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

  • #31
    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.



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



    Ah, Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies. Again!
    So answer then. If the law deems that a Jew is not a person, is it OK to kill them?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      "Something living" is too general to be meaningful, e.g. a cell can be defined as “living”.
      Sure ok...how about this, a living human.

      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      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
      Two things....

      This is where the subjective idea comes into play.

      I really don't care how the Jews or Christians have defined it in the past.

      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      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.
      You had to add this criterion to your definition of "personhood" which is why I said it is a problem. You are picking and choosing what criterion to add in order to make it fit your desired definition of "personhood."

      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Separate question related to life support systems and unrelated to abortions.
      No it isn't. If you specify something isn't a person in one scenario but is in another...that is inconsistent. So a fetus with a certain level of brain activity is not a "person" but a brain damaged adult with the same brain pattern as this fetus is a "person"? This is just an arbitrary line that you posit to fit your narrative.

      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      That’s a hypothetical assumption; the embryo or fetus is not in a position to make such a decision.
      That is not an assumption...you pointing out that the fetus is not in a position to make a decision actually PROVES my point.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        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.
        Answer the question. In the context of this discussion, what do 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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          So answer then. If the law deems that a Jew is not a person, is it OK to kill them?
          If the law deems a witch deserves death, is it OK to kill them? If the law deems that heretics should be burnt at the stake is it OK to do so? I could go on. In short there are bad laws based upon invalid arguments, but arguing that an insensate embryo is entitled to the protection of the Law as per adult humans is not one of them.
          “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


          • #35
            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            If the law deems a witch deserves death, is it OK to kill them? If the law deems that heretics should be burnt at the stake is it OK to do so? I could go on. In short there are bad laws based upon invalid arguments, but arguing that an insensate embryo is entitled to the protection of the Law as per adult humans is not one of them.
            So if you agree with a law, and only then, then it's morally binding on the basis of it being a law?
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by element771 View Post
              Sure ok...how about this, a living human.
              How about a viable living human”?

              Two things....

              This is where the subjective idea comes into play.

              I really don't care how the Jews or Christians have defined it in the past.
              Can you be so sure you are right, why not learn from what other societies do and why they do so?

              You had to add this criterion to your definition of "personhood" which is why I said it is a problem. You are picking and choosing what criterion to add in order to make it fit your desired definition of "personhood."
              Not so. Why grant the entitlements of Law to a non-viable entity that cannot survive outside the womb.

              No it isn't. If you specify something isn't a person in one scenario but is in another...that is inconsistent. So a fetus with a certain level of brain activity is not a "person" but a brain damaged adult with the same brain pattern as this fetus is a "person"? This is just an arbitrary line that you posit to fit your narrative.
              An adult who is severely brain damaged is entitled to the protection of the law. But, in severe cases, the question of switching off life support systems will arise and for the same reason. A human without a functioning brain cannot be a viable human being, no matter how you try to make it fit your narrative..

              That is not an assumption...you pointing out that the fetus is not in a position to make a decision actually PROVES my point.
              It doesn’t. The point is that the mother also has rights, so it becomes is a question of when the fetus’ rights supplant those of the mother. In Roe v Wade it is when the fetus is sufficiently viable to have a life separate from its mother as an individual person. This provides the correct balance IMO.
              “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


              • #37
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                So if you agree with a law, and only then, then it's morally binding on the basis of it being a law?
                A law is morally binding on the basis of the universal ethical principles that are commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, and nations. These ethical principles are best embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which your country and mine are signatories.
                “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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Answer the question. In the context of this discussion, what do you mean by "right".
                  You are dodging Tass, which definition of "person" is correct - yours or theirs? The reason why you don't answer is that you can't, you have no objective way to show that your definition is the correct definition. Hence these arguments about personhood are 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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    How about a viable living human”?
                    Viable is dependent on technology and changes over time. If this is a moral issue, then we should try to get to the core principle and not add any modifiers.


                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Can you be so sure you are right, why not learn from what other societies do and why they do so?
                    This is a weird turn of events. I am trying for a strictly scientific approach and you are using Jewish and Christian history to support your opinion.

                    The reason that I don't take their opinions is that this is a biological issue and we now know a lot more than we did. If the fetus was a clump of cells right until the last trimester, that maybe would change things. However, we now know that the primary structures in the fetus are pretty much fully formed early on and just needs to mature / grow enough to survive on its own.

