User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 215

  1. #171
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    I apologize for inadvertently triggering @Saturned's pudding rage. You guys shouldn't have to see that.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #172
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Sometimes there are issues where there are spectrums. Other times there are issues where there are two sides with two different sets of presuppositions that lead to opposite conclusions. Then other people come in and try to mash the two conclusions together without even understanding the presuppositions and how they relate to the conclusions being made and just end up being more irrational than either side be they right or wrong.
    Yes, I completely agree. I just think that this issue is one with a spectrum, if one that is more discrete than continuous. For example, one person sees personhood as beginning at conception, one person sees it at the first heartbeat, one person sees it at the first brainwaves, one person sees it at birth. One person sees a fetus as an inert mass of cells, one person sees a fetus as morally equivalent to an infant, one person sees a fetus as a group of cells that should be valued more than other cells for their potential, one person sees a fetus as an almost-child but not quite equivalent to the life of an infant or adult.

    I completely understand why someone who believes a fetus is 100% morally equivalent to an infant would be campaigning against abortion in all cases, and I understand why someone who believes a fetus is 100% morally meaningless would be campaigning for abortion without any restrictions whatsoever, considering it basically birth control. The problem arises when pro-life people think that every pro-choice person is at the most extreme end of the spectrum possible, or vice-versa. This leads to miscommunication and tends to force people towards the extremes themselves (e.g. "I think a fetus is more than a meaningless clump of cells, so I must campaign to ban all abortions") and while some people are legitimate believers of either extreme, I think it is more productive to consider all angles of the situation, including those viewpoints in the middle.

    While you're right that some compromises involve cutting the child in half, not all compromises need to be like that. While this particular issue is a bit stickier than most due to the high stakes involved, I think that more understanding of the opposing factions can only help the situation for both sides.
    -end of thread-

  3. #173
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd Girl View Post
    Does the tiny tot have a heartbeat?
    Not at conception (or quite some time thereafter).

    I also don't think it's an objective statement to say that heartbeat = personhood. My cat has a heartbeat.
    -end of thread-

  4. #174
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I apologize for inadvertently triggering @Saturned s 'pudding rage. You guys shouldn't have to see that.
    Cross platform rejections are starting to eat away at my self-esteem you know.

    /deploys Fe guilt trip gamma ray dee a shun.

  5. #175
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    "We" have established no such thing. You may believe that an unborn child is a person, in as full a sense as you or I, but that is a belief. It is based in emotion far more than are concerns about the physical and mental health of young girls forced into pregnancy. You are welcome to your beliefs, but not to force them upon others.

    I was referring to Pseudo and I.
    Is it impossible for you to understand context of conversations or do you just not want to?
    Do you even care or understand why I said "we established"?
    The whole point of the conversation revolves around whether people can rationally find a compromise between these two "extremes" thus the exercise was to show that given the presupposition that all humans are persons any compromise would be irrational.

    All man made laws are beliefs that are forced on other people. Don't be obtuse.


    The idea of agency speaks to justice and legal responsibility. I am more interested in practical solutions. How would your lifeboat example play out if the one man survived by refusing to share his food and water, causing the other to die? To the extent that the unborn child is dependent on its mother for the means of survival, this is a more fair comparison.

    You have made plain the extent to which you would go (and insist others go) to ensure each child survives to be born. Does this include making sure each mother gets adequate nutrition and prenatal care, or is it OK for a child to die though preventable "natural causes"? How far would you go to ensure that child's survival after birth?
    While there are very simple answers to your questions I have no interest in talking about this subject on a substantive level with you since you clearly have no ability or desire to think in any way outside your own worldview (even conceptually) and deal honestly with people with whom you disagree.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  6. #176
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Yes, I completely agree. I just think that this issue is one with a spectrum, if one that is more discrete than continuous. For example, one person sees personhood as beginning at conception, one person sees it at the first heartbeat, one person sees it at the first brainwaves, one person sees it at birth. One person sees a fetus as an inert mass of cells, one person sees a fetus as morally equivalent to an infant, one person sees a fetus as a group of cells that should be valued more than other cells for their potential, one person sees a fetus as an almost-child but not quite equivalent to the life of an infant or adult.

    I completely understand why someone who believes a fetus is 100% morally equivalent to an infant would be campaigning against abortion in all cases, and I understand why someone who believes a fetus is 100% morally meaningless would be campaigning for abortion without any restrictions whatsoever, considering it basically birth control. The problem arises when pro-life people think that every pro-choice person is at the most extreme end of the spectrum possible, or vice-versa. This leads to miscommunication and tends to force people towards the extremes themselves (e.g. "I think a fetus is more than a meaningless clump of cells, so I must campaign to ban all abortions") and while some people are legitimate believers of either extreme, I think it is more productive to consider all angles of the situation, including those viewpoints in the middle.

