The problem of SJWs

Page 31 of 108 [ 1723 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 108 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,120
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

11 Nov 2016, 5:21 am

Check the edit.

Quote:

the difference is self-consciousness. The fetus is not self-aware like a full grown human

And so the newborn, newborns of first days aren't much self-conscious.

Some severe cases of Autism and mental retardation in adults may lack full self-consciousness - aren't they persons tho?- from what I know it's not legal to kill them.

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

11 Nov 2016, 5:30 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Check the edit.

Quote:

the difference is self-consciousness. The fetus is not self-aware like a full grown human

Euthanasia is legal in some places in the world. I have no problem with it if a human is lacking in self-awareness and is not able to return to consciousness. Same goes for a newborn. If they were subject to such an illness, euthanasia would be acceptable to me.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,120
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

11 Nov 2016, 5:33 am

androbot01 wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Check the edit.

Quote:

the difference is self-consciousness. The fetus is not self-aware like a full grown human

Ok , I don't disagree here, but legally those are still persons even if the law allows ending their life under certain circumstances, but I am arguing against the idea that a fetus is never a person/human.

So a premature infant suddenly becomes a person while a fetus of the same age isn't?

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

11 Nov 2016, 5:37 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

androbot01 wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Check the edit.

Quote:

the difference is self-consciousness. The fetus is not self-aware like a full grown human

The terminology is different for some reason, but I see no difference. The premature infant is unaware. Of course, it is now out of the woman's body, so it is no longer solely her decision.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,867
Location: London

11 Nov 2016, 5:42 am

adifferentname wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Abortion isn't murder, any way you look at it.

If you have a narrow perspective, perhaps.

There's no consensus of agreement as to what stage of in utero development we should consider eligible for the right to life. The limitations set by abortion laws are often informed only by medical opinion on the health of the mother, without consideration for that question "when do human rights apply?".

Further, considering you live in the UK, you should be aware that abortions remain illegal at any stage in Northern Ireland unless a doctor deems it necessary "only to save the life of the mother".

Whether or not abortion constitutes murder depends entirely upon whose soil you're currently standing.

This is a good point, in some places it is legally considered murder. Morally, though, it's a different story. I don't think defining something as murder automatically makes it as bad as killing another person without consent.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Hmm....no, once a fetus exhibits brain activity, then it's a person - sorry but I can't see how scientifically be other than that- at this stage it's not simply a group of cells. I don't believe in souls so I am talking entirely from biological point of view. Clinical death is often determined once the brain stops any activity.

Brain activity doesn't make you a person. Ants have brain activity.

Persons are not biological entities as such, although of course all psychology is rooted in biology. For my purposes, a person is a being capable of self awareness. That applies to nearly all adult humans except a few in the very late stages of degenerative neurological disease, and a few after severe accidents with no hope of reacquiring consciousness, as well as newborn babies and perhaps a few small children with incredibly severe and equally rare neurological conditions. It also applies to a lot of non-human animals and probably a lot of non-Earth life.

This isn't the legal definition, of course, but I think it should be.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

11 Nov 2016, 6:19 am

The_Walrus wrote:

But what constitutes a "person". A fertilised egg is a stage of a human life, as is a blastocyst, an embryo, etc. I'm not a fan of any definition which distinguishes "person" from "human".

Quote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Brain activity doesn't make you a person. Ants have brain activity.

At best, it is uncharitable to both infer and imply that Boo was talking about anything other than a human fetus.

Quote:

Persons are not biological entities as such, although of course all psychology is rooted in biology. For my purposes, a person is a being capable of self awareness.That applies to nearly all adult humans except a few in the very late stages of degenerative neurological disease, and a few after severe accidents with no hope of reacquiring consciousness, as well as newborn babies and perhaps a few small children with incredibly severe and equally rare neurological conditions. It also applies to a lot of non-human animals and probably a lot of non-Earth life.

If you mean "immediately capable", then you're disqualifying pretty much all children under 15 months old from personhood. To include them would require you define personhood as "potentially capable of self-awareness", which includes fertilised eggs.

Quote:

This isn't the legal definition, of course, but I think it should be.

I think that, in the absence of a clearly defined moment at which a fetus attains the "right to life", we should err on the side of preservation.

