “Determination” of what?
___
Doug: “Personhood is the status of being a person.”
Partially correct. You need to add “as determined by society” at the end of the sentence.
Doug: “When the determination has been made”
Is this the same determination you said wasn’t being done in your previous post?
Doug: “(again, whether one agrees with society’s position on it) then that’s it.”
Then that’s what? The human being being defined as a person?
Doug: “You seem to be picturing personhood as somehow different from “person,” but other than personhood meaning “the state of being a person,” what disconnect between the two are you proposing?”
????
Doug: “What exactly, do you mean when you say, “personhood is directed…” What is “directed”? Do you mean it’s a conscious function?”
I am asking what is the purpose of the social construct “personhood”? Why does a society label human beings as persons?
Doug, just be forewarned if you try to be evasive in your next post I am not going to respond. If you feel that no matter what you say I am going to accuse you of being evasive then don’t bother responding to this post.
Be evasive Doug, be evasive!
Tyler, I am not trying to be evasive. If we are “talking past each other,” I think we can resolve it. It seems to me that you’re picturing personhood and person differently than I am. Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to see some “separation” between the two, as if one exists and is “directed” at the other. Cause and effect?
I am not saying that is the case. I’m saying they are both effects. Deeming the status of “person” to be present is the same thing as attributing personhood. They’re both effects.
Doug: “Nope, it’s not “jumping ahead.” It’s the same thing. At birth (whether one agrees that the line should be drawn there) is when full personhood is accorded. That means that rights are deemed to apply. It’s not that “person” is deemed to be present without rights applying, it’s that it’s just one thing – the attribution of status.”
That is Doug (and some socieities) determining when he thinks a human being should be considered a person (at birth). Thanks again for agreeing with the statment that personhood is directed at determining when human beings are considered persons.
No, and no. Has nothing to do with what I think, there. Societies do it, period. And there’s no such agreement.
___
Doug: “Personhood isn’t “directed” or “aimed” at the determination.”
“I agree that an incomplete sentence isn’t like me. Thanks for that. However, why do you think it’s an incomplete sentence? It’s not.”
It is an incomplete thought. “Determination” of what?
In no way is it an incomplete thought. The determination is a process – correct me if I’m not seeing it the way you do. To say something is aimed (or not) at a process is just fine for a complete thought. And – why are you puzzled about the object of the determination? Clear back at 6:49 p.m. you said, “determining which human beings and other entiities in a society are considered persons?” So – the determination of personhood, of being a person. Why would there be doubt about this?
Be evasive Doug, be evasive!
Ha! :) I need to get up and leave at 4 a.m. so I can get beyond the “big mess” that extends from Boston all the way down through Washington D.C., and here it’s 10:47 p.m. already… :(
Doug: “Ha! I need to get up and leave at 4 a.m. so I can get beyond the “big mess” that extends from Boston all the way down through Washington D.C., and here it’s 10:47 p.m. already… ”
—
Doug, get some sleep. I will not be responding any further. I hope you don’t mind but I will pray tonight that you see my point above and that you become 100% pro-life. Good night Reality.
Doug: “Personhood is the status of being a person.”
Partially correct. You need to add “as determined by society” at the end of the sentence.
I think it’s entirely correct. We don’t need to add anything to it. We wouldn’t have to be talking about society in the first place. We could say, “Tyler wants personhood to be attributed at conception,” for example. Or it could just be your opinion, or mine, etc. It could be me saying, “I think personhood is present later in gestation.” It could be my observation that I think ” a limited form of personhood and rights is already present later in gestation – the restrictions we have on abortion constitute it.”
____
No – it’s been stated many times that it’s a societal construct, a societal determination, etc.
“When the determination has been made”
Is this the same determination you said wasn’t being done in your previous post?
I didn’t say that, Tyler. Yet again – whether you or I agree that the line should be drawn at birth, society’s attribution takes place at that point, the status of “person” then being the case, personhood being the case. I’m definitely saying it’s done. Some people want it done at conception – those who support certain proposals for personhood law changes, for example. And hey – if it was done at conception, then the same deal – in no way is it “not being done.”
____
Doug: “Personhood is the status of being a person. When the determination has been made (again, whether one agrees with society’s position on it) then that’s it.”
Then that’s what? The human being being defined as a person?
Of course – when the status is deemed to be present. My point with “that’s it,” is that it’s at the same time. It’s not that “personhood is directed at….” something that later takes place. It’s that the determination is made, and that’s it – they are both in place. Personhood and “person” are both there right then.
____
Doug: “You seem to be picturing personhood as somehow different from “person,” but other than personhood meaning “the state of being a person,” what disconnect between the two are you proposing?”
????
I’m asking what exactly do you mean by, “personhood is directed at identifying which human beings are persons.” This is your statement, your thesis. I am wondering what you mean by “directed.” Are you saying this is a conscious intent or effort, or what?
____
Doug: “What exactly, do you mean when you say, “personhood is directed…” What is “directed”? Do you mean it’s a conscious function?”
I am asking what is the purpose of the social construct “personhood”? Why does a society label human beings as persons?
We already dealt with this: “Tyler, as social animals we have the idea of rights – how we want ourselves (everybody in society) to be treated. (Life and liberty are obviously big deals here.) Status/rights are to the end of trying to ensure that we’re treated like we want to be, or, if we’re not so treated, that there be a sufficient reason for it.”
You can say that, X, but when they really are ‘children,”
Umm…they always really are children. They’re never holograms, or wax statues, or hallucinations, or anything other than human beings. JUST LIKE WE ARE, only younger. My children are and always have been my children, even back when they were gestating away, and even for the first few months when they were oblivious (probably) to the world around them. Their lack of development and lack of capacity to be thinking or feeling did not change who they are/the entities they were and are now/the organisms they were are are now. You act as though gestating children are magically teleported out of their mothers at some indeterminate time during gestation and replaced with “Real Children™“. I’m sorry to tell you, but that simply doesn’t happen, and if a child is deserving of protection when they are a little older, they’re deserving of protection as soon as they are there in the womb.
when they’re not inside the body of a person, when they’ve already had full rights and personhood attributed, then it’s a different deal. Nobody’s really going to spend time arguing that. Abortion’s quite a separate thing, i.e. it’s a real issue.
