[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[The New California Republic]

No it isn't, under the way the law works the fetus is not considered to be a person.

Okay, it's his, your, and the government's opinion in some circumstances.

So it's actually the vast majority of the time in most situations, meaning your original statement is totally nonsensical.

[Rifts Earth]

Since we aren't certain when fetus becomes a person, shouldn't we give the mothers the benefit of the doubt in determining these matters, preferably after consulting physicians?

That is precisely the opposite of what we should do. If you're out hunting, and you see movement, but aren't sure that it isn't a person, you don't take the shot.

We know that women are people, whatever my issues with them lately. We don't know that fetuses are people yet, at least in terms of sapience or sentience.

There's two kinds of sapience. There's sapience as in "The capacity to exercise wisdom," which is not achieved for at least two years (most children can't even pass the mirror test until at least eighteen months of age), and then there's "the capacity to acquire wisdom," which is present throughout the life cycle of a human organism. Based on the way we treat infants, I think it's clear which kind of sapience actually matters.

That just like, your opinion man.

No it isn't, under the way the law works the fetus is not considered to be a person.

Sort of like how, the way the law worked 200 years ago, black people were only 3/5ths of a person?

Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

and once women gives birth, where is the Pro-life care for life ? healthcare right, protection from pollution and etc.
its nowhere because pro-life is about moralization, not protecting life.

False. If the procedure to terminate a pregnancy transferred the fetus to an artificial womb, and allowed her to gestate to term, we wouldn't be getting worked up about it.

[Limonovshchina]

Since we aren't certain when fetus becomes a person, shouldn't we give the mothers the benefit of the doubt in determining these matters, preferably after consulting physicians?

That is precisely the opposite of what we should do. If you're out hunting, and you see movement, but aren't sure that it isn't a person, you don't take the shot.

We know that women are people, whatever my issues with them lately. We don't know that fetuses are people yet, at least in terms of sapience or sentience.

There's two kinds of sapience. There's sapience as in "The capacity to exercise wisdom," which is not achieved for at least two years (most children can't even pass the mirror test until at least eighteen months of age), and then there's "the capacity to acquire wisdom," which is present throughout the life cycle of a human organism. Based on the way we treat infants, I think it's clear which kind of sapience actually matters.

No it isn't, under the way the law works the fetus is not considered to be a person.

Sort of like how, the way the law worked 200 years ago, black people were only 3/5ths of a person?

Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

and once women gives birth, where is the Pro-life care for life ? healthcare right, protection from pollution and etc.
its nowhere because pro-life is about moralization, not protecting life.

False. If the procedure to terminate a pregnancy transferred the fetus to an artificial womb, and allowed her to gestate to term, we wouldn't be getting worked up about it.

It's still not a person, so none of this matters.

[The New California Republic]

No it isn't, under the way the law works the fetus is not considered to be a person.

Sort of like how, the way the law worked 200 years ago, black people were only 3/5ths of a person?

Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

The difference there being that black people have been born and are sentient etc, rather than being an unfeeling mass of cells, so yes black people not being counted as persons when there was no real difference in comparison to white people was objectively wrong.

False. If the procedure to terminate a pregnancy transferred the fetus to an artificial womb, and allowed her to gestate to term, we wouldn't be getting worked up about it.

Please don't propose science fiction as a solution.

[Limonovshchina]

We know that women are people, whatever my issues with them lately. We don't know that fetuses are people yet, at least in terms of sapience or sentience.

Since people need to be reminded, sapience and sentience do not and should not matter to the question of personhood, because that would remove the personhood of people with intellectual disabilities, cognitive deficits and disorders of consciousness among others. Not only is this inhumane but it would make personhood itself a fickle thing subject to change, which you don't want for a legal concept of this magnitude.

[Rifts Earth]

Sort of like how, the way the law worked 200 years ago, black people were only 3/5ths of a person?

Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

The difference there being that black people have been born and are sentient etc, rather than being an unfeeling mass of cells, so yes black people not being counted as persons when there was no real difference in comparison to white people was objectively wrong.

Newsflash: in the grand scheme of things, we're all just lumps of cells. Some of us are just more complicated than others. By the time her mother can detect her, a fetus has arms, legs, a head, neural activity, and a heartbeat. Which is more complicated than she was, and less complicated than she is going to be.

Newsflash: pigs are sentient, but that doesn't mean that eating them is murder. Sentience on its own is morally irrelevant.

Newsflash: what's actually relevant is sapience. I note that you have yet to address my point about two different kinds of sapience, and which kind is morally relevant. Can I assume you concede the point?

[Rifts Earth]

We know that women are people, whatever my issues with them lately. We don't know that fetuses are people yet, at least in terms of sapience or sentience.

Since people need to be reminded, sapience and sentience do not and should not matter to the question of personhood, because that would remove the personhood of people with intellectual disabilities, cognitive deficits and disorders of consciousness among others. Not only is this inhumane but it would make personhood itself a fickle thing subject to change, which you don't want for a legal concept of this magnitude.

You did read the part of my post where I mentioned two kinds of sapience, correct?

[The New California Republic]

The difference there being that black people have been born and are sentient etc, rather than being an unfeeling mass of cells, so yes black people not being counted as persons when there was no real difference in comparison to white people was objectively wrong.

in the grand scheme of things, we're all just lumps of cells.

Not to the extent that fetuses are in the period when the vast majority of abortions are carried out. There is a world of difference between that and a born person.

pigs are sentient, but that doesn't mean that eating them is murder. Sentience on its own is morally irrelevant.

Good that it isn't on its own, isn't it?

I note that you have yet to address my point about two different kinds of sapience, and which kind is morally relevant. Can I assume you concede the point?

You are getting me confused with someone else, you were not discussing that with me.

[Limonovshchina]

Since people need to be reminded, sapience and sentience do not and should not matter to the question of personhood, because that would remove the personhood of people with intellectual disabilities, cognitive deficits and disorders of consciousness among others. Not only is this inhumane but it would make personhood itself a fickle thing subject to change, which you don't want for a legal concept of this magnitude.

You did read the part of my post where I mentioned two kinds of sapience, correct?

I did and I don't care about either.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Any chads voted for : “Penguins are the Master Race, All Hail the Tuxedoed Waterfowl!”?

[The New California Republic]

Any chads voted for : “Penguins are the Master Race, All Hail the Tuxedoed Waterfowl!”?

17 did, how many are "chads" we will never know.

[Rifts Earth]

in the grand scheme of things, we're all just lumps of cells.

Not to the extent that fetuses are in the period when the vast majority of abortions are carried out. There is a world of difference between that and a born person.

What morally relevant qualities does a newborn infant have that a fetus lacks?

pigs are sentient, but that doesn't mean that eating them is murder. Sentience on its own is morally irrelevant.

Good that it isn't on its own, isn't it?

I don't know what other qualities you would say that a newborn has that a fetus lacks. At least not morally relevant ones.

I note that you have yet to address my point about two different kinds of sapience, and which kind is morally relevant. Can I assume you concede the point?

You are getting me confused with someone else, you were not discussing that with me.

I wasn't discussing artificial wombs with you either, yet you felt the need to respond to that - and indeed, to respond to it under the rather uncharitable assumption that I was making a serious suggestion as to how to deal with abortion, rather than as a counterfactual to illustrate the fact that it is not the effects of abortion on the woman that matter to me, but rather the effects on the unborn child. Which fact can hardly be denied by a reasonable person looking at the pro-life movement.

You did read the part of my post where I mentioned two kinds of sapience, correct?

I did and I don't care about either.

Ah, you don't care about the intrinsic qualities that separate people from non-people?

[New haven america]

Any chads voted for : “Penguins are the Master Race, All Hail the Tuxedoed Waterfowl!”?

17 did, how many are "chads" we will never know.

TBH, I think Golden Snub Nosed Monkeys should be humanity's successor species.

This shit's adorable.

[Kowani]

Colima becomes the 6th state in Mexico to decriminalize abortion (14-5)

[Limonovshchina]

Not to the extent that fetuses are in the period when the vast majority of abortions are carried out. There is a world of difference between that and a born person.

What morally relevant qualities does a newborn infant have that a fetus lacks?

Good that it isn't on its own, isn't it?

I don't know what other qualities you would say that a newborn has that a fetus lacks. At least not morally relevant ones.

You are getting me confused with someone else, you were not discussing that with me.

I wasn't discussing artificial wombs with you either, yet you felt the need to respond to that - and indeed, to respond to it under the rather uncharitable assumption that I was making a serious suggestion as to how to deal with abortion, rather than as a counterfactual to illustrate the fact that it is not the effects of abortion on the woman that matter to me, but rather the effects on the unborn child. Which fact can hardly be denied by a reasonable person looking at the pro-life movement.

I did and I don't care about either.

Ah, you don't care about the intrinsic qualities that separate people from non-people?

No, I don't in fact care about your arbitrary definition of personhood which ends up denigrating actual people.

[The New California Republic]

Not to the extent that fetuses are in the period when the vast majority of abortions are carried out. There is a world of difference between that and a born person.

What morally relevant qualities does a newborn infant have that a fetus lacks?

Not inhabiting the woman's body against her will for one.

You are getting me confused with someone else, you were not discussing that with me.

I wasn't discussing artificial wombs with you either, yet you felt the need to respond to that

Yes I responded to that, but trying to hold me to account for not responding to something when I wasn't involved in that aspect of the conversation in the first place is more than a little weird.

[Rifts Earth]

What morally relevant qualities does a newborn infant have that a fetus lacks?



I don't know what other qualities you would say that a newborn has that a fetus lacks. At least not morally relevant ones.


I wasn't discussing artificial wombs with you either, yet you felt the need to respond to that - and indeed, to respond to it under the rather uncharitable assumption that I was making a serious suggestion as to how to deal with abortion, rather than as a counterfactual to illustrate the fact that it is not the effects of abortion on the woman that matter to me, but rather the effects on the unborn child. Which fact can hardly be denied by a reasonable person looking at the pro-life movement.



Ah, you don't care about the intrinsic qualities that separate people from non-people?

No, I don't in fact care about your arbitrary definition of personhood which ends up denigrating actual people.

I define a "person" as "an individual object of a rational nature." Since the typical human has the capacity to exercise reason (classically conceived), having humanity counts as having a rational nature in the relevant sense. Kind membership in the natural kind that exhibits the relevant faculty is sufficient, one needn't be able to exercise the relevant faculty oneself.

As such, I fail to see how my view "denigrates actual people" when it includes every member of the human species, and does not exclude artificial intelligences or aliens.

[Rifts Earth]

What morally relevant qualities does a newborn infant have that a fetus lacks?

Not inhabiting the woman's body against her will for one.

That's not an intrinsic property, so it can't be used to define what a person is. A person should be a person, regardless of where they are or what they're doing.

And, to forestall your next objection, a person also shouldn't be held accountable for something they had no choice in - the fetus didn't choose to be made dependent on the woman, and so cannot be punished for doing so.

I wasn't discussing artificial wombs with you either, yet you felt the need to respond to that

Yes I responded to that, but trying to hold me to account for not responding to something when I wasn't involved in that aspect of the conversation in the first place is more than a little weird.

Ah, so you feel the need to make comments on ancillary points that pro-lifers make, but don't feel the need to engage the center of their arguments. Interesting.

[The Blaatschapen]

It also allows forced organ and blood harvesting. Which I am not against myself; but most "pro-life" people in this topic tend to believe only women have a duty to offer the use of their body to save lives.

Considering the problems that organ shortages cause, I'd be willing to allow the government to harvest organs from any deceased person whose religion is silent on the treatment of corpses. So you couldn't do it to a Muslim, but you would be able to do it to an atheist.

Also, I would say that putting scare quotes around the name of my movement and implying that we're a bunch of misogynist would constitute flame baiting.

Yeah, I'd object on the grounds of discrimination. If an religious person can refuse to have their organs harvested based on personal reasons, so can an irreligious person.

[The New California Republic]

Not inhabiting the woman's body against her will for one.

That's not an intrinsic property, so it can't be used to define what a person is. A person should be a person, regardless of where they are or what they're doing.

I was meaning it's a morally relevant factor in the situation as a whole.

a person also shouldn't be held accountable for something they had no choice in - the fetus didn't choose to be made dependent on the woman, and so cannot be punished for doing so.

Abortion is not "punishment", it is not being classed as such, so I'm not quite sure where you are getting that from.

Ah, so you feel the need to make comments on ancillary points that pro-lifers make, but don't feel the need to engage the center of their arguments. Interesting.

Strange how you are trying to say what I'm feeling. News for you: you can't. So please stop trying. Thanks.

[Rifts Earth]

Considering the problems that organ shortages cause, I'd be willing to allow the government to harvest organs from any deceased person whose religion is silent on the treatment of corpses. So you couldn't do it to a Muslim, but you would be able to do it to an atheist.

Also, I would say that putting scare quotes around the name of my movement and implying that we're a bunch of misogynist would constitute flame baiting.

Yeah, I'd object on the grounds of discrimination. If an religious person can refuse to have their organs harvested based on personal reasons, so can an irreligious person.

I disagree. Religion has a communal dimension, and is not (as atheism is) a purely personal opinion. For many religions, burial practices are a part of what it means to exercise their religion. And the right to exercise one's religion unimpeded by the state is actually in the constitution - while the right to privacy is not.

Therefore, it would be entirely constitutional for a law regarding the use of organs after death to have an exemption for Muslims, but not for atheists.

[Limonovshchina]

No, I don't in fact care about your arbitrary definition of personhood which ends up denigrating actual people.

I define a "person" as "an individual object of a rational nature." Since the typical human has the capacity to exercise reason (classically conceived), having humanity counts as having a rational nature in the relevant sense. Kind membership in the natural kind that exhibits the relevant faculty is sufficient, one needn't be able to exercise the relevant faculty oneself.

I define a person as of now a born member of homo sapiens sapiens. It's a clear, concise, practical and inclusive definition for a person which is still connected to reality and does not depend on faculties I'd prefer which not all people arguably share or how 'typical' I think a human is.

As such, I fail to see how my view "denigrates actual people" when it includes every member of the human species, and does not exclude artificial intelligences or aliens.

People without the capacity to exercise reason would be excluded from your definition and you would include fetuses, which would necessarily have to degrade the mother exercising their will over said fetus. A mother, who is more of a person than a fetus is. Also a minor detail, you define person as an object, which was probably a mistake on your part, but still.

[The New California Republic]

Yeah, I'd object on the grounds of discrimination. If an religious person can refuse to have their organs harvested based on personal reasons, so can an irreligious person.

I disagree. Religion has a communal dimension, and is not (as atheism is) a purely personal opinion. For many religions, burial practices are a part of what it means to exercise their religion. And the right to exercise one's religion unimpeded by the state is actually in the constitution - while the right to privacy is not.

Humanist funerals are a non-religious burial practice for the irreligious, and humanism as a whole has a communal dimension, so...

[Rifts Earth]

That's not an intrinsic property, so it can't be used to define what a person is. A person should be a person, regardless of where they are or what they're doing.

I was meaning it's a morally relevant factor in the situation as a whole.

Recall that our discussion has to do with what is, and is not, a person. Not the situation as a while. If you concede that the fetus is a person, then we can move on to discuss the situation as a whole with some common ground. If, by contrast, you do not admit that the fetus is a person, then there's no point discussing the situation as a whole, since we will disagree about what the situation as a whole actually is.

a person also shouldn't be held accountable for something they had no choice in - the fetus didn't choose to be made dependent on the woman, and so cannot be punished for doing so.

Abortion is not "punishment", it is not being classed as such, so I'm not quite sure where you are getting that from.

Perhaps punishment is the wrong word. Nevertheless, I take it as axiomatic that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property save on account of some misconduct - eg, attempted rape, assault, home Invasion. But it is impossible for an involuntary act to constitute misconduct. Ergo, if the fetus is a person, then her involuntary actions are insufficient justification for any action that would deprive her of her life.

See how it all comes back around to whether or not the fetus is a person?

Ah, so you feel the need to make comments on ancillary points that pro-lifers make, but don't feel the need to engage the center of their arguments. Interesting.

Strange how you are trying to say what I'm feeling. News for you: you can't. So please stop trying. Thanks.

I'm simply trying to understand why you're poking holes in the drywall when the only way to bring down the house is to compromise something loadbearing.

[Rifts Earth]

I define a "person" as "an individual object of a rational nature." Since the typical human has the capacity to exercise reason (classically conceived), having humanity counts as having a rational nature in the relevant sense. Kind membership in the natural kind that exhibits the relevant faculty is sufficient, one needn't be able to exercise the relevant faculty oneself.

I define a person as of now a born member of homo sapiens sapiens. It's a clear, concise, practical and inclusive definition for a person which is still connected to reality and does not depend on faculties I'd prefer which not all people arguably share or how 'typical' I think a human is.

And you exclude artificial intelligences, alien species, and unborn members of your own species because...?

As such, I fail to see how my view "denigrates actual people" when it includes every member of the human species, and does not exclude artificial intelligences or aliens.

People without the capacity to exercise reason would be excluded from your definition

Having humanity, those without the capacity to exercise reason would still be "of a rational nature." "Having the capacity to exercise reason" and "having a rational nature" are different things.

which would necessarily have to degrade the mother exercising their will over said fetus. A mother, who is more of a person than a fetus is.

I don't see how setting limits on a person's ability to dispose of their own children is in any way degrading.

Also a minor detail, you define person as an object, which was probably a mistake on your part, but still.

Nope. People are objects. An object is just a thing that has its own existence - as opposed to a property, which shares in the existence of another thing.