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

11 Nov 2016, 6:27 am

adifferentname wrote:

I think that, in the absence of a clearly defined moment at which a fetus attains the "right to life", we should err on the side of preservation.

Why? Why should we disregard the right of bodily autonomy of a person because it's "too hard" to figure it out. It actually isn't too hard. I already explained my definition of personhood which was presented much more eloquently by the Walrus.

A person and a human are not the same.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

11 Nov 2016, 7:06 am

androbot01 wrote:

adifferentname wrote:

I think that, in the absence of a clearly defined moment at which a fetus attains the "right to life", we should err on the side of preservation.

Why? Why should we disregard the right of bodily autonomy of a person because it's "too hard" to figure it out.

Why? Why are you still trying to put words in my mouth and pretending that it's a valid debate strategy?

On what grounds do you deny the bodily autonomy of the unborn?

Quote:

It actually isn't too hard. I already explained my definition of personhood which was presented much more eloquently by the Walrus.

And I posted my objections. If it were a simple matter of going with whatever androbot01's opinion is, there'd be consensus among philosophers, medical professionals, politicians, etc.

Quote:

A person and a human are not the same.

According to whom?

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,867
Location: London

11 Nov 2016, 8:13 am

adifferentname wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

But what constitutes a "person". A fertilised egg is a stage of a human life, as is a blastocyst, an embryo, etc. I'm not a fan of any definition which distinguishes "person" from "human".

I have answered this below.

It seems totally irrational to me to place human life on a pedestal.

adifferentname wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Brain activity doesn't make you a person. Ants have brain activity.

At best, it is uncharitable to both infer and imply that Boo was talking about anything other than a human fetus.

I neither inferred nor implied that.

Boo said "human foetuses are persons because they have brain activity", implying that brain activity is a sufficient criterion for personhood. I pointed out that it isn't.

Quote:

I'm not particularly familiar with child development, but I'm also not necessarily opposed to disallowing personhood for babies. However, just because something doesn't have personhood does not mean it is not worth treating well or keeping alive. I'm against cruelty to animals. Additionally, conscious people form very close attachments to babies, and so killing one is different to a woman taking control of her body. I just don't think a newborn dying is inherently worse than a cat dying.

Quote:

This isn't the legal definition, of course, but I think it should be.

I think that, in the absence of a clearly defined moment at which a fetus attains the "right to life", we should err on the side of preservation.

Agreed, but there's no need to provide restrictions on abortion in order to do so. I think the current "abortion OK, infanticide not OK" paradigm sacrifices consistency for safety and pragmatism. If there is to be any expansion of rights, it should be focused on non-humans with equal or superior cognitive capacities to infants.

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

11 Nov 2016, 8:21 am

adifferentname wrote:

Why? Why are you still trying to put words in my mouth and pretending that it's a valid debate strategy?

I have not put words in your mouth.

adifferentname wrote:

On what grounds do you deny the bodily autonomy of the unborn?

Already answered.

adifferentname wrote:

According to whom?

It's me, androbot.

It would be helpful for the debate if you wouldn't personalize so much, adifferentname.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

11 Nov 2016, 9:36 am

The_Walrus wrote:

adifferentname wrote:

At best, it is uncharitable to both infer and imply that Boo was talking about anything other than a human fetus.

I suspect you know very well that I was objecting to your argument about ants. It is apparent from context that he is talking about a human fetus, yet you implied that his logic applied outside the bounds of that parameter, specifically to ants.

Quote:

If your metric is the bodily autonomy of a pregnant woman, it logically follows that - in the absence of coercion or physical force - she chose to be pregnant through voluntary action. The problem then becomes whether or not the embryo that she voluntarily created is entitled to the right to life.

Quote:

I just don't think a newborn dying is inherently worse than a cat dying.

If given an inescapable choice between killing a cat and a newborn baby, which would you choose?

Quote:

This isn't the legal definition, of course, but I think it should be.

I think that, in the absence of a clearly defined moment at which a fetus attains the "right to life", we should err on the side of preservation.

"Abortion OK, infanticide not OK" is not a universal paradigm, and therein lies the problem. By way of a thought experiment, how would your opinion differ if we transplanted all human blastocysts into artificial wombs until "birth"?

androbot01 wrote:

I have not put words in your mouth.

Quote where I said it was "too hard" to figure it out.

Quote:

Already answered

Not to my satisfaction.

Quote:

It's me, androbot.

I'm aware of to whom I am speaking, thanks. The name I used in quotation should clue you in to that fact.

Care to answer my question, or should I just mark it down as an unqualified opinion?

Quote:

It would be helpful for the debate if you wouldn't personalize so much, adifferentname.

It would be helpful to the discussion if you didn't speak in riddles. What precisely is your point?

It would be of further help to the discussion if you could engage with my words in their spirit and context, rather than misconstruing them in order to facilitate the construction of strawmen, as per my objection.

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

11 Nov 2016, 10:07 am

adifferentname wrote:

You're the one misconstruing words here. He used ants as an example of an organism with brain activity. What is the problem?

adifferentname wrote:

androbot01 wrote:

I have not put words in your mouth.

Quote where I said it was "too hard" to figure it out.

The words in the quote marks were not meant to quote you, which is obvious because you didn't write them. I used them to quote what I see as a colloquialism.

adifferentname wrote:

What precisely is your point?

I think I've been pretty clear in my argument.

lidsmichelle
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2016
Gender: Female
Posts: 686
Location: South-eastern Washington

11 Nov 2016, 10:21 am

As someone who actually has as uterus, kindly shut tbe f**k up if you don't have one. The way a lot of men happily love the idea of removing bodily autonomy from women (and other people who are able to get pregnant) concerns me.

Spiders are alive too, and yet we have no problem killing them. You eat dead animals that we kill. Fetuses are not human beings in the sense that they are not consciously aware. Bugs and livestock have more awareness than fetuses, yet you many of you don't complain about killing them.

And for what it's worth, I believe we shouldn't leave people on life support if there's no chance of them regaining an actual semblance of life. If you aren't aware and can't think then you aren't really alive or a person anymore. You're just an empty husk. It's grotesque to keep people alive when they aren't actually living.

On that note, white fetuses will eventually develop into something aware, they don't trump the rights of the person who is carrying it within their body.

Also some of you people are idiots. She and many others support late term abortion because there are incredibly stupid and dangerous people who think that a late term abortion done out of medical necessity for the pregnant person is bad. I highly doubt she supports late term abortion in the sense of just wanting one.

_________________
Herein You Will Find Various And Numerous And Innumerable Hexes, Curses, Words In The Old Tongue To Cleave A’Twain Friend, Foe, Family Alike. If You So Choose. Money Hates Me, God Hates Me, My Wife Hates Me, My Own Hands Hate Me. But Thats All Beside The Point. The Point Is That My Time Here On Earth Runs Short. Im Not Dying But You All Are. Im A Glass Of Wine. Nothing Beats A Glass Of Wine. When The Kids Arent Home And Your A Mother Theres A Glass Of Wine There. A Glass Coffee Table And I’m A Glass Of Wine. Stressful Day When The Kids And you're Husband Then Glass Of Wine. Dark Chocolate Indulge. Petty Indulgences. When you're A Glass Of Wine And Let The Body’s Hit The Floor. When Your Glass Of Wine Is Running Short And You Say Heck What Of It. Why Dont I Have Another. Bartender I Am A Glass Of Wine. Bottoms Up And The Devil Laughs. The Bartender Remembers When It Happened. They All Remember When It Happened And If They Knew That You Dont Remember Then They Would Know That Something Is Awry Here Or So They Would Think. Something Would Be Amiss Or Smells Fishy. So Theyre All Relating There Stories Of Where They Were When That Event Happened And The Eyes Move Clockwise About The Room Where We All Share Our Glass Of Wine And Suddenly The Clock Ticks To You And They Ask The Fatal Question That Destroys Your Reputation, The Question You Could Never Answer, The Dead Giveaway: Where Were You When The Bodies Hit The Floor

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

11 Nov 2016, 10:51 am

androbot01 wrote:

You're the one misconstruing words here. He used ants as an example of an organism with brain activity. What is the problem?

I challenged the context of his statement, not the content. Repeating his argument doesn't make it any more appropriate, nor does refuting it on the grounds of being inappropriate constitute miscontrual. Ironically enough, whilst I completely understood Walrus' argument, you've completely missed the point of mine.