Whever a child is-YES, A REAL CHILD-they should be entitled to legal protection, because they are when they are older.
Regardless of how some members of society feel about them and what rights certain members of a society opt to grant them at any point in that society’s history, they SHOULD be entitled to legal protection, even if they don’t currently enjoy that protection.
Sorry, you can’t say it’s a “different deal” and “Abortion is quite a separate thing.” just because YOU wish it was and have it be so. Just because someone is younger than they are now shouldn’t mean killing them is legal. Their age is not a game-changer. Until you can explain to me how it is and give me a sufficient reason that ending another human being’s life should be legal as long as they’re young enough and ending that life is totally different than ending it A FEW MONTHS or even A FEW WEEKS later, you might as well tell me killing red-heads should be legal, or blind people, or the elderly, or people who can’t juggle, or express themselves eloquently with the written word.
but when it’s the pregnant woman herself that is disagreeing with you then it’s quite understandable that many will take her side.
Not really, Doug. I’ve been the pregnant woman, and I’m witnessing my daughter’s life after I was begged to abort her. So, watching her entire lifetime unfold before my eyes makes what I thought was a world-shattering problem pregnancy seem like a hangnail. It’s not understandable to me. Not AT ALL. It seems like the most senseless killing I could ever imagine. And mothers are capable of all kinds of evil against their children. The fact that some have been able to rationalize it in a way that others of their ilk can find killing their children “understandable” doesn’t make what is happening acceptable.
I’m saying the wishes of the pregnant woman are coming from somebody much more involved in the situation, versus us discussing things on a message board, for example. She is the person with cares, one way or another, that is by far the closest to the situation.
Umm…if you think that having your own mother with designs on ending your life in stirrups with a dude in a labcoat and a bunch of pointy crap he intends to end your life with surrounding you is not being “involved in (a) situation”, you are hopeless. Passive involvement is still involvement, and if you’re that child, you DEFINITELY have the most to lose from your involvement in that situation. I don’t know that I’m going to be jumped on the way to my car tomorrow evening as I come out of the grocery store, killed before I even know what is happening, and robbed. Now, currently, I have no cares about this situation that I am going to be in, because I don’t know that it’s going to happen. If ignorance is so blissful it makes killing you legal, if these guys who are going to kill me tomorrow can get away with it without giving me the opportunity to care one way or another about it, they should be able to get away with it legally. Knowledge of/concern for whether or not my nurse is going to smother me to death with a pillow while I am comatose should not be a requisite to prosecute her if she does.
They’re not closer than the thinking, feeling, born child, and with that situation there’s no significant disagreement about it anyway.
No, they’re just as close. Only they’re on the active side, causing the situation. Same as the gestating child is in an abortion.
Lots of reasons. People think that just because something is legal means it is right. People don’t like to think of themselves as “bad people” who did something very, very wrong. People don’t like to think of their friends or loved ones as “bad people”, so they defend horrible things in a knee-jerk reaction without thinking about what has actually happened.
That has nothing necessarily to do with abortion, though.
Sure it does. The fact you cannot see this is telling. I have had my very own cousin (who will no longer even talk to me. He blocked me on facebook and everything) tell me that he’s pro-legal-abortion because he doesn’t want to think bad things about family and friends he has that have aborted their children.
Is it possible to really “have empathy” with an entity that isn’t aware or emotional, that has no awareness at all? If we have empathy with or for “Z,” isn’t there some necessary identification with Z’s feelings, and hence, would not Z have to have feelings in the first place?
Sure it is possible. That’s why I put spiders outside instead of squashing them. They aren’t harming me. They’re just trying to live. It’s sad that you don’t seem to be able to empathize with anyone or anything that can’t communicate with you directly. “Live and let live.” is entirely lost on you. And this isn’t even taking into account the simple fact THAT IF YOU JUST GIVE THIS HUMAN BEING TIME TO GROW, THEY’LL PROBABLY HAVE ALL THESE SAME FEELINGS/EMOTIONS. We’re not even talking about spiders here, Duuuuhg. These are real, actual human beings. Now that my daughter’s 9, I’ll bring her over to your house, she can tell you how happy she is to be alive, and you can start empathizing with human beings who are currently in the situation she once was in.
The sadness, if any, when such an entity dies isn’t on their part, it’s on the part of other observers. I care more about the feelings and liberty of the pregnant woman. You care more about the life of the unborn. The abortion debate is about the different cares that people have.
Sure is on their part, Doug. It saddens me that these PEOPLE are having their liberties, their chances to live, love, experience their lives in their own ways STOLEN from them when we pregnant women have had ours.
On the part of the unborn, there’s no caring at all.
Obviously. But that’s not on their part, that’s on YOUR part.
If there is an abortion, or a miscarriage, or if there never was conception in the first place, there’s no difference, there.
If Doug dies of a heart attack tomorrow, or if his parents just didn’t have sex to conceive him, there’s no difference, there. OH WAIT, THERE IS. There is a HUGE difference between existing and being killed, existing and dying of natural causes, and not existing in the first place.
The difference, if any, is with respect to born people thinking about it.
So you’re the guy saying that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, it doesn’t make a sound. I’m the person trying to explain sound waves and how they work to you. And you’re not hearing it.
So glad I refreshed before opening my yap. Well done, xalisae. Huzzah!
Thank you, Hans. I’m sure this will once again fall on deaf ears, however.
Doug’s argument also very easily becomes an argument for the legality of blowing up hamsters with M-80s.
Xalisae, I don’t know you at all, but seriously, I love you. Hope I don’t sound creepy!
Thank you, DolceBella2.
But just give me a couple days. I’ll say something else that’ll make you hate me just as much, I’m sure. ;P
Xalisae, I seriously love you too! Stay strong, sister!!
I love Xalisae too!! Fight on warrior woman!!
Thank you guys. I know I can get pretty fiery sometimes, and we don’t always agree, but I like the lot of you pretty well most of the time. ;)
Xalisae: Doug’s argument also very easily becomes an argument for the legality of blowing up hamsters with M-80s.
Just the opposite, X. Hamsters can suffer, and there’s nothing comparable to being inside the body of a person.
____
“The difference, if any, is with respect to born people thinking about it.”
So you’re the guy saying that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, it doesn’t make a sound. I’m the person trying to explain sound waves and how they work to you. And you’re not hearing it.
So much of this thread is pro-lifers mischaracterizing what pro-choicers say. No, I’m the guy saying that the tree makes sound – longitudinal pressure waves in the air, in this case (a physical phenomenon) – but not ‘noise’ as noise is dependent on there being a receiver. (So they say, anyway.)
You’re not “explaining sound waves” – I know the physical reality of the unborn. You’re giving your opinions, feelings, etc.
____
“You can say that, X, but when they really are ‘children,”
Umm…they always really are children. They’re never holograms, or wax statues, or hallucinations, or anything other than human beings. JUST LIKE WE ARE, only younger. My children are and always have been my children, even back when they were gestating away, and even for the first few months when they were oblivious (probably) to the world around them. Their lack of development and lack of capacity to be thinking or feeling did not change who they are/the entities they were and are now/the organisms they were are are now. You act as though gestating children are magically teleported out of their mothers at some indeterminate time during gestation and replaced with “Real Children™“. I’m sorry to tell you, but that simply doesn’t happen, and if a child is deserving of protection when they are a little older, they’re deserving of protection as soon as they are there in the womb.
No, they’re not always ‘children.’ Sure, the unborn are the biological product of the parents, but that’s not the sense of “child” I was referring to. Dictionary.com, the primary definition is “a person between birth and full growth.” This is where there’s no debate about it. As far as the subjective, in-the-eye-of-the-beholder usages, knock yourself out, but in no way does that mean that your preferences necessarily apply to other people, nor do they constitute meaningful debate. You can all it *anything,* for that matter. But to stomp your feet and say “IS a child” is like stomping your feet and saying “Is NOT a child.”
Anyway, there is a point when “child” necessarily does apply, and that’s what I meant – and at that point the bodily autonomy of the woman doesn’t come into it in the same way, and the kids are normally sentient, emotional, aware, etc. This is why abortion is a matter of great contention, while for born children there isn’t the same issue. I said nothing about “holograms,” etc., but no, the unborn are not “just like we are, only younger.” “We” are sensate, sentient, mentally aware people, discussing things.
“when they’re not inside the body of a person, when they’ve already had full rights and personhood attributed, then it’s a different deal. Nobody’s really going to spend time arguing that. Abortion’s quite a separate thing, i.e. it’s a real issue.”
X: Whever a child is-YES, A REAL CHILD-they should be entitled to legal protection, because they are when they are older.
And when “child” necessarily does apply, the abortion argument does not apply. That’s not what we’re discussing.
____
X: Regardless of how some members of society feel about them and what rights certain members of a society opt to grant them at any point in that society’s history, they SHOULD be entitled to legal protection, even if they don’t currently enjoy that protection.
That’s your “should” just as many people say the pregnant woman should retain the freedom she currently has.
____
Sorry, you can’t say it’s a “different deal” and “Abortion is quite a separate thing.” just because YOU wish it was and have it be so. Just because someone is younger than they are now shouldn’t mean killing them is legal. Their age is not a game-changer. Until you can explain to me how it is and give me a sufficient reason that ending another human being’s life should be legal as long as they’re young enough and ending that life is totally different than ending it A FEW MONTHS or even A FEW WEEKS later, you might as well tell me killing red-heads should be legal, or blind people, or the elderly, or people who can’t juggle, or express themselves eloquently with the written word.
It’s not just because “I wish it to be.” Not being inside the body of a woman, being aware, emotional, being able to suffer, etc., matters to lots of people. It’s not just my feeling. It’s not just a matter of “younger,” it’s that there is not “somebody” there yet, as far as a conscious entity. Yeah, you can say a “living human being” is there, but not that type of “somebody” or a “moral creature of reason” as some refer to. As far as the red-heads, blind people, elderly, etc., there’s nothing comparable to the woman being pregnant. Now, if the red-head was inside the body of a person, *then* you’d have something, and that would definitely be an issue.
“but when it’s the pregnant woman herself that is disagreeing with you then it’s quite understandable that many will take her side.”
Xalisae: Not really, Doug. I’ve been the pregnant woman, and I’m witnessing my daughter’s life after I was begged to abort her. So, watching her entire lifetime unfold before my eyes makes what I thought was a world-shattering problem pregnancy seem like a hangnail. It’s not understandable to me. Not AT ALL. It seems like the most senseless killing I could ever imagine. And mothers are capable of all kinds of evil against their children. The fact that some have been able to rationalize it in a way that others of their ilk can find killing their children “understandable” doesn’t make what is happening acceptable.
Pro-Choicers don’t expect you to feel any differently than that, X. It’s up to you – you were the pregnant woman. Pro-Choicers say you shouldn’t be forced to have an abortion against your will, nor should you be forced to continue the pregnancy against your will. I know that you don’t agree with Pro-Choicers about the woman ending the pregnancy, but they still agree with you when you don’t want to.
___
“I’m saying the wishes of the pregnant woman are coming from somebody much more involved in the situation, versus us discussing things on a message board, for example. She is the person with cares, one way or another, that is by far the closest to the situation.”
Umm…if you think that having your own mother with designs on ending your life in stirrups with a dude in a labcoat and a bunch of pointy crap he intends to end your life with surrounding you is not being “involved in (a) situation”, you are hopeless.
X, I did say “person with cares,” and the does not include the unborn, certainly to a point in gestation.
___
Passive involvement is still involvement, and if you’re that child, you DEFINITELY have the most to lose from your involvement in that situation. I don’t know that I’m going to be jumped on the way to my car tomorrow evening as I come out of the grocery store, killed before I even know what is happening, and robbed. Now, currently, I have no cares about this situation that I am going to be in, because I don’t know that it’s going to happen. If ignorance is so blissful it makes killing you legal, if these guys who are going to kill me tomorrow can get away with it without giving me the opportunity to care one way or another about it, they should be able to get away with it legally. Knowledge of/concern for whether or not my nurse is going to smother me to death with a pillow while I am comatose should not be a requisite to prosecute her if she does.
“Those guys” have no claim on your life that’s remotely comparable to the pregnant woman. It’s not that “ignorance is blissful,” it’s that as far as mentality, caring, awareness, etc., there’s nothing there, period. You’re projecting your emotions onto the unborn.
If you’re a coma patient, then the nurse isn’t going to be the one who decides on your case. Time goes by – it’d be your spouse, and failing that, your family, right?
___
“They’re not closer than the thinking, feeling, born child, and with that situation there’s no significant disagreement about it anyway.”
No, they’re just as close. Only they’re on the active side, causing the situation. Same as the gestating child is in an abortion.
:) Saying, “just as close” isn’t refuting anything there. “Just as close is compatible with “not closer.” ;) X, I know nothing is changing here, and that we simply disagree on some things. But this was excellent:
But just give me a couple days. I’ll say something else that’ll make you hate me just as much, I’m sure. ;P
X: Lots of reasons. People think that just because something is legal means it is right. People don’t like to think of themselves as “bad people” who did something very, very wrong. People don’t like to think of their friends or loved ones as “bad people”, so they defend horrible things in a knee-jerk reaction without thinking about what has actually happened.
That has nothing necessarily to do with abortion, though.
Sure it does. The fact you cannot see this is telling. I have had my very own cousin (who will no longer even talk to me. He blocked me on facebook and everything) tell me that he’s pro-legal-abortion because he doesn’t want to think bad things about family and friends he has that have aborted their children.
Oh good grief, X. I didn’t say that it could “never be the case.” I said that it doesn’t necessarily have to do with abortion. That’s pretty strange about your cousin, but of course that’s hardly the only situation. Many people just value the wishes of the pregnant woman enough, and think that the decision should be hers, either way.
___
“Is it possible to really “have empathy” with an entity that isn’t aware or emotional, that has no awareness at all? If we have empathy with or for “Z,” isn’t there some necessary identification with Z’s feelings, and hence, would not Z have to have feelings in the first place?”
Sure it is possible. That’s why I put spiders outside instead of squashing them. They aren’t harming me. They’re just trying to live.
I don’t think that’s really “empathy,” X, though we need to look closer at it. I think that’s your own philosophy, there, “live and let live,” as you refer to below. That’s fine, but you’re only looking at half the deal, for starters. The pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy isn’t just looking at a spider inside her house. And really, let’s say the spider climbed inside your mouth, while you were sleeping. Or how about if a moth flies into your ear? I’m thinking it’d be a different deal, then.
As far as empathy for the spider, can it suffer? If so, then I’d say empathy is possible.
____
It’s sad that you don’t seem to be able to empathize with anyone or anything that can’t communicate with you directly.
That’s not it. “Direct communication” wouldn’t be required, but that there be “someone” with a mind, feelings, etc., is. If there is no mind there, no brainwaves at all, that’s not just being uncommunicative.
____
“Live and let live.” is entirely lost on you.
That too is not it. “Live and let live” is all fine and good, as long as there’s not a good enough reason to not do it. Put the spider outside, fine. Put the moth outside. If the moth gets stuck in your ear, it very likely is toast.
____
And this isn’t even taking into account the simple fact THAT IF YOU JUST GIVE THIS HUMAN BEING TIME TO GROW, THEY’LL PROBABLY HAVE ALL THESE SAME FEELINGS/EMOTIONS. We’re not even talking about spiders here, Duuuuhg. These are real, actual human beings. Now that my daughter’s 9, I’ll bring her over to your house, she can tell you how happy she is to be alive, and you can start empathizing with human beings who are currently in the situation she once was in.
Yes, that would probably occur in the future. But in the present time, there’s no more caring on the part of the unborn than if there never had been conception. The caring is on the part of born people, one of whom is the pregnant woman.
____
“The sadness, if any, when such an entity dies isn’t on their part, it’s on the part of other observers. I care more about the feelings and liberty of the pregnant woman. You care more about the life of the unborn. The abortion debate is about the different cares that people have.”
Sure is on their part, Doug. It saddens me that these PEOPLE are having their liberties, their chances to live, love, experience their lives in their own ways STOLEN from them when we pregnant women have had ours.
No, there’s no caring there. You’re projecting your own feelings, your “shoulds” and “should nots.” If the unborn were really “people,” there wouldn’t be the argument over abortion that there is.
____
On the part of the unborn, there’s no caring at all.
Obviously. But that’s not on their part, that’s on YOUR part.
No. My part is valuing the woman’s liberty higher. Yours is valuing the unborn life higher.
____
If there is an abortion, or a miscarriage, or if there never was conception in the first place, there’s no difference, there.
If Doug dies of a heart attack tomorrow, or if his parents just didn’t have sex to conceive him, there’s no difference, there. OH WAIT, THERE IS. There is a HUGE difference between existing and being killed, existing and dying of natural causes, and not existing in the first place.
One enormous difference is that I’m not inside the body of a person. If I was, it’d be a whole ‘nother thang.
What I said is true for the unborn. Now if you are talking about born people, then in my case there’s my wife, my parents, my siblings, etc. It’s not like I (or you) could just “disappear” or have not been conceived and have things remain pretty much the same.
If words bounce off a brick wall, can they be heard? Not when it’s not listening. A sure sign of non-sentience, I would think.
Right. As if one definition of a word totally nullifies any other definitions of the word. Flimsy.
If the moth gets stuck in your ear, it very likely is toast.
If you told someone they could put the moth in your ear and you then choose to kill the moth, you are nothing but a moth-bully, Doug. I more easily tolerate those who bully moths though. Way more than those who bully humans.
Kinda like choosing to bring that new puppy into your home and then killing him because he’s chewing on your shoes. Surprise, surprise. I chose to let the puppy in but now I don’t want him. If I kill him, PETA would be all over my butt. I have a low, low tolerance for pet killers. But even a lower tolerance for child killers.
