Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Philosophy Of Infanticide

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by element771 View Post
    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.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        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?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          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>
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            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'.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by element771 View Post
              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.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              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!
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                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...
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  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?
                  Infanticide is “murder” as far as I’m concerned. Once a fetus has developed to the stage when it could survive outside the womb, it warrants all the rights and protections of the Law. This is the most common criterion used in drafting laws regulating abortion
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Infanticide is “murder” as far as I’m concerned. Once a fetus has developed to the stage when it could survive outside the womb, it warrants all the rights and protections of the Law. This is the most common criterion used in drafting laws regulating abortion
                    Tass, that is not my question - logically why is your definition of person right and the authors definition in the OP wrong?
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Infanticide is “murder” as far as I’m concerned. Once a fetus has developed to the stage when it could survive outside the womb, it warrants all the rights and protections of the Law. This is the most common criterion used in drafting laws regulating abortion
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by element771 View Post
                        The problem is that this is an arbitrary definition.
                        All definitions are arbitrary, whether it is defining ‘personhood’ as being at birth as the Jews traditionally have, or at conception as Evangelicals and Catholics tend to do, or once the fetus has become viable, which is the most common criterion nowadays used in drafting laws regulating abortion. And the most logical IMHO!

                        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 ‘persons’ 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.
                        The line I’m supporting is that without a functioning brain an entity cannot be considered a ‘person’ with rights and protections. The mother also has rights; it’s a question of balancing the two and this is what Roe v Wade does.
                        Last edited by Tassman; 06-04-2018, 12:10 AM.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          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".
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            All definitions are arbitrary
                            How is defining something to be living arbitrary?


                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            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.


                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            All ‘persons’ 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.


                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            The line I’m supporting is that without a functioning brain an entity cannot be considered a ‘person’ with rights and protections.
                            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?

                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            The mother also has rights; it’s a question of balancing the two and this is what Roe v Wade does.
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by element771 View Post
                              How is defining something to be living arbitrary?
                              "Something living" is too general to be meaningful, e.g. a cell can be defined as “living”. What we’re defining is 'personhood'. I.e. whether personhood is defined as beginning at birth, as the Jews have traditionally defined it, or at conception as Evangelicals and Catholics tend to define it, or once the fetus has become viable...the last being the most common criterion nowadays

                              It is a problem because you just added another criterion...brain pattern.
                              It’s not a problem; it refers to a functioning brain which is necessary for a fetus to be a viable entity that can live outside a womb.

                              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.
                              The mother’s choices are mostly limited to the first two trimesters, usually occurring in the first trimester. Third trimester or late term abortions are rare and not generally legal except in certain extreme medical situations.

                              I would assume that the fetus would choose to remain alive in order to reach their full potential.
                              That’s a hypothetical assumption; the embryo or fetus is not in a position to make such a decision.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                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.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X