abortion

Originally posted by bbarr
No, the main point of the debate is whether an organism's possession of the property of being a human is sufficient for it being morally wrong to kill that organism. I see no reason to think that a human organism in a persistent vegetative state, for instance, is harmed by dying. This is because such an organism lacks a crucial criterion for moral considera ...[text shortened]... . These human organisms are persons, early fetuses are not persons, but merely human organisms.

BBarr: "These human organisms are persons, early fetuses are not persons, but merely human organisms.[/b]"


In your view Bbarr, in your view .......

You are again, as usual, presenting your Neo-Kantian opinions as THE objective truth.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, the main point of the debate is whether an organism's possession of the property of being a human is sufficient for it being morally wrong to kill that organism. I see no reason to think that a human organism in a persistent vegetative state, for instance, is harmed by dying. This is because such an organism lacks a crucial criterion for moral considera ...[text shortened]... . These human organisms are persons, early fetuses are not persons, but merely human organisms.

BBarr: "There is no slippery slope here leading to the denial of moral considerability to the mentally insane or the terminally ill."

Your gullibility in the theoretical philosophical field and naïvité in the practical political field is astonishing.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
BBarr: "There is no slippery slope here leading to the denial of moral considerability to the mentally insane or the terminally ill."

Your gullibility in the theoretical philosophical field and naïvité in the practical political field is astonishing.

Still no arguments, Ivan-troll? Alas...

Originally posted by bbarr
First, the question as to when a human life begins is irrelevant to the abortion debate. The right question is: Under what circumstances is it permissible to kill a human organism. It is clear that a human organism begins to exist at conce ...[text shortened]... tus also needs, amongst other things, not to be aborted.

BBarr: "Third, it is false that all a fetus needs from conception until birth is oxygen and nutrition. The fetus also needs, amongst other things, not to be aborted."

Is that right BBarr ?

You are hiding the eggs you will undoubtedly find somewhere on your journey to the "truth".

Originally posted by bbarr
Still no arguments, Ivan-troll? Alas...

Still applying the same tricks Bbarr, are you applying for a job as a magician ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Still applying the same tricks Bbarr, the magician ?

Only you would think that asking for an argument in a forum dedicated to debating constitutes a 'trick'. Put up or shut up, Ivan-troll.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
BBarr: "Third, it is false that all a fetus needs from conception until birth is oxygen and nutrition. The fetus also needs, amongst other things, not to be aborted."

Is that right BBarr ?

You are hiding the eggs you will undoubtedly find somewhere on your journey to the "truth".

???

Yes, Ivanhoe, in order for a fetus to make it, it needs to not be aborted. Abortion, you see, kills a fetus. Do you need a refresher course in basic definitions, Ivanhoe?

🙄

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
We already do kill (humans) to solve social problems when we make war and inflict capital punishment.

In principle though we only do so as punishment (capital punishment) or to keep them from harming others. An unborn baby has not had the chance to cause anyone harm. The only exception I can thing of is if the mothers life is in danger.

Originally posted by bbarr
Only you would think that asking for an argument in a forum dedicated to debating constitutes a 'trick'. Put up or shut up, Ivan-troll.

Still as authoritarian as you used to be, BigBoyBbarr ?

Just consider a zygote a person and we have no problems.

.... it is just a matter of definition.

Originally posted by bbarr
???

Yes, Ivanhoe, in order for a fetus to make it, it needs to not be aborted. Abortion, you see, kills a fetus. Do you need a refresher course in basic definitions, Ivanhoe?

🙄

As I said you are yourself hiding the eggs you will undoubtedly find on your way to the "truth".

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Still as authoritarian as you used to be, BigBoyBbarr ?

Just consider a zygote a person and we have no problems.

.... it is just a matter of definition.

Yep, when confronted with ignorance and superstition I'm as authoritarian as ever.

Why should we consider a zygote a person? I take it as untendentious that rocks and plants and cells are not persons. So, if zygotes are persons, then zygotes must have some property that rocks and plants and cells lack. What property do you think this is, Ivanhoe? If you specify the property in question, I'll give you an argument aiming to show that that property is neither necessary nor sufficient for personhood. So, all you have to do is come up with potential properties criterial for personhood, and I'll do all the argumentative work (as usual, when we discuss this issue).

Sounds fair to me. So, why don't you get this party started, and cough up a candidate property?

Now, I'm off to a NARAL fundraiser, and I won't be back until tomorrow.

Cheers!

Originally posted by bbarr
Only you would think that asking for an argument in a forum dedicated to debating constitutes a 'trick'. Put up or shut up, Ivan-troll.

What keeps surprising me is that you NEVER discuss the, in your ànd my view, immorality of performing an abortion after the sixth month with someone who is in favour of such a crime ..... NEVER.

Are you afraid of loosing some political "friends" ? Maybe you are afraid of being called "mysogynistic" by your feminist friends or maybe you are afraid of being accused of using women as "chattel", Bbarr ?

Originally posted by bbarr
No, the main point of the debate is whether an organism's possession of the property of being a human is sufficient for it being morally wrong to kill that organism. I see no reason to think that a human organism in a persistent vegetative state, for instance, is harmed by dying. This is because such an organism lacks a crucial criterion for moral considera ...[text shortened]... . These human organisms are persons, early fetuses are not persons, but merely human organisms.

i agree with a lot of this, but i think many would argue that although the early fetus lacks consciousness, it differs fundamentally from a table or a rock in that the fetus in all likelihood will develop consciousness with time -- in other words, the vegetative state of the fetus is generally only temporary. do you think this objection should affect the way we view the early fetus with respect to moral considerability?

Originally posted by bbarr
Yep, when confronted with ignorance and superstition I'm as authoritarian as ever.

Why should we consider a zygote a person? I take it as untendentious that rocks and plants and cells are not persons. So, if zygotes are persons, then zygotes must have some property that rocks and plants and cells lack. What property do you think this is, Ivanhoe? If yo ...[text shortened]... roperty?

Now, I'm off to a NARAL fundraiser, and I won't be back until tomorrow.

Cheers!

BBarr: "Now, I'm off to a NARAL fundraiser, ...."


Are you going to defend your stance that it is morally unacceptable to perform an abortion after the sixth month in utero, unless the mother's life is seriously at risk ? ..... of course not.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
BBarr: "Now, I'm off to a NARAL fundraiser, ...."


Are you going to defend your stance that it is morally unacceptable to perform an abortion after the sixth month in utero, unless the mother's life is seriously at risk ? ..... of course not.

3rd trimester isn't an "early fetus" , since bbarr said "early fetus" why are you asking him to defend 3rd trimester abortions?