Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
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
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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post"Something living" is too general to be meaningful, e.g. a cell can be defined as “living”.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostWhat 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
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 PostIt’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.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostSeparate question related to life support systems and unrelated to abortions.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThat’s a hypothetical assumption; the embryo or fetus is not in a position to make such a decision.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAre 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.“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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo answer then. If the law deems that a Jew is not a person, is it OK to kill 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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIf 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."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
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostSure ok...how about this, a 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.
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."
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.
That is not an assumption...you pointing out that the fetus is not in a position to make a decision actually PROVES my point.“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
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostSo if you agree with a law, and only then, then it's morally binding on the basis of it being a law?“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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAnswer the question. In the context of this discussion, what do you mean by "right".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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostHow about a “viable living human”?
Originally posted by Tassman View PostCan you be so sure you are right, why not learn from what other societies do and why they do so?
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 PostNot so. Why grant the entitlements of Law to a non-viable entity that cannot survive outside the womb.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAn 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..
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIt 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostA 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo when most people in a society thought burning women as witches was OK then it was fine, right? So what's your problem?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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou 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.“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
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostViable 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.
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.
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.
Exactly so why make an exception for a fetus.
There is no balance when one party has all of the power.“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
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNeither 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".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
-
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.
Also, what if the technology becomes available? Would you then change your position?
Originally posted by Tassman View PostCertainly, but a non-viable fetus, unlike a patient in a coma, is not able to survive whatever the circumstances.
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.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThere’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.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
161 responses
513 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
Today, 05:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment