So it's actually the vast majority of the time in most situations, meaning your original statement is totally nonsensical.
Advertisement
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:43 pm
by Rifts Earth » Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:52 pm
Restored England wrote: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?
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.
Fauzjhia wrote: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.
by Limonovshchina » Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:55 pm
Rifts Earth wrote:Restored England wrote: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.The New California Republic wrote: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.Fauzjhia wrote: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.
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:57 pm
Rifts Earth wrote: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.
by Limonovshchina » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:01 pm
Restored England wrote: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.
by Rifts Earth » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:06 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Rifts Earth wrote:
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.
by Rifts Earth » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:07 pm
Limonovshchina wrote:Restored England wrote: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.
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:10 pm
Rifts Earth wrote:The New California Republic wrote: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.
Rifts Earth wrote:pigs are sentient, but that doesn't mean that eating them is murder. Sentience on its own is morally irrelevant.
Rifts Earth wrote: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?
by Limonovshchina » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:14 pm
Rifts Earth wrote:Limonovshchina wrote: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?
by The Kingdom of the Three Isles » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:16 pm
Those who say they are based aren’t based. Those who say they are humble ain’t humble. Those who say they are chads ain’t chads.Ordo Theutonicorum wrote: they have a cross-pattee on their flag??
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:21 pm
The Kingdom Of The Three Isles wrote:Any chads voted for : “Penguins are the Master Race, All Hail the Tuxedoed Waterfowl!”?
by Rifts Earth » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:23 pm
Rifts Earth wrote: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?
Rifts Earth wrote: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.
by New haven america » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:24 pm
by Kowani » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:27 pm
by Limonovshchina » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:28 pm
Rifts Earth wrote:The New California Republic wrote: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.Limonovshchina wrote:I did and I don't care about either.
Ah, you don't care about the intrinsic qualities that separate people from non-people?
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:34 pm
Rifts Earth wrote: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
by Rifts Earth » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:36 pm
Limonovshchina wrote:Rifts Earth wrote: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.
by Rifts Earth » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:41 pm
Rifts Earth wrote: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.
by The Blaatschapen » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:44 pm
Rifts Earth wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:
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.
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:49 pm
Rifts Earth wrote: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.
Rifts Earth wrote: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.
by Rifts Earth » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:50 pm
The Blaatschapen wrote:Rifts Earth wrote: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.
by Limonovshchina » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:54 pm
Rifts Earth wrote:Limonovshchina wrote: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.
Rifts Earth wrote: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.
by The New California Republic » Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:57 pm
Rifts Earth wrote:The Blaatschapen wrote: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.
by Rifts Earth » Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:03 pm
Rifts Earth wrote: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.
Rifts Earth wrote: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.
by Rifts Earth » Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:13 pm
Limonovshchina wrote:Rifts Earth wrote:
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.
Rifts Earth wrote: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
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Avzeria, Cyptopir, Duvniask, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Gravlen, Ifreann, Ineva, Kannap, Kaztropol, Kerwa, Lothria, Lower Nubia, Lycom, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Omphalos, The Jamesian Republic, Tiami, Uiiop, Valrifall, Zurkerx
Advertisement