Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Fetal Rights & Forced Medical Treatment: Your Opinion?

Page 6 of 14 [ 224 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

12 Mar 2010, 10:44 pm

Sand wrote:
The presumption that permitting abortions in appropriate circumstances is a threat to all human reproduction can only be characterized as psychotic.


Are you imagining anyone has said that?


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Mar 2010, 12:26 am

leejosepho wrote:
Sand wrote:
The presumption that permitting abortions in appropriate circumstances is a threat to all human reproduction can only be characterized as psychotic.


Are you imagining anyone has said that?


No.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

15 Mar 2010, 2:14 am

leejosepho wrote:
Sand wrote:
The presumption that permitting abortions in appropriate circumstances is a threat to all human reproduction can only be characterized as psychotic.


Are you imagining anyone has said that?


No? What, exactly, was your point, then, if not that permitting the legal abortion of unwanted zefs was somehow dooming humanity to extinction?

If you weren't implying that, could we have an acknowledgment that legalized abortion, and the rights of mothers to make their own medical decisions, is not even a remote danger to the ability of humanity to reproduce itself, and move on from that implication? 'Cause last I looked, we're headed for nine billion by 2050.

And as far as the supposed 'will of god(s)' goes, please keep your deity to yourself.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Mar 2010, 11:24 am

Sand wrote:
The presumption that permitting abortions in appropriate circumstances is a threat to all human reproduction can only be characterized as psychotic.


Not so much psychotic as very bad judgment.

ruveyn



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

16 Mar 2010, 6:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.

I have a few questions regarding that assertion:
What is the legal definition of personhood?
Does the legal definition matter most?
Is there any actual consensus in western society about when personhood begins?
Is the concept of personhood even scientific?
Or is it entirely or mostly philosophical?

Ok, I see that you seem to argue from a physicalist and scientific grounds regarding the matter, as well as you have claimed that you just accept empirical evidence and nothing more, and that seems to be the issue, I don't think it's possible to make a conclusion as that as an absolute statement that fetuses are not people, I mean, biology, chemistry, neurology are one thing, but philosophy and ethics go beyond that.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Mar 2010, 7:45 pm

greenblue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.

I have a few questions regarding that assertion:
What is the legal definition of personhood?
Does the legal definition matter most?
Is there any actual consensus in western society about when personhood begins?
Is the concept of personhood even scientific?
Or is it entirely or mostly philosophical?

Ok, I see that you seem to argue from a physicalist and scientific grounds regarding the matter, as well as you have claimed that you just accept empirical evidence and nothing more, and that seems to be the issue, I don't think it's possible to make a conclusion as that as an absolute statement that fetuses are not people, I mean, biology, chemistry, neurology are one thing, but philosophy and ethics go beyond that.


Philosophy and ethics mostly wander around in drooling confusion over definitions and habits and cultural oddities.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Mar 2010, 7:53 pm

greenblue wrote:
I mean, biology, chemistry, neurology are one thing, but philosophy and ethics go beyond that.


Philosophy and ethics are vaporware.

ruveyn



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Mar 2010, 11:40 pm

greenblue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.

I have a few questions regarding that assertion:
What is the legal definition of personhood?


The 14th amendment to the constitution is the closest we have to a definition of personhood:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (bolding mine)

Quote:
Does the legal definition matter most?


In a nation of laws, yes.

Quote:
Is there any actual consensus in western society about when personhood begins?


No. The closest thing we have to a consensus is the law.

Quote:
Is the concept of personhood even scientific?


No. It's too multivariate for science to pin down at this time.

Quote:
Or is it entirely or mostly philosophical?


It's possible that neurobiology will be able to formulate something approaching a scientific definition of personhood in the next century or two.

Quote:
...biology, chemistry, neurology are one thing, but philosophy and ethics go beyond that.
At this time, yes; however, philosophy and ethics that ignore reality are meaningless at best, outright destructive and evil at worst. The pope considers it 'immoral' for people to use condoms, and as a result thousands of people will catch AIDS and die horrible deaths that they could have avoided had their religious leader given them a go-ahead to protect themselves. In denying reality to promote his morality, he is producing a real-world, factual harm.