                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Not so. Why grant the entitlements of Law to a non-viable entity that cannot survive outside the womb.
                    Because survival is highly dependent on circumstances. A baby could not survive on its own. A patient in a coma may not be able to survive without a breathing machine. However, each of those have the potential to survive given the right circumstances.

                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    An adult who is severely brain damaged is entitled to the protection of the law. But, in severe cases, the question of switching off life support systems will arise and for the same reason. A human without a functioning brain cannot be a viable human being, no matter how you try to make it fit your narrative..
                    Exactly so why make an exception for a fetus.


                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    It doesn’t. The point is that the mother also has rights, so it becomes is a question of when the fetus’ rights supplant those of the mother. In Roe v Wade it is when the fetus is sufficiently viable to have a life separate from its mother as an individual person. This provides the correct balance IMO.
                    There is no balance when one party has all of the power.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      A law is morally binding on the basis of the universal ethical principles that are commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, and nations. These ethical principles are best embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which your country and mine are signatories.
                      So when most people in a society thought burning women as witches was OK then it was fine, right? So what's your problem?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        So when most people in a society thought burning women as witches was OK then it was fine, right? So what's your problem?
                        The burning of witches was done with good reason, it was believed at the time, just as was Moses' genocide, slavery and rape of the Midianites. But the universal ethical principles, that are commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, have evolved since then and are best embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
                        Last edited by Tassman; 06-05-2018, 08:38 PM.
                        “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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          You are dodging Tass, which definition of "person" is correct - yours or theirs? The reason why you don't answer is that you can't, you have no objective way to show that your definition is the correct definition. Hence these arguments about personhood are arbitrary and useless.
                          Neither do you. You appeal to the universal, eternal Law of God but cannot prove that it exists or even show what it is. Your interpretation of God's supposed eternal Law is just as subjective as mine in defining "personhood".
                          “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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by element771 View Post
                            Viable is dependent on technology and changes over time. If this is a moral issue, then we should try to get to the core principle and not add any modifiers.
                            “Viable” in this instance refers to an entity with the ability to exist independent of the mother. Without this no technology is available to enable the fetus to survive.

                            This is a weird turn of events. I am trying for a strictly scientific approach and you are using Jewish and Christian history to support your opinion.

                            The reason that I don't take their opinions is that this is a biological issue and we now know a lot more than we did. If the fetus was a clump of cells right until the last trimester, that maybe would change things. However, we now know that the primary structures in the fetus are pretty much fully formed early on and just needs to mature / grow enough to survive on its own.
                            Until the “primary structures in the fetus have matured and grown enough to survive on their own” the fetus is not viable; it does not have the ability to exist independent of the mother.

                            Because survival is highly dependent on circumstances. A baby could not survive on its own. A patient in a coma may not be able to survive without a breathing machine. However, each of those have the potential to survive given the right circumstances.
                            Certainly, but a non-viable fetus, unlike a patient in a coma, is not able to survive whatever the circumstances.

                            Exactly so why make an exception for a fetus.
                            There’s no exception. Neither a brain dead man nor a fetus which has not yet developed a functioning brain, are capable of being viable human beings.

                            There is no balance when one party has all of the power.
                            There’s certainly "no balance” when one party has no human rights over her own body at any stage of the pregnancy as per the “right to life” scenario.
                            “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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              Neither do you. You appeal to the universal, eternal Law of God but cannot prove that it exists or even show what it is. Your interpretation of God's supposed eternal Law is just as subjective as mine in defining "personhood".
                              Tass, we are speaking of the definition of personhood here, and I said nothing about God's law, only that using personhood as a criterion is useless. Human life begins at conception and that is the rational, consistent and scientific standard we should use.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                “Viable” in this instance refers to an entity with the ability to exist independent of the mother. Without this no technology is available to enable the fetus to survive.
                                A newborn infant cannot survive independent of someone taking care of it. What is the difference?

                                Also, what if the technology becomes available? Would you then change your position?


                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                Certainly, but a non-viable fetus, unlike a patient in a coma, is not able to survive whatever the circumstances.
                                That is only dependent on current technology. That is what the fundamental problem with your criteria.


                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                                There’s no exception. Neither a brain dead man nor a fetus which has not yet developed a functioning brain, are capable of being viable human beings.
                                So I could kill a brain dead man and that would be ok because he is not "viable"?


                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                There’s certainly "no balance” when one party has no human rights over her own body at any stage of the pregnancy as per the “right to life” scenario.
                                The body of the fetus is not the same as the body of the mother.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 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