P.S. Moths are not humans and neither are puppies.
also, I have no inherent obligation to a moth or hamster. They are not biologically my minor child.
And honestly, Doug, since you’re the guy going off of the “thinking/feeling/sentience/sapience” thing, which are all just sliding scale-type all-in-our-head subjective mental functions, you definitely WOULD be the guy totally ignoring scientific data detailing soundwaves.
Where is Doug? I’d like to try out one of my favorite movie lines from The Princess Bride, “Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!” ;)
Xalisae: Right. As if one definition of a word totally nullifies any other definitions of the word. Flimsy.
Nobody’s saying they are “nullified.” It’s equally as correct to say the unborn “are babies” or “are children” as to say they are not. That primary definition remains, however, and that’s when the term is not in doubt – between birth and a later point in time.
Hans: If words bounce off a brick wall, can they be heard? Not when it’s not listening. A sure sign of non-sentience, I would think.
:: sticks tongue out at Hans…. ::
There’s no lack of “hearing” or understanding on my part. The fact is that not everybody agrees with you (or pro-lifers in general).
“If the moth gets stuck in your ear, it very likely is toast.”
If you told someone they could put the moth in your ear and you then choose to kill the moth, you are nothing but a moth-bully, Doug.
:) :) Hahahahhaaaaa!!!! Pretty good, Praxedes. My point is that the situation can and often does make a difference, but it’s good to have a laugh.
__
I more easily tolerate those who bully moths though. Way more than those who bully humans.
And what’s “bad” about bullying? I see it as because it causes suffering. People want to legally bully the woman into not having an abortion? Right there is a big reason why I’m pro-choice.
___
Kinda like choosing to bring that new puppy into your home and then killing him because he’s chewing on your shoes. Surprise, surprise. I chose to let the puppy in but now I don’t want him. If I kill him, PETA would be all over my butt. I have a low, low tolerance for pet killers. But even a lower tolerance for child killers.
I agree, that’s not a good enough reason to kill the puppy. If you see a child being killed, call a cop. Heck, if you see a puppy being killed like that, call PETA and Newt Gingrich both.
____
P.S. Moths are not humans and neither are puppies.
And nobody said they were.
X: also, I have no inherent obligation to a moth or hamster. They are not biologically my minor child.
That all is certainly true. There’s also no “inherent obligation” to continue a pregnancy. Not everybody has to do it.
X: And honestly, Doug, since you’re the guy going off of the “thinking/feeling/sentience/sapience” thing, which are all just sliding scale-type all-in-our-head subjective mental functions, you definitely WOULD be the guy totally ignoring scientific data detailing soundwaves.
No I wouldn’t, X. Being able to accurately look at physical reality, and keep it separate from subjective feelings, valuations, etc., isn’t my problem. And it’s not “all just sliding-scale type of stuff,” either. Are there brainwaves or not? For many decades we’ve been able to detect them with medical equipment, quite easily, in fact. If they’re not there, they’re not there.
Hans: Where is Doug? I’d like to try out one of my favorite movie lines from The Princess Bride, “Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!”
Ha! That’s definitely a good one, Hans. I worked in the woods all weekend, cutting down trees, cutting up trees, burning up trees…. Dog-tired, and I know we’re not “settling” anything here…. ;) :)
Better hope they never discover brainwaves in trees. :)
That primary definition remains, however, and that’s when the term is not in doubt – between birth and a later point in time.
Yeah. And the secondary definitions remain, too, and the primary definition doesn’t make the OTHER APPLICABLE definitions INAPPLICABLE, either, and those definitions, since they are listed, are also NOT. IN. DOUBT. They are ONLY in doubt to people who wish to skew things to legitimize terrible atrocities committed against other human beings.
That all is certainly true. There’s also no “inherent obligation” to continue a pregnancy. Not everybody has to do it.
Doug, you missed the second sentence when I said: “They are not biologically my minor child.” Gestating human beings ARE the minor children of pregnant women, which means they DO have an obligation to care for/provide for them, which means NOT KILLING THEM. So, yeah, there IS an obligation, and women DO have to not kill their ‘effin’ children in utero. Tough s***.
Which brings me to my next point:
Being able to accurately look at physical reality, and keep it separate from subjective feelings, valuations, etc., isn’t my problem.
Sure it is. You’re the one weighing things on the scales of “suffering”, which is totally subjective. Heck, you could even bring up masochism and sadism and say that “suffering” people just don’t know a good thing when they feel it, eh? So yeah, it sure as h*** LOOKS like it’s YOUR problem, because I don’t give a squat about “suffering”. By your standards, if my landlord was hassling me about late rent, he had no friends or family that would mourn him (or maybe he was a bit of a d***, and most people would even be GLAD he was gone, eh?), and I could kill him perfectly clean and 100% painless and unbeknownst to him, that’d actually be a GOOD thing, right? He wouldn’t suffer at all, AND it would end the suffering of everyone else that he was persecuting, right?
THAT kind of b.s. is what happens when you grade people as “fit for life” vs. “unfit” based on the b.s. sliding scale of suffering, Doug, instead of just making sure that everyone gets a fair shake if they’re not actually harming anyone.
Seriously, Doug. You need to take a good, HARD look at where you stand, because your argument for abortion sounds a lot like the ethicists’ arguments for “post-birth abortion” or whatever they decided to call it.
What she said.
Hans: Better hope they never discover brainwaves in trees.
Ahahahaa!!! :) :P Hey – I think they found “brainwaves” in a bowl of Jello, eh?
That primary definition remains, however, and that’s when the term is not in doubt – between birth and a later point in time.
Xalisae: Yeah. And the secondary definitions remain, too, and the primary definition doesn’t make the OTHER APPLICABLE definitions INAPPLICABLE, either, and those definitions, since they are listed, are also NOT. IN. DOUBT. They are ONLY in doubt to people who wish to skew things to legitimize terrible atrocities committed against other human beings.
