The Philosophy Of Infanticide

[Tassman]

If there were no moral implications to abortion, you would not need to add another term to define when something is alive.

The embryo/fetus is alive from the moment of conception, that's not the issue.

The fact that we are now debating "personhood" indicates that there are moral implications. Otherwise, we would not need an additional term to justify it morally and ethically.

The issue is when the fetus is deemed a 'person' in Law, and as such entitled to receive the rights and protections of the law. E.g. for the Jews (and presumably Jesus, as a Jew), it was when the baby was born..."And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen 2:7. For many nowadays it's when the fetus is viable, i.e. near the end of the second trimester, which is why the vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester.

[element771]

The embryo/fetus is alive from the moment of conception, that's not the issue.

That is the issue and the only relevant one.

And I don't understand why you keep quoting scripture. I am using science to identify a human life.

[Sparko]

The embryo/fetus is alive from the moment of conception, that's not the issue.



The issue is when the fetus is deemed a 'person' in Law, and as such entitled to receive the rights and protections of the law. E.g. for the Jews (and presumably Jesus, as a Jew), it was when the baby was born..."And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen 2:7. For many nowadays it's when the fetus is viable, i.e. near the end of the second trimester, which is why the vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester.

So if the law deems that a Jew is not a person, is it OK to kill them, Mr. Hitler?

[Tassman]

Ok, so you don't know what you are talking about. Charlie Grad was not starved; he wasn't just ill but terminally ill; and the refusal was because the treatment the parents wanted would have been both painful and futile.

Never let the facts get in the way of moral outrage. <sarcasm>

[Cow Poke]

Never let the facts get in the way of moral outrage. <sarcasm>

Kinda like 'never let the facts get in the way of Tassman's doubling down on being wrong'.

[Tassman]

That is the issue and the only relevant one.

No, the relevant issue is when an embryo/fetus is deemed to be a 'person' with the rights and privileges of a person in Law. In our society this is usually when it is viable and could survive outside the womb. This is the most common criterion used in drafting laws regulating abortion, e.g. Roe v Wade.

And I don't understand why you keep quoting scripture. I am using science to identify a human life.

It is an example of when the Jews traditionally deemed an entity to have the above rights, namely at birth.

So if the law deems that a Jew is not a person, is it OK to kill them, Mr. Hitler?

Ah, Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies. Again!

[seer]

No, the relevant issue is when an embryo/fetus is deemed to be a 'person' with the rights and privileges of a person in Law. In our society this is usually when it is viable and could survive outside the womb. This is the most common criterion used in drafting laws regulating abortion, e.g. Roe v Wade.

Tass you still have not answered my question:That is not what I'm asking Tass, I'm asking you why your definition of personhood is right and the authors in the OP are wrong?

Ah, Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies. Again!

Godwin was an idiot...

[Tassman]

Tass you still have not answered my question:That is not what I'm asking Tass, I'm asking you why your definition of personhood is right and the authors in the OP are wrong?

[seer]

Tass, that is not my question - logically why is your definition of person right and the authors definition in the OP wrong?

[element771]

The problem is that this is an arbitrary definition. If science gets us to the point that we can create an artificial womb, what then?

The parallels to classifying different races as "non-persons" that do not warrant all the rights and protections of the law are striking.

You set an arbitrary line that meets the narrative you are trying to support.

[Tassman]

The problem is that this is an arbitrary definition.

If science gets us to the point that we can create an artificial womb, what then?

I don't see the problem. Once an entity has developed a brain pattern and viability it is entitled to the protection of Law...whether in its mother's womb or an artificial womb.,

The parallels to classifying different races as "non-persons" that do not warrant all the rights and protections of the law are striking.

All regardless of race, religious beliefs or sexual orientation warrant equal rights as set down in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You set an arbitrary line that meets the narrative you are trying to support.

[Tassman]

Tass, that is not my question - logically why is your definition of person right and the authors definition in the OP wrong?

Define what you mean by "right".

[element771]

All definitions are arbitrary

How is defining something to be living arbitrary?

I don't see the problem. Once an entity has developed a brain pattern and viability it is entitled to the protection of Law...whether in its mother's womb or an artificial womb.,

It is a problem because you just added another criterion...brain pattern.

All regardless of race, religious beliefs or sexual orientation warrant equal rights as set down in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What if I define a "person" as something that is alive and say that your definition of a person is wrong? At this point it boils down to an opinion on whether something or someone should be considered a person. Black people were considered 3/5 of a person at one point. Again, this is an arbitrary line that was developed to defend a certain point of view.


At what point do you consider someone to have a functioning brain?

If someone has enough brain damage to fall below your criterion, are they no longer a person?

I don't seem much balance when the mother can choose to terminate the pregnancy. I would assume that the fetus would choose to remain alive in order to reach their full potential.

[Tassman]

How is defining something to be living arbitrary?

It is a problem because you just added another criterion...brain pattern.

What if I define a "person" as something that is alive and say that your definition of a person is wrong? At this point it boils down to an opinion on whether something or someone should be considered a person. Black people were considered 3/5 of a person at one point. Again, this is an arbitrary line that was developed to defend a certain point of view.

All viable entities and people should be considered a person, with the rights and protections of a person.

At what point do you consider someone to have a functioning brain?

A fetus has a functioning brain when it has developed to the degree that the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb...usually by the end of the second trimester.

If someone has enough brain damage to fall below your criterion, are they no longer a person?

Separate question related to life support systems and unrelated to abortions.

I don't seem much balance when the mother can choose to terminate the pregnancy.

I would assume that the fetus would choose to remain alive in order to reach their full potential.

[seer]

Define what you mean by "right".

Are you kidding Tass? But you are making my point - you can not logically argue that their definition is wrong or that yours right, which makes the whole argument based on personhood arbitrary and useless.