The "problem", therefore, is with your comprehension of my post.

Quote:

adifferentname wrote:

androbot01 wrote:

I have not put words in your mouth.

Quote where I said it was "too hard" to figure it out.

The words in the quote marks were not meant to quote you, which is obvious because you didn't write them. I used them to quote what I see as a colloquialism.

You quoted me then argued against a "colloquialism" of your own insertion. You therefore represented your insertion as my position. That, my friend, is the very essence of a strawman.

Quote:

adifferentname wrote:

What precisely is your point?

I think I've been pretty clear in my argument.

Thus far I've learned, from this conversation, that you cleave to the following definitions:

Person - a non-human.
Clear - uncertain, ambiguous, undefined.

However clear you believe your "argument" was, the fact that I felt it necessary to seek clarification should be sufficient cause for reassessment. As you seem to be of the opinion that you cannot possibly be at fault, I'll file it under "ill-conceived attempt at ad hominem".

If you have any further unhelpful and unqualified criticisms of how I choose to express myself, I advise you to keep them to yourself.

(edited a typo)

Last edited by adifferentname on 11 Nov 2016, 12:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

11 Nov 2016, 11:20 am

lidsmichelle wrote:

As someone who actually has as uterus, kindly shut tbe f**k up if you don't have one.

As someone who doesn't care whether or not you have a uterus, kindly refrain from your censorial demands.

Quote:

The way a lot of men happily love the idea of removing bodily autonomy from women (and other people who are able to get pregnant) concerns me.

Then speak your concerns on the understanding that their mere existence does not constitute justification for any action, behaviour or admonishment.

Quote:

Spiders are alive too, and yet we have no problem killing them. You eat dead animals that we kill.

How many unborn children have you eaten? Human beings =/= non-humans.

Quote:

Fetuses are not human beings in the sense that they are not consciously aware.

1- That is not the definition of a human being.
2- Aren't they?

The basis of the 24 week ruling in the UK's Abortion Act of 1967 is that the thalamocortical complex which enables conscious thought develops at roughly that time in the pregnancy.

Quote:

Bugs and livestock have more awareness than fetuses, yet you many of you don't complain about killing them.

This is still a false equivalence.

Quote:

And for what it's worth, I believe we shouldn't leave people on life support if there's no chance of them regaining an actual semblance of life. If you aren't aware and can't think then you aren't really alive or a person anymore. You're just an empty husk. It's grotesque to keep people alive when they aren't actually living.

That's what DNRs are for.

Quote:

On that note, white fetuses will eventually develop into something aware, they don't trump the rights of the person who is carrying it within their body.

Which is recognised under law even in the majority of nation states within which abortion is otherwise illegal.

Quote:

Also some of you people are idiots.

See section 2 of WrongPlanet Rules. You Must Read This Before Posting.. It costs you nothing to be civil.

Quote:

She and many others support late term abortion because there are incredibly stupid and dangerous people who think that a late term abortion done out of medical necessity for the pregnant person is bad. I highly doubt she supports late term abortion in the sense of just wanting one.

Which states prohibit late term abortion on the grounds of preservation of the life of the mother?

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

11 Nov 2016, 11:42 am

adifferentname wrote:

Repeating his argument doesn't make it any more appropriate, nor does refuting it on the grounds of being inappropriate constitute miscontrual.

What you are misconstruing in the argument is that the ant and the fetus both have brain activity. Boo's assertion was that a fetus has brain activity and is therefore a person.
Are you offended by the comparison?

adifferentname wrote:

You quoted me then argued against a "colloquialism" of your own insertion. You therefore represented your insertion as my position. That, my friend, is the very essence of a strawman.

It would be if it were not an accurate representation of your argument; but it is. You argued that we cannot know when personhood begins so therefore we should not abort anything. I think we can make such a determination. It's not rocket science.

adifferentname wrote:

As you seem to be of the opinion that you cannot possibly be at fault, I'll file it under "ill-conceived attempt at ad hominem".

Right back at you, Dude.

Page 31 of 108 [ 1723 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 108 Next

Jump to:

The problem of SJWs Post Reply New Topic

The problem of SJWs