Likewise, in claiming that an undifferentiated clump of cells should have as much state protection as the woman they reside in, there is direct, measurable harm being inflicted on extant women and families.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

17 Mar 2010, 11:43 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Philosophy and ethics are vaporware.

ruveyn


Vapor has mass, compressibility, specific heat, and other measurable physical properties. I would submit that 'etherware' would be a better term in this case.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Mar 2010, 12:30 am

LKL wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Philosophy and ethics are vaporware.

ruveyn


Vapor has mass, compressibility, specific heat, and other measurable physical properties. I would submit that 'etherware' would be a better term in this case.


Etherware it is.

ruveyn



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

18 Mar 2010, 6:15 am

ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.


Surely you can see the foolishness, short-sightedness and arrogance of such a statement!

1) Without the fetus, mankind is dead (Hence, such a statement is foolish);
2) Such a statement can only lead to more fetus-slaughter (like handing a three-year-old a license to kill);
3) Such a statement ever-so-arrogantly completely ignores each of our own pasts as a fetus.

So, is there truly no other way to address the matter of a pregnant woman's so-called "rights" in relation to "her" fetus?

And besides, how does such a silly little stompie-footie avenge anyone?


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Lecks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,987
Location: Belgium

18 Mar 2010, 8:22 am

leejosepho wrote:
Surely you can see the foolishness, short-sightedness and arrogance of such a statement!

1) Without the fetus, mankind is dead (Hence, such a statement is foolish);
2) Such a statement can only lead to more fetus-slaughter (like handing a three-year-old a license to kill);
3) Such a statement ever-so-arrogantly completely ignores each of our own pasts as a fetus.

1) No one's proposing removing every fetus.
2) And lead to a decline in child abandonment, child neglect and child abuse.
3) It does no such thing, it only proposes that we're considered a person after we exhibit sufficient human characteristics.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Mar 2010, 8:30 am

leejosepho wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.


Surely you can see the foolishness, short-sightedness and arrogance of such a statement!



I stated a fact. Neither a fetus or a new-born has enough brain mass to sustain a human intellect, hence it is not a person. However, brain-growth is fast and furious so in a matter of weeks a human infant has enough brain to become a person.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Mar 2010, 9:20 am

leejosepho wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.


Surely you can see the foolishness, short-sightedness and arrogance of such a statement!

1) Without the fetus, mankind is dead (Hence, such a statement is foolish);
2) Such a statement can only lead to more fetus-slaughter (like handing a three-year-old a license to kill);
3) Such a statement ever-so-arrogantly completely ignores each of our own pasts as a fetus.

So, is there truly no other way to address the matter of a pregnant woman's so-called "rights" in relation to "her" fetus?

And besides, how does such a silly little stompie-footie avenge anyone?


Basically your viewpoint seems to be that the entire future of mankind depends upon the survival of every fetus. All animals have the potential to reproduce beyond the capability of the environment to sustain them. Humanity, in that respect, is just like all other forms of life. Humanity has already reproduced to the point of straining the environment. Nature's response is to create some sort of predator, disease, or other limitation to keep all things in balance. Humanity is well on the way to, if it has not already surpassed, the point of dangerous overpopulation and the consequences are sure to be horribly disastrous. With good sense humanity ca back away from that danger. It remains to be seen if we have that good sense.



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

18 Mar 2010, 10:36 am

leejosepho wrote:
Sand wrote:
The presumption that permitting abortions in appropriate circumstances is a threat to all human reproduction can only be characterized as psychotic.


Are you imagining anyone has said that?


leejosepho wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
fetuses are not people, so they have no rights.


Surely you can see the foolishness, short-sightedness and arrogance of such a statement!

1) Without the fetus, mankind is dead (Hence, such a statement is foolish);
2) Such a statement can only lead to more fetus-slaughter (like handing a three-year-old a license to kill);
3) Such a statement ever-so-arrogantly completely ignores each of our own pasts as a fetus.

So, is there truly no other way to address the matter of a pregnant woman's so-called "rights" in relation to "her" fetus?

And besides, how does such a silly little stompie-footie avenge anyone?


Mr. leejosepho, are you trolling us, or is your memory faltering?


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

18 Mar 2010, 6:45 pm

Lecks wrote:
... it only proposes that we're considered a person after we exhibit sufficient human characteristics.


And how shall we assure such a line is never drawn anywhere past the womb's exit?


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================