Sure they’re in doubt, there. While what you say is true – they’re not rendered “inapplicable,” i.e. necessarily false, they’re not necessarily true – the opposite (“not a baby, not a child”) having just as much validity. In the end, a semantic argument isn’t much at all, and what’s the point of person A just stating over and over, “Is a child,” while person B states, “Is not a child.” Meaningless argument. You saying “terrible,” there, is your opinion. An equally valid one is “not terrible,” especially not as terrible as taking away the freedom that pregnant women currently have.
____
That all is certainly true. There’s also no “inherent obligation” to continue a pregnancy. Not everybody has to do it.
Doug, you missed the second sentence when I said: “They are not biologically my minor child.” Gestating human beings ARE the minor children of pregnant women, which means they DO have an obligation to care for/provide for them, which means NOT KILLING THEM. So, yeah, there IS an obligation, and women DO have to not kill their ‘effin’ children in utero. Tough s***.
Nothing is changed there, X. Your subjective opinion is not any external fact which necessarily applies to other people. I accept that you feel that way, but there’s nothing “inherent” going on with respect to other people (or the unborn). If, by “my minor child,” you mean the unborn, then you’re taking your conclusion and stating it as part of your premise, which does not a logical argument make.
____
Which brings me to my next point:
“Being able to accurately look at physical reality, and keep it separate from subjective feelings, valuations, etc., isn’t my problem.”
Sure it is. You’re the one weighing things on the scales of “suffering”, which is totally subjective.
No it’s not. When there is “no awareness at all” then zero possibility of suffering is present. Contrast that with the pregnant woman, where there is also no doubt that she’s aware, sentient, can suffer, has emotions, etc.
____
Heck, you could even bring up masochism and sadism and say that “suffering” people just don’t know a good thing when they feel it, eh?
No, because there it’s not up to you or me, it’s up to the people themselves. Nobody is telling you that what you propose, there, is a good idea. There’s no caring people (regardless of what they care about) any closer involved. Same for the pregnant woman, there’s no caring people involved any more closely. In cases where a Pro-Lifer is the pregnant woman herself, that’s fine with Pro-Choicers – she’s free to make her own decision. The same is true for other pregnant women, and there too – Pro-Choicers don’t want the caring of relatively uninvolved people to trump the woman’s wishes, any more than they’d want legal force against you just because you desired to continue your pregnancies.
____
So yeah, it sure as h*** LOOKS like it’s YOUR problem, because I don’t give a squat about “suffering”. By your standards, if my landlord was hassling me about late rent, he had no friends or family that would mourn him (or maybe he was a bit of a d***, and most people would even be GLAD he was gone, eh?), and I could kill him perfectly clean and 100% painless and unbeknownst to him, that’d actually be a GOOD thing, right? He wouldn’t suffer at all, AND it would end the suffering of everyone else that he was persecuting, right? THAT kind of b.s. is what happens when you grade people as “fit for life” vs. “unfit” based on the b.s. sliding scale of suffering, Doug, instead of just making sure that everyone gets a fair shake if they’re not actually harming anyone.
X, you don’t “have” to care about suffering. Yet what’s operative with the vast majority of abortions isn’t suffering on the part of the unborn, but rather on the part of pro-lifers, including yourself, who “suffer” because they think a wrong action is taking place. You still care about suffering, it’s just on your own part. No, why should your landlord be killed? There’s no caring person any closer involved with your proposal, there, than him. Why should his wishes be trumped by yours? Nobody is telling you that they should.
____
Seriously, Doug. You need to take a good, HARD look at where you stand, because your argument for abortion sounds a lot like the ethicists’ arguments for “post-birth abortion” or whatever they decided to call it.
No it doesn’t. After birth, there is nothing like the issue of the woman’s bodily autonomy – which, whether one thinks it enough of a reason for legal abortion or not – is certainly a lot bigger deal than the claims of the people you’re talking about, there. “My argument” would not apply, there, in the first place. Heck, I don’t even extend it to later in gestation. I also don’t think it’s really “ethicists” that favor the legal killing of babies after birth. An ethicist might well be pro-life.
Sure they’re in doubt, there. While what you say is true – they’re not rendered “inapplicable,” i.e. necessarily false, they’re not necessarily true – the opposite (“not a baby, not a child”) having just as much validity.
Says you. Show me how. I’m begging you to show me how the opposite is true, buddy. B/c scientifically, gestating human beings are offspring, and offspring are children, by definition. That stands regardless of how they grow (if they develop without a brain or some other abnormality) and whether they sustain any damage later in life. And I can’t think of how in the flying freak “the opposite has just as much validity”. There is TRUE, and there is FALSE. I know that’s hard for a relativist to comprehend, but I would think you’d have figured out how the world works by now. For f’s sake, you’re older than me. You should know this stuff by now. Two people cannot make diametrically opposed statements and both be correct.
especially not as terrible as taking away the freedom that pregnant women currently have.
Once again, I fail to see how taking away the currently held mother’s “right” to kill her child in utero is more terrible than taking away her child’s life. Just don’t see it. Especially since I have children and am a woman who has been pregnant, under crisis circumstances, and you are a man who may or may not have children and has certainly never been pregnant. I think you might just lack perspective on this issue. Just a smidgeon.
If, by “my minor child,” you mean the unborn, then you’re taking your conclusion and stating it as part of your premise, which does not a logical argument make.
It is my premise AND my conclusion, Doug, because, as illustrated earlier the point which you absolutely, completely, wholeheartedly refuse to acknowledge: IT. IS. A. SCIENTIFIC. FACT! that gestating human beings ARE offspring/children of their parents, and that fact combined with their age means it’s only common-flipping-sense that they are minor children. I’m pretty sure there was a recent judgement by the supreme court of Utah that actually agreed with me on this, too. And, given that gestating human beings are the biological minor children of their parents who have default custody of them, in every other situation currently BESIDES ABORTION, there is a lawful obligation of the parent(s) to their child. I know you hate to acknowledge that gestating human beings ARE the minor children of their parent(s), because then reason and logic only dictate that they, too, would be entitled to this care and protection, legally, just as born children are. It’s not MY fault that your b.s. position is immune to logic and makes you spend all day arguing with dictionaries. Get help.
No it’s not. When there is “no awareness at all” then zero possibility of suffering is present. Contrast that with the pregnant woman, where there is also no doubt that she’s aware, sentient, can suffer, has emotions, etc.
Once again, Doug, by that standard, we could simply put the pregnant woman into an induced coma via heavy sedation so that she couldn’t suffer at all and would lack awareness, sentience, suffering, emoting, etc., and then anything we do to her AND her baby would a-ok! Awareness, sentience, suffering, emotions are all b.s. measuring sticks when you’re talking about taking the lives of other human beings. I don’t care if someone is suffering purely by being alive (because you can’t deny that there are some people who fit into this category), it shouldn’t be legal to kill them. We shouldn’t start letting murderers off the hook just because they find a journal entry of the victims that says, “Boy, I sure hate living. I’m in chronic pain, and every day of my life just absolutely sucks. I wish I were dead, but I’d never do that to myself.” Those qualities are not what makes a human being. There is no other measuring stick, no other tool, no other criteria EXCEPT being an organism that is a member of our species, and every human organism that is under a certain age is a minor child, and every minor child should have the right to the care, nurturing, and protection of anyone who has current guardianship of them.
Same for the pregnant woman, there’s no caring people involved any more closely.
Caring is irrelevant. Even if you kill someone who doesn’t care if you kill them, it’s still murder if they were innocent of any transgression against you. Gestating human beings shouldn’t have to be determined to care. Newborns don’t really give a squat about much, either. Hence, this article we are discussing. You’re making their argument for them, and you don’t even see it. Intentionally overdosing an orphan preemie with no living family members/friends in an NICU that is on life support in a coma (no caring, there, and nobody to care about them, either!) is not a victimless crime. It is murder, and would still be prosecuted with or without care on the part of the oblivious newborn. Your criteria for who gets consideration in this arrangement boils down to nothing more than discrimination in the favor of the human being who best appeals to your emotions. Why you choose to side with a grown adult who is essentially bullying their own child to death is beyond me.
In cases where a Pro-Lifer is the pregnant woman herself, that’s fine with Pro-Choicers – she’s free to make her own decision. The same is true for other pregnant women, and there too – Pro-Choicers don’t want the caring of relatively uninvolved people to trump the woman’s wishes, any more than they’d want legal force against you just because you desired to continue your pregnancies.
You’ve been coming here longer than I have, and you STILL don’t get the Pro-Life point: All choices are not equal. We are not talking about what color sweater to wear, what car to drive, or how to wear your hair on any given day. The choice to abort KILLS ANOTHER HUMAN BEING-a minor child at the behest of his/her parent(s)-and that cannot be allowed in a civilized society.
X, you don’t “have” to care about suffering. Yet what’s operative with the vast majority of abortions isn’t suffering on the part of the unborn, but rather on the part of pro-lifers, including yourself, who “suffer” because they think a wrong action is taking place. You still care about suffering, it’s just on your own part. No, why should your landlord be killed? There’s no caring person any closer involved with your proposal, there, than him. Why should his wishes be trumped by yours? Nobody is telling you that they should.
You’re pretty messed-up if you can try and spin this into selfishness on our part. As if we don’t have living people that we know might’ve been aborted that deserved to be protected by law which is the REAL reason for our fight. No. It’s just our own Meanie McSelfishy. You’re ignorant.
What if the landlord was discovered later to be miserable and have a deathwish he couldn’t act on, and THAT was why he was harassing people, evicting people for unsubstantiated reasons, etc.? And you killed him, so now not only is HIS suffering over, but everyone who lives in your building! YAY! What a good thing you did for everyone!
Some ethicists obviously DO favor the legality of killing babies after birth, or we wouldn’t be here discussing this article.
Clearly, wisdom does not always come with age, Doug.
Pointless waste of time.
Xalisae: Says you. Show me how. I’m begging you to show me how the opposite is true, buddy. B/c scientifically, gestating human beings are offspring, and offspring are children, by definition.
No, not “children” by definition. The primary definition is that a child is between birth and a later time. When we get to the subjective usages, then yeah, you can say it’s either a child or not, before birth. To base the argument on semantics, there, isn’t a meaningful statement in the debate. You can have people, in effect, yelling at each other all day that “It’s not a child,” and “It’s a child,” and that doesn’t get anybody anywhere, really.
____
Once again, I fail to see how taking away the currently held mother’s “right” to kill her child in utero is more terrible than taking away her child’s life. Just don’t see it.
Sure, X, as you don’t make the same valuations as I do. Nobody told you that we all have the same preference in terminology or that “we all agree,” here.
____
“If, by “my minor child,” you mean the unborn, then you’re taking your conclusion and stating it as part of your premise, which does not a logical argument make.”
It is my premise AND my conclusion, Doug, because, as illustrated earlier the point which you absolutely, completely, wholeheartedly refuse to acknowledge: IT. IS. A. SCIENTIFIC. FACT! that gestating human beings ARE offspring/children of their parents, and that fact combined with their age means it’s only common-flipping-sense that they are minor children.
Okay – the fact remains that stating your conclusion as part of the premise is illogical. As far as from conception on the zygote, etc., being the “biological product” of the parents is fact, yes. But that is not the sense of the word “child” that is at issue. Going with the primary definition which refers to a stage of life, a stage of development – this is not present at conception and it also ceases to be present when enough time after birth has elapsed. You can say that a 70 year old son is the “child” of the 90 year old mother, sure, but it’s also correct to say that “he’s not a child anymore,” and it’s that usage that people refer to as far as development. Nobody is telling you that the fetus isn’t the biological issue of the parents, but that’s not the sense of “child” that is operative when we talk about the stages of development.
When you say “minor children,” that points directly to the stage between birth and the age of full legal responsibility.
____
You’re the one weighing things on the scales of “suffering”, which is totally subjective.
No it’s not. When there is “no awareness at all” then zero possibility of suffering is present. Contrast that with the pregnant woman, where there is also no doubt that she’s aware, sentient, can suffer, has emotions, etc.
Once again, Doug, by that standard, we could simply put the pregnant woman into an induced coma via heavy sedation so that she couldn’t suffer at all and would lack awareness, sentience, suffering, emoting, etc., and then anything we do to her AND her baby would a-ok!
First of all, okay, so it’s not “subjective,” there, as I said. And that standard does not stand alone in an imaginary vacuum – there is also the claim of the mother at work. In your example, what claim could carry as much weight? Whose desire is going to trump that of the pregnant woman? There’s not really any significant “we” that is going to put the pregnant woman in a coma. You could say anything as far as hypothetical situations, but there’s nothing that’s even close. However, if the “pregnant woman” was inside your body, then *that* would make quite a difference.
____
Same for the pregnant woman, there’s no caring people involved any more closely.
Caring is irrelevant.
No it’s not, X. This whole argument is different types and focuses of caring.
____
Even if you kill someone who doesn’t care if you kill them, it’s still murder if they were innocent of any transgression against you.
Yes, because it’s legally defined as that. Just as abortion is legally not defined as murder.
____
Gestating human beings shouldn’t have to be determined to care. Newborns don’t really give a squat about much, either. Hence, this article we are discussing.
Yes – they don’t have to be determined to care. It doesn’t “have to matter” to people, same as anything else. Yet it does matter. The fact of the pregnant woman’s awareness, sentience, ability to suffer, desire to be free, etc., matters to many people. With the newborns, the deal is much changed – there’s no longer the same bodily autonomy concerns, etc., and thus there’s nothing like the debate over legal abortion.
____
You’re making their argument for them, and you don’t even see it. Intentionally overdosing an orphan preemie with no living family members/friends in an NICU that is on life support in a coma (no caring, there, and nobody to care about them, either!) is not a victimless crime. It is murder, and would still be prosecuted with or without care on the part of the oblivious newborn. Your criteria for who gets consideration in this arrangement boils down to nothing more than discrimination in the favor of the human being who best appeals to your emotions. Why you choose to side with a grown adult who is essentially bullying their own child to death is beyond me.
You’re trying to stamp me with your own subjective take on it, X. It’s like somebody saying, “Why are these pro-lifers arguing against legal abortion when they know it’s not a baby?”
I’m not making an argument for killing the born. Is there a good enough reason for it? I say no.
____
In cases where a Pro-Lifer is the pregnant woman herself, that’s fine with Pro-Choicers – she’s free to make her own decision. The same is true for other pregnant women, and there too – Pro-Choicers don’t want the caring of relatively uninvolved people to trump the woman’s wishes, any more than they’d want legal force against you just because you desired to continue your pregnancies.
You’ve been coming here longer than I have, and you STILL don’t get the Pro-Life point: All choices are not equal. We are not talking about what color sweater to wear, what car to drive, or how to wear your hair on any given day. The choice to abort KILLS ANOTHER HUMAN BEING-a minor child at the behest of his/her parent(s)-and that cannot be allowed in a civilized society.
We weren’t talking about sweaters. You can see the objection to forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will. Likewise, pro-choicers see the argument against forcing her to continue the pregnancy against her will. I get the pro-life argument, it’s saying that the life of the unborn is the most important thing. Well, not everybody agrees with that.
We don’t need an unlimited number of people on earth. We don’t need every pregnancy continued, to the extent that we’d deny an abortion to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. A miscarriage can be a *very* sad thing, when the pregnancy is wanted. It’s not “the end of the world” for society, however, any more than an abortion is. Take 10,000 abortions when the pregnancies are unwanted, and there can be a lot more sadness with the one miscarriage where the parents wanted to have a kid.
____
X, you don’t “have” to care about suffering. Yet what’s operative with the vast majority of abortions isn’t suffering on the part of the unborn, but rather on the part of pro-lifers, including yourself, who “suffer” because they think a wrong action is taking place. You still care about suffering, it’s just on your own part. No, why should your landlord be killed? There’s no caring person any closer involved with your proposal, there, than him. Why should his wishes be trumped by yours? Nobody is telling you that they should.
You’re pretty messed-up if you can try and spin this into selfishness on our part. As if we don’t have living people that we know might’ve been aborted that deserved to be protected by law which is the REAL reason for our fight. No. It’s just our own Meanie McSelfishy. You’re ignorant.
You’re just being silly, there. It’s all “selfish” – all our motivation comes from the self, even though we might ascribe it to external influences. It’s what we want – whether it’s for the unborn life to continue, first and foremost, or for the pregnant woman to be able to make her own best choice, to keep the liberty she now has.
Okay, there are living people you know now, and yeah – their mothers could have had an abortion. There are also millions of miscarriages and abortions that have taken place, that would have resulted in more and/or different people on earth. My mom didn’t have any miscarriages that I know of, but she may have had several from eggs not implanting, etc. I’ve got 3 brothers and a sister, it could have been more, or less, for that matter. It’s the world we have.
____
What if the landlord was discovered later to be miserable and have a deathwish he couldn’t act on, and THAT was why he was harassing people, evicting people for unsubstantiated reasons, etc.? And you killed him, so now not only is HIS suffering over, but everyone who lives in your building! YAY! What a good thing you did for everyone!
But who’s actually going to be for that? Yes, those people didn’t like what the landlord was doing, but is that a good enough reason for killing him? No – you’re really not going to find agreement with that. It’s not going to be seen as a good enough reason to deny him a right he now has. Likewise, that you and other people don’t like what the pregnant woman does when she has an abortion; that feeling on your part isn’t seen as a good enough reason to deny the woman the right she now has.
___
Some ethicists obviously DO favor the legality of killing babies after birth, or we wouldn’t be here discussing this article.
Okay, and that doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. I would say they are in a very small minority. If anything, I’d also say that increasing population pressure will be what increases that type of feeling.
Clearly, wisdom does not always come with age, Doug.
Of course, Hans. Same for people (of any age) engaging in the folly of semantic arguments, pretending that their opinions are external fact, and needing to pretend that they have the imaginary “moral high ground.”
Life is better than death. But I guess that’s being too moralistic.
Hans, I wouldn’t say that’s “being too moralistic.” But that’s far from the whole deal here. Being free is also better than not being free, stated like that.