29 Oct 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeOk. How do you define person then?
See the above post. I do not see any argument to divide the human family into persons and unborn non-persons, since the unborns do not have any bodily or brain damage they should be treated as persons. Why do we have to screen undamaged unborn human beings in order to grant them personhood. The only reasons I can come up with are ideological reasons like bbarr provides them.
Nemesio
29 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWomen miscarry knowingly all the time. Do they mourn as they do with a child, even a newborn? By and large, no they do not?
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]You’re not looking at the practical side of this. A zygote is too small to see or notice. Women get pregnant and miscarry without ever realizing it. So what do you propose?
If we are talking about a fetus, than I agree with both your points.
Women miscarry knowingly all the time. Do they mourn as t ...[text shortened]... nity. The capacity for consciousness
is one of the requistes for personhood.
Nemesio[/b]
Unless you’re a woman who has had a miscarriage, I suggest you stick to talking about things that you are knowledgeable about. My experience has been that women do mourn.
Do you suggest that they do not have a reverence for life?
They haven’t had the opportunity to bond with the baby the way they would if they had delivered it. This does not mean that they have no reverence for life as you put it.
No. My words are precise. It is arbitrary to say humans have value because they
exist because it fails to define it. Wouldn't you agree that if I said 'fish have value
because they exist,' and left it at that, it would be the height of foolishness? Of course it is, because it is 'arbitrary.' Give a reason why humans have intrinsic value, would you?
You missed the last part of my sentence there. Humans have value because they exist, and because of what it is to be human. To be human is to have a consciousness. To be human is to be able to reason in a way that no other creature on this earth can. To be able to contemplate things like science, God, and the nature of the universe. It is to have a divine immortal nature that is commonly referred to as a soul. If you’re an atheist then just try to use some empathy along with common sense.
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by NemesioAn unconscious adult has the neural connections for consciousness, and embryo does not.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]And, it is not whether the enity is conscious, but has the capacity for consciousness.
Neither an unconscious adult or an embryo have the immediate capacity for consciousness. Both have the potential capacity for conscious.
So both are the same in this way.[/b]
An unconscious adult has the neura ...[text shortened]... not.
One has capacity, the other only potential.
So they are not the same.
Nemesio[/b]
This is irrelevant if those neural connections are not being used. Suppose some were damaged. Now the person is mentally retarded for the rest of his life. An embryo will have brand new neural connections, so does this make the embryo more valuable?
29 Oct 05
4 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe funeral and conception day idea were posted yesterday.
[b/]You'll basically wade through about 50 threads of ChessExpress saying "It's a baby cuz I SAY SO!"
I’ve never once said that, but that seems to be all you are capable of understanding.
No answer on the funeral. No answer on the "conception day".
Thanks for giving me all of five minutes.
At least CE admits if he ...[text shortened]... ]
You just don’t get it. Skin cells for example are not programmed to be humans, zygotes are.
No, your theory goes beyond what prior criminal abortion laws were. Those laws recognized abortion as a lesser homicide and gave a maximum penalty of 5-10 years in prison. No STATE EVER HAD A LAW MAKING ABORTION MURDER! You insist over and over and over again (you do it again in this post) that abortion is murder. You are demanding that abortion be treated as murder, not abortion. That would require it to be criminalized as murder. Laws have some deterrent effect, but unpopular laws are routinely disobeyed esp. when they try to legislate morality. People would continue to have abortions in hundreds of thousands and if you got your way, many would wind up in prison for very long terms. Face the consequences of your world view.
What things might become in the future is of no effect legally on what they are now. An 11 year old might eventually become a 21 year old, so he should be able to buy a bottle of Bud and a shot of Jack Daniels in the local pub NOW. This is another case where you keep repeating an irrational idea over and over. You are a fanatic. Accept it.
29 Oct 05
3 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYour last paragraph gives a bunch of things people can do that make them human. A EMBYRO, ZYGOTE AND NONVIABLE FETUS CAN'T DO ANY OF THEM!!!!! You've refuted your own argument.
[b/]Women miscarry knowingly all the time. Do they mourn as they do with a child, even a newborn? By and large, no they do not?
Unless you’re a woman who has had a miscarriage, I suggest you stick to talking about things that you are knowledgeable about. My experience has been that women do mourn.
Do you suggest that they do not hav ...[text shortened]... ed to as a soul. If you’re an atheist then just try to use some empathy along with common sense.
Nice work.
Woman who have miscarriages are usually sad, but they don't ask for a funeral and don't think a baby died. I know from experience how women act when they have a miscarriage and how they act when they have their child die. You're a fool if you think it's the same thing.
29 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess Express
Unless you’re a woman who has had a miscarriage, I suggest you stick to talking about things that you are knowledgeable about. My experience has been that women do mourn.
Again, you refuse to read what I wrote: Do they mourn as they do with a child, even a
newborn? By and large, no they do not.
And, your presumption that, because I am male, I have no experience with miscarriage is both
unfounded and insulting.
They haven’t had the opportunity to bond with the baby the way they would if they had delivered it. This does not mean that they have no reverence for life as you put it.
I asked 'even a newborn' for a reason. The woman has limited bonding experience with
a newborn as with a 3 month old embryo. The former gets a funeral, the latter does not
as a matter of practice. Even a baby which dies at childbirth and has no time to bond
with its mother gets a funeral. And, often times, a baby which dies in the womb after
viability and is 'force labored' out gets a funeral. Again, no bonding.
How do you explain this disparity?
Are the vast majority of these people which follow this practice deficient in some way,
as it pertains to their value of life?
