User Tag List

First 78910111959 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 643

  1. #81
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    But again, personhood is an ethical not a biological category.



    Sure, we should respect others beliefs. But we are dealing here with issues that concerns elementary issues of human life; and what should take precedence in law - the good or one's rights. You really can't argue rights takes precedence over moral good, since rights themselves are based upon a conception of a moral good.
    Even if there is a soul (not necessarily my belief), my reasoning is that it cannot experience the world unless it has the means to do so, and the brain is that means. So in terms of defining what is a human life, that would be my criteria. Still, there is the ethical issue of whether or not we should terminate POTENTIAL human life. But then the argument gets to be too subjective in nature, and not agreeable. One could say you are preventing life by wearing a condom. But I don't wanna go there.

  2. #82
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by run View Post
    If you don't agree, don't worry about it. Just don't post. I just want to understand this all better.
    So you want to understand the opposing side a little better but people who disagree with you aren't allowed to respond?

    That's cool...
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #83
    (☞゚∀゚)☞ The Decline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Even if there is a soul (not necessarily my belief), my reasoning is that it cannot experience the world unless it has the means to do so, and the brain is that means. So in terms of defining what is a human life, that would be my criteria. Still, there is the ethical issue of whether or not we should terminate POTENTIAL human life. But then the argument gets to be too subjective in nature, and not agreeable. One could say you are preventing life by wearing a condom. But I don't wanna go there.
    Let's not. I would explain how you're preventing fungal life by not letting that serving of soup you just made rot in your kitchen.
    "Stop it, you fuck. Give him some butter."
    Ti
    = Ne > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Fe > Si INTP (I/PNT) 5w4

  4. #84
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    Im not suprised no one read my post. Your argument only works if you start with certain assumptions. Again, its not that I'm saying 'your religious views' are wrong. Its whose religious views, would the gov adopt if we are going to make the non-naturalism assumption? If you consider the non-naturalism viewpoint, almost any point could be arbitrarily chosen as "thats when the soul enters! or thats when it becomes a person hood!"

    Its not that you are wrong, its "whose religion are we gonna use?"
    Hmmmn....interesting, I don't recall making any specific religious references there. If anything I was basing my argument on Aristotle and vaguely Kantian ethics as well. One doesn't necessarily have to be religious in order to be against abortion.

  5. #85
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Well, that is an interesting perspective, but it seems to me that there's something important left out of it. It seems to me that since the baby is dependent upon the mother to survive up to birth, that it's essentially engaged in a parasitic relationship with it's host.

    The problem is that, whether it's fair to the life going on inside of the mother, it's still their body, and unlike in the case of suicide or mutilation, there are clear ways in which pregnancy can harm the mother's body more than an abotion. It can result in calcium deficiencies, pain, inability to work, and more. In extreme cases, labor can even result in death. The fact is, I think that inherent risks of the birth process balance things out. If pregnancy had absolutely no negative effects on a woman's body, your perspective might be justified, but that's not the case. It's not the same as killing a person in cold blood, considering the parasitic element and health risks carrying a baby involve. The baby is, albeit unconsciously, doing biological harm that it can't necessarily be held blameless for if we're going to regard it as a life.

    The fact that it's a "natural process" doesn't mean we have no right to interfere. We already interfere with several natural processes that don't directly affect ourselves (such as killing animals for food, medicine, agriculture, etc), but somehow the ones that do directly affect ourselves are the ones you're going to consider too "sacred" to touch? That strikes me as kind of self-centered and hypocritical, if not ironic. We have the right to decide what other species live and die, but not the life of something that's living your own body? Seriously? Illness and death from illness are also a natural process, and yet I don't see any of you jumping to oppose the use of medicine.

    If you adopt a moral system that forbids abortion, by all means don't get one. But... I don't think you have any right to make that decision for others.

    I don't think every other civilization that forbade them was wrong. I just don't think forbidding abotion is in keeping with our countries ideals, which we're developing new understandings of all the time (for instance, abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote). For countries founded on different principles, perhaps it is in keeping with their spirit.

    Ultimately, my reason for wanting it legal is because I don't think the government should be involved in it, just like I don't want them banning alcohol. Essentially, I believe that we should limit the government's involvement in what people can and can't buy, including abotions. Granted, I don't think the Government should be paying for abotions or creating free abortion clinics either, but it should be legal. It's one thing if you want to protest against and create a social stigma around it, but to create a law regarding it would be unjust, since to do so clearly forces a particular understanding of an issue on which there can be reasonable disagreement upon people unnecessarily. In a religious community, you could reasonably create a stigma around abortion that's as much of a deterrent as any federal law. Shame and upbringing are powerful on their own.

    One of the things that's good about our country is that people who have different religious beliefs and conceptions of morality are more free here to live according to their beliefs here than anywhere else. I don't feel that outlawing abotion is in keeping with that. You could choose to put it on the same level as killing people, but there's a huge difference if only in practical terms, because it's not necessary to outlaw abotion to maintain order. Societies have managed to maintain order even when exposing weak children to the elements was considered acceptable... this is still far less brutal than that practice.
    Athenian forgive me, but your post will take some considerable time and thought to respond to. So I hope you forgive me for delaying a response for the time being.

  6. #86
    Senior Member Grayscale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    istp
    Posts
    1,962

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Decline View Post
    instead of robbing a woman of her right to not raise an unwanted potential child in poverty and go through pregnancy.

    Look, I can sprout fungal growth on my arm if I please, and then take a match to it and extinguish its existence. That's a civil right, a right to your property. A woman can also sprout embryonic growth in her womb if she so pleases. Seeing as both these cases are about an extension of your body, I don't see how, suddenly upon conception, an embryo is a self-contained individual. But hey, that's just me, right? And these are just bullshit issues, no?
    If a mother has a child, along this line of thinking, why shouldnt she be able to kill the child? Women in poverty do have rights... don't have sex because you can't afford to raise a child. I don't want to pay taxes, it's my money, why should I have to?

    What the pro-abortion argument hinges on is isolating the matter to strictly the present moment. If you don't abort the embryo, it will likely grow into a child and eventually an adult. Of course, killing an adult is accepted as wrong, but the only difference between the embryo and the mature adult is time.

    Along these lines, here is what I propose... when a woman becomes pregnant, she can file for an abortion until it resembles a baby, but the application process takes a few years to complete. Once she is approved, the child can be killed. Fair?

    Right, that won't work, we wanted to kill it when we wouldnt feel guilty about it. Frankly I think all of you are making this too complicated if you aren't considering motives in issues of morality. Tell me I'm wrong here.

  7. #87
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Sure, we should respect others beliefs. But we are dealing here with issues that concerns elementary issues of human life; and what should take precedence in law - the good or one's rights. You really can't argue rights takes precedence over moral good, since rights themselves are based upon a conception of a moral good.
    What's good is in the eye of the beholder. Any founder of a country should know this. The law should allow us to make decisions like this based on what WE consider good or bad. It's our right to exercise what we see as morally good in my opinion (as long as it isn't crazy stuff like ritual killings and sacrifice, you know what I mean).

    As I said, what's the issue? If you don't believe it, don't practice it. Your belief won't influence anyone else's, if someone is pro abortion then they frankly won't care about your ethical system. So I don't see any purpose to preaching these viewpoints.

    The most rational decision to make would be to allow the woman to choose, and that's final. You (the reader) are irrational if you think otherwise in my opinion.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  8. #88
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Athenian forgive me, but your post will take some considerable time and thought to respond to. So I hope you forgive me for delaying a response for the time being.
    It's okay.

    I know you're probably going to disagree with me, but that's what makes this interesting.

  9. #89
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Decline View Post
    First, let me say that yes, religious organizations are indeed the most charitable groups. This is a strawman argument you raise, since I was talking about anti-abortionist groups. If such groups are so concerned about preserving fragile life, they could make a bigger difference in something that actually matters, instead of robbing a woman of her right to not raise an unwanted potential child in poverty and go through pregnancy.
    Anti-abortionist groups often are connected to religious charities, so it seems you're hair-splitting here. Concerning raising an unwanted child, there is the option of adoption. Concerning pregnancy, well I guess the argument can be made that women have a right not to open up their legs too. Part of life is dealing with the choices you make.

    Look, I can sprout fungal growth on my arm if I please, and then take a match to it and extinguish its existence. That's a civil right, a right to your property. A woman can also sprout embryonic growth in her womb if she so pleases. Seeing as both these cases are about an extension of your body, I don't see how, suddenly upon conception, an embryo is a self-contained individual. But hey, that's just me, right? And these are just bullshit issues, no?
    Human life is not property, and issues regarding human life are not bullshit.

  10. #90
    (☞゚∀゚)☞ The Decline's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grayscale View Post
    If a mother has a child, along this line of thinking, why shouldnt she be able to kill the child? Women in poverty do have rights... don't have sex because you can't afford to raise a child. I don't want to pay taxes, it's my money, why should I have to?
    Because upon birth the child is given rights as a citizen. Don't ask me why, it just is. However, you seem to have not read the idea I posted about infant =! fetus. And why the necessity for an application? You don't need a license to ejaculate and flush it down the toilet or to toss your egg-laden tampon out the window.


    Right. Because abstinence education works, right guys? At least in my state we have a wonderful program for impoverished women which grants them free birth control and basic sexual health services. This is incredibly smart of the state, as I'm sure it decreases the resulting child welfare costs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Anti-abortionist groups often are connected to religious charities, so it seems you're hair-splitting here. Concerning raising an unwanted child, there is the option of adoption. Concerning pregnancy, well I guess the argument can be made that women have a right not to open up their legs too. Part of life is dealing with the choices you make.
    You're the one splitting hairs by assuming that all anti-abortionists are religious. Didn't you just say that one can come to anti-abortionists views without religion? All I mean to do is reference those who wish abortion to cease. I dare not generalize by saying they're all religious!

    Yes, because we all know that foster homes are the best places. I'd want my children there over my own loving, wealthy home! However, I ultimately believe the idea that you can abort should not fall on justification based on consequence of where this child might end up. A fetus not developing into a human can be the result of god's will to miscarriages, or human will deciding that the time is not right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Human life is not property, and issues regarding human life are not bullshit.
    Unfortunately it appears that you apply the label "human life" to multicellular organisms within a human. Perhaps you should shed a tear the next time a cancerous growth is surgically removed from a human.
    "Stop it, you fuck. Give him some butter."
    Ti
    = Ne > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Fe > Si INTP (I/PNT) 5w4

Similar Threads

  1. For those who believe in spirit/soul...
    By Little Linguist in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-16-2008, 09:17 AM
  2. For those who like Japanese animes...
    By Seether in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-12-2008, 05:09 PM
  3. For those with high cuteness thresholds...
    By anii in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-23-2007, 09:47 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-10-2007, 10:56 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-28-2007, 01:32 AM

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