    While you're right that some compromises involve cutting the child in half, not all compromises need to be like that. While this particular issue is a bit stickier than most due to the high stakes involved, I think that more understanding of the opposing factions can only help the situation for both sides.
    I understand where you come from and why you think that based on your beliefs, but I still disagree because of the way I see the situation. I just have two simple bright line requirements for personhood: It has to be alive and biologically human. I don't think there's any room for a spectrum of views on those things when it comes to the beginning because right at conception you have a living growing organism that is genetically human. I will grant that it is a little more complicated when it comes to the end of life.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  7. #177
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Not at conception (or quite some time thereafter).
    Yup. I mean, we can just wiki it if you want -- it's that basic. At the beginning it doesn't even have a heart. It is just a fertilized egg that might or might not survive long enough to implant. And then it might fail to thrive regardless.

    [At one point in the course of belief and even "science," sperm were depicted as little swimming critters with fully shaped (but miniscule) men in their heads. The egg was just considered empty. I guess at that point, for a man to masturbate could have viably been considered to be mass-murder?]

    I also don't think it's an objective statement to say that heartbeat = personhood. My cat has a heartbeat.
    And those are the kinds of things that so clearly highlight that conclusions in discussions like this are based on initial assumptions, which makes actual discussion difficult since the dialogue is based upon belief. Already there's been a conflict between whether a blastula is equivalent to an already living human being with legal status. Those who say that it is usually argue from some argument of divinity, so that the blastula can be credited equivalent "value," since if one simply does an assessment of actualized potential and capability, the two don't seem comparable at all. Those who don't see inherent value within both would come at it from the other side. We'd then also get into arguments of whether souls are grown or simply created (where soul would be the human entity, not necessarily some metaphysical independently existing identity); is there any more credibility that should be offered to a human who has been born and can communicate and lived life for some number of years, vs a just conceived egg that hasn't developed a heartbeat yet?

    Anyway, it's so obvious a conflict based on different assumptions. The arguing never really addresses the assumptions, and I'm not even sure it can because the assumptions are never offered up as an ante (winner take all) in this written game of chance and skill.

    EDIT: Beorn clarified that in the post that got made while I was writing this one. There's no common ground to agree. We already know the arguments. What more is there to do, exactly? *shrug*

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    Cross platform rejections are starting to eat away at my self-esteem you know.

    /deploys Fe guilt trip gamma ray dee a shun.
    Funny, that; in some situations, I'm apparently immune.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #178
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I understand where you come from and why you think that based on your beliefs, but I still disagree because of the way I see the situation. I just have two simple bright line requirements for personhood: It has to be alive and biologically human. I don't think there's any room for a spectrum of views on those things when it comes to the beginning because right at conception you have a living growing organism that is genetically human. I will grant that it is a little more complicated when it comes to the end of life.
    Yes, I see that you're at one end of the scale as far as your opinion on how personhood should be defined. The thing is, not everyone who disagrees with your definition is waayyyy over at the other end saying that fetuses are worthless clumps of cells. I know that there's a spectrum because my beliefs are in the middle of that spectrum, although far closer to the pro-choice side.

    I guess you're saying that everyone who disagrees with you is so far from your beliefs that they may as well be at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, but I'm not sure I agree with that. Do you think someone who would prevent a fertilized, viable embryo from implanting in the uterus (resulting in menstruation as usual) but would outlaw abortion entirely is closer to your view or to mine? What about someone who wouldn't prevent an embryo from implanting but who wouldn't take a theoretical drug that would improve the chances of implantation? What about someone who is OK with abortion in the first trimester, or second, but not after that? What about someone who's ok with abortion for birth defects, but not for any other reason? Do they really fit so neatly into "pro-choice" and "pro-life" groups?
    -end of thread-

  9. #179
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Yes, I see that you're at one end of the scale as far as your opinion on how personhood should be defined. The thing is, not everyone who disagrees with your definition is waayyyy over at the other end saying that fetuses are worthless clumps of cells. I know that there's a spectrum because my beliefs are in the middle of that spectrum, although far closer to the pro-choice side.

    I guess you're saying that everyone who disagrees with you is so far from your beliefs that they may as well be at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, but I'm not sure I agree with that. Do you think someone who would prevent a fertilized, viable embryo from implanting in the uterus (resulting in menstruation as usual) but would outlaw abortion entirely is closer to your view or to mine? What about someone who wouldn't prevent an embryo from implanting but who wouldn't take a theoretical drug that would improve the chances of implantation? What about someone who is OK with abortion in the first trimester, or second, but not after that? What about someone who's ok with abortion for birth defects, but not for any other reason? Do they really fit so neatly into "pro-choice" and "pro-life" groups?
    I think there are two categories of issues here. There is the issue of when a fetus becomes a human and there is circumstances of the pregnancy. It's really the latter that I see as not being on a spectrum because it just seems that in most cases circumstances of the pregnancy have nothing to do with the status of the fetus as a person. It's irrational to give or not give protected status based on circumstances. In life of the mother you could argue the child has personhood, but then loses that right because of self-defense. In the other circumstances there isn't a rational reason to give and then take away the right to life.

    I'm willing to recognize the spectrum of views to some degree on the former issue of when a fetus becomes a human. However, i still group all opposing views on that issue as views that add additional requirements to personhood beyond mere human life.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  10. #180
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,981

    Default

    What the fuck is this thread? Did @UniqueMixture end up getting his Battle Royale Island/Thunderdome/Wank Tank afterall?
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

Similar Threads

  1. Gender Roles
    By mortabunt in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 06-26-2009, 02:29 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