You missed the last part of my sentence there. Humans have value because they exist, and because of what it is to be human. To be human is to be conscious. To be human is to be able to reason in a way that no other creature on this earth can. To be able to contemplate things like science, God, and the nature of the universe.
So, if an alien came down with even greater powers of reason and contemplation, and wanted
to enslave you because you were inferior, you would find this morally permissible? After all,
you can't reason and contemplate like it can!
If you disagree with that hypothetical, then your giving of status to humans and not, say,
pigs, is inconsistent (which is a trait of arbitrary attributions in my experience).
It is to have a divine immortal nature that is commonly referred to as a soul. If you’re an atheist then just try to use some empathy along with common sense.
Here, at last, is the crux of your argument. A religous one. No American law should be
founded on a religious principle, as per the tenets of the Constitution. Your justification is
predicated on the Divine, which is, by definition, not rational but faith. Faith has
no basis in law. A person can demonstrate using reason why theft, rape or murder of another
person is immoral without the existence of God whatsoever.
I have been hoping that Ivanhoe would, in his devotion to this cause, provide an argument
against abortion that wasn't in some way predicated on some Divine notion. He has never
come through on this.
Will you?
Nemesio
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThen your assigning of rights to the human species is arbitrary. It isn't based
A person is a member of the human family.
on reason, but on opinion. You are saying humans have rights because they
are human.
That isn't reason, Ivanhoe.
Give me a reason why humans (at any phase of existence) have rights.
Nemesio
29 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe funeral and conception day idea were posted yesterday.
The funeral and conception day idea were posted yesterday.
No, your theory goes beyond what prior criminal abortion laws were. Those laws recognized abortion as a lesser homicide and gave a maximum penalty of 5-10 years in prison. No STATE EVER HAD A LAW MAKING ABORTION MURDER! You insist over and over and over again (you do it again in this po ...[text shortened]... er case where you keep repeating an irrational idea over and over. You are a fanatic. Accept it.
Well that explains it. I thought you were referring to Nemesios mention of funerals.
No, your theory goes beyond what prior criminal abortion laws were. Those laws recognized abortion as a lesser homicide and gave a maximum penalty of 5-10 years in prison. No STATE EVER HAD A LAW MAKING ABORTION MURDER! You insist over and over and over again (you do it again in this post) that abortion is murder. You are demanding that abortion be treated as murder, not abortion. That would require it to be criminalized as murder.
Do you talk like this in the court room? 24 pages and you haven’t heard a word I’ve said. I’ve mentioned that women should get a reduced sentence if convicted because I don’t believe that they are necessarily a danger to society.
Laws have some deterrent effect, but unpopular laws are routinely disobeyed esp. when they try to legislate morality.
Where do you think rights and laws come from? Do you think that the law makers ascend up into heaven and receive God given laws? Seriously, where? I’ve asked this in the other thread an you just don’t have an answer.
The answer is that laws get voted into existence, amended, and abolished all because of peoples personal beliefs. That is peoples notions of morality. This is why a law is basically somebody’s legalized belief imposed on the people. This is why you contradict yourself when you say we can’t legalize morality.
Murder is morally reprehensible right? Stealing? Assault…etc…etc…what don’t you get?
people would continue to have abortions in hundreds of thousands and if you got your way, many would wind up in prison for very long terms.
This wasn’t the case back when abortion was illegal, and it won’t be when abortion is made illegal again. As usual you exaggerate.
What things might become in the future is of no effect legally on what they are now.
Ok, so let me get this straight. A man has the right to walk into a courtroom wired with dynamite that is timed to go off in an hour. The dynamite hasn’t exploded yet, so the guards can’t legally do anything. Is this the kind of law you practice? 🙄
29 Oct 05
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're a fool for not knowing the value of human potential, for not knowing that all the things that I mentioned are in the same genetic makeup that is in the embryo, and for not reading the parts of my posts that answer your own foolish questions.
Your last paragraph gives a bunch of things people can do that make them human. A EMBYRO, ZYGOTE AND NONVIABLE FETUS CAN'T DO ANY OF THEM!!!!! You've refuted your own argument.
Nice work.
Woman who have miscarriages are usually sad, but they don't ask for a funeral and don't think a baby died. I know from experience how women act when they hav ...[text shortened]... ow they act when they have their child die. You're a fool if you think it's the same thing.
They haven’t had the opportunity to bond with the baby the way they would if they had delivered it. This does not mean that they have no reverence for life as you put it.
Does this ring a bell?
Ok, 2:00 a.m. We'll continue Tomorrow.
29 Oct 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI think this is all true except that buddhism knows no gods, but of course there are a lot of different forms of buddhism. I like to call myself an weak-agostic buddhist. There is a new book about this called "Buddhism without the belief" (most buddhist belief in reincarnation) I have not read it yet but it has had a lot of good reviews.
You may be right about this. My understanding is that Buddhists believe that in order to end suffering and achieve enlightenment it is necessary to get rid of desire and attachment. Clear the mind and let the truth come to you. In this sense the idea of a God is immaterial as you put it, but this doesn’t convince me that they are atheists.
Perhaps LordOfTheChessBoard will enlighten us. 😉
29 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardBuddhism Without Belief by Stephen Batchelor: excellent book. He makes an argument for strong agnosticism, so it ought to be highly interesting to you. Enjoy! 🙂
I think this is all true except that buddhism knows no gods, but of course there are a lot of different forms of buddhism. I like to call myself an weak-agostic buddhist. There is a new book about this called "Buddhism without the belief" (most buddhist belief in reincarnation) I have not read it yet but it has had a lot of good reviews.