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
-
Sure 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."
Originally posted by Tassman View PostSeparate question related to life support systems and unrelated to abortions.
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
-
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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..
There is no balance when one party has all of the power.
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.
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.
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.
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
-
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 PostCertainly, but a non-viable fetus, unlike a patient in a coma, is not able to survive whatever the circumstances.
So I could kill a brain dead man and that would be ok because he is not "viable"?
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
|
172 responses
608 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment