User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 43

  1. #31
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    Does disease make nonsense of the moral prohibition of murder?
    The vast numbers of spontaneous abortions are certainly not a disease.

    In fact the vast numbers of spontaneous abortions are another sign of the fecundity of nature.

    It is nature itself that provides a huge oversupply of fertilized ova.

    And nature does this right throughout the animal kingdom.

    So once again natural science shows that religion is based on ignorance and superstition and the lust for temporal power.

  2. #32
    Phoenix Incarnate Sentura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENXP
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into It View Post
    Do I strike you as the kind of person who hides what he thinks?
    The is the "Doh" expression - it's the feeling you get when someone points out something you should have thought of before. Your analogy was spot-on and perfectly applicable. Whoever it was that you responded to definitely smacked their forehead when they read your reply.
    i think victor would be much more prone to cutting off limbs than to smack himself on the forehead.
    i hunt INXPs for bounty
    FUNCTION ORDER FOR THOSE THAT CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ENXP MEANS: Ne > Ni > Fi=Ti > *

    ...people tell me i have wildfires in my eyes

  3. #33
    Senior Member Into It's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    So the murder of a pregnant woman carrying a 38-week-old fetus is only one murder?
    That's a difficult question to answer.

    The argument of "when a person becomes a person" will never be settled - even if we could pinpoint the moment that "life" begins - because people will always be on both sides of the debate with decent points. In light of this, I do not think that the problem is being solved the correct way. I don't think it's being solved at all, actually.

    Since this is a very complicated issue, I will put morality to the side for now and deal only with legal ramifications if you will allow me. T

    The question we should try to answer is not "when a person becomes a person." The definition of a person will waver, and the interpretations become subjective. The question we should ask is much simpler.

    "How should we go about solving issues that need to be solved?"
    In the instance you suggested, perhaps it would be double murder.
    But if the mother was dying, and the only way to stop her death would be to kill the fetus, the government should not interfere with doctors assisting in this "murder." In short, they should be protected in some sense, but a fetus should not have all of the rights of all of our working, tax-paying citizens.

    The murder of a man is "bad," unless he is about to kill you. In that case, it is "decent." Similarly, the deaths of fetuses in different circumstances should be treated differently. There's no reason to create some huge, overarching rules that must be followed in all cases. Reality is complex, and so should the law be.
    An inscription above the gate to Hell:
    "Eternal Love also created me"

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Dammit, I just typed up a response and god knows where it went! In a nutshell, as a pragmatist, I am sympathetic to this position.

  5. #35
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sentura View Post
    i think victor would be much more prone to cutting off limbs than to smack himself on the forehead.
    It's true, I had to smack myself on the forehead to wake myself from the MBTI scam.

    But I have had practice.

    As I had to smack myself on the forehead to wake myself from religious belief.

    But I was helped by the Ryan Report, the Report of the Ireland Commission into Child Abuse.

    And it is not only Religious who take advantage of the vulnerability and good nature of children, but Mrs Briggs and Mrs Myers take advantage of the good nature of the gullible.

    They tell me there is a sucker born every minute.

    And that one cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless becomes as a little child.

    Suffer the little children to come unto me - and they do.

  6. #36
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    They digest their own food though. So it is not as strictly parasitic (for lack of a better word) as being in the womb and dependent on the mother's body to digest the food, oxygenate the blood and clear the wastes away. Their internal systems become an independently operating entity.
    Are Siamese twins not two, distinct persons? The "self-aware" standard seems the best criteria in which to judge "personhood," though infants and extremely retarded people are certainly examples of human life and therefore equally entitled to the right to live (to hell with Peter Singer).

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Are Siamese twins not two, distinct persons? The "self-aware" standard seems the best criteria in which to judge "personhood," though infants and extremely retarded people are certainly examples of human life and therefore equally entitled to the right to live (to hell with Peter Singer).
    Does this mean that there are members of our species that have a right to life that aren't really persons? Is the definition of "person" inadequate?

  8. #38
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Does this mean that there are members of our species that have a right to life that aren't really persons? Is the definition of "person" inadequate?
    Yes.
    No.
    Rights are associated with human life, not personhood; otherwise, relatively intelligent non-human animals would have more rights than infants or the severely retarded (hence my Peter Singer reference).

  9. #39
    Phoenix Incarnate Sentura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENXP
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    Does this mean that there are members of our species that have a right to life that aren't really persons? Is the definition of "person" inadequate?
    yes, very. "being" would be more appropiate, in the sense that it would also encompass animals. this of course would not work legally, because law is obnoxious.
    i hunt INXPs for bounty
    FUNCTION ORDER FOR THOSE THAT CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ENXP MEANS: Ne > Ni > Fi=Ti > *

    ...people tell me i have wildfires in my eyes

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Yes.
    No.
    Rights are associated with human life, not personhood; otherwise, relatively intelligent non-human animals would have more rights than infants or the severely retarded (hence my Peter Singer reference).
    Quote Originally Posted by Sentura View Post
    yes, very. "being" would be more appropiate, in the sense that it would also encompass animals. this of course would not work legally, because law is obnoxious.
    Fair enough, can we set aside the rights issue and go back to the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post

    1. Does the definition of a person as "a biological member of the species H. sapiens with a right to life" appropriately capture what it is for a person to be a person? If not, why not?

    2. If the above definition doesn't suit you, and you feel you have a better definition to offer, please provide it here.

    3. Using the definition you feel most accurately describes what it is to be a person, when do you feel a person first should be recognized as such? At what point in time can a person first be properly called a person? Why?


Similar Threads

  1. Grexit will be beginning of end of eurozone, says Greek Prime Minister Tsipras
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-19-2015, 05:27 PM
  2. [NT] NT Women and Loss of Personhood
    By bechimo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 10-12-2012, 04:41 AM
  3. The Beginning and End of Pure Mathematics
    By Mole in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 07-16-2010, 10:37 AM
  4. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  5. 4th quarter 2009 Beginning of Phase 5 of the global systemic crisis? huh?
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 10:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO