Originally posted by howardgeeWe do, Kellly, we do.
KellyJay: "Who gets to say who rates the title personhood?"
We do, Kellly, we do.
..or at least medical counsels, learned members of society and legislative bodies do.
This is why abortions are allowed at different stages of pregnancy in different countries in the world.
Such "lines drawn in the sand" are typical of all moral and ethical cons ...[text shortened]... ly, REAL life is not that simple....
It is much more complicated..
and so much more rewarding!
..or at least medical counsels, learned members of society and legislative bodies do.
I sure hope they keep liking people of color or others that had that
title not put on them for awhile, since it is personal opinions that set
that bar on who is worthy of life according to you, the medical
counsels and our learned members of society with of course
our other never do anything wrong or make an error legislative body
of other people too. I guess if we can decide who is worthy of death
and life, who is worthy of the title of person kill the rest and feel
no guilt. With this ability why don't we just take the murderers and
rapist off the personhood pedestal and kill them without remorse
like we do these within the womb? After all it is only a matter of
semantics of what we level as worthy of life we are now dealing
with. Does this mean that you feel that if those in the know and in
power like the idea of slavery it must be okay too?
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioDo they mourn as they do with a child, even a newborn? By and
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]
large, no they do not?
Mourning is a personal thing that isn't always shown to those around
them, you know what you said how? I think you are mistaken, they do
mourn and there is a lot of sorrow there when it is a child they wanted
to hold, raise, and so on and they die before they ever get to see him
or her. You can say that only relates to women who care about those
within them, and I agree, some women kill their own evern after they
are born, there are both types those that care and those that don't.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioThe embryo is simply an early stage of human life, there are various
You need to learn how to articulate an argument.
Before you said: An embryo is alive, and it has all the DNA it needs to be human. So it is human life.
This is a poorly articulated position for the reasons demonstrated.
Then you said: To be human is to be conscious. Help me out.
This is also a poorly articulated position for the reasons given. ...[text shortened]... own head what you mean, but you aren't communicating it
effectively in your posts.
Nemesio
stages of human life we can call them what we will and place any
value on any stage we desire, we can say that infant is one, toddler,
teenager, adult, elderly if we can just slap a few words around and
call them human stages of life. We can call chicken eggs not chickens
and destroy all chicken eggs because we don't value them as much
as we do chickens, of course that kills off all the chickens in the
process, because one would be failing to take into account that
chickens are required to eggs at some part of their life, as you and I
were once embryos.
Kelly
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThis is because if you do not know the truth you can only believe in it. To truly know the truth you have to find it yourself.
Thanks for making that distinction.
[b]HE can currently not know if god exists while a strong agnostic says that NO ONE can.
I wish more people held this view. I like the Buddhists emphasis on self effort rather than blind faith.[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, the issue was 'common sense.'
Mourning is a personal thing that isn't always shown to those around
them, you know what you said how? I think you are mistaken, they do
mourn and there is a lot of sorrow there when it is a child they wanted
to hold, raise, and so on and they die before they ever get to see him
or her. You can say that only relates to women who care about those
withi ...[text shortened]... n evern after they
are born, there are both types those that care and those that don't.
Kelly
By and large, women who miscarry do not mourn to the degree
that they do if they lose a brand newborn.
Common sense indicates that there is a value structure which
is in place but not articulated.
A person that holds that human life is sacred from conception onwards
would not have that value structure.
Do you mourn more if you lose your son at 10 or 15? You mourn the
same...the extra five years don't make it easier or harder.
Nemesio
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardAccording to this definition I am a weak agnostic, but complicated by the following two caveats:
What no1 says is correct but I would like to add that agnosticism can be applied to more then just god. And that a weak agnoctic says that HE can currently not know if god exists while a strong agnostic says that NO ONE can.
"To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men,--that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense." Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
"I strongly suspect the existence of a creator, and find the belief comforting. But I am also fairly confident that the understanding of a creator pronounced by most modern Christians cannot be true." Wulebgr, http://www.redhotchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=26083&page=12
Originally posted by NemesioBy and large, women who miscarry do not mourn to the degree
Again, the issue was 'common sense.'
By and large, women who miscarry do not mourn to the degree
that they do if they lose a brand newborn.
Common sense indicates that there is a value structure which
is in place but not articulated.
A person that holds that human life is sacred from conception onwards
would not have that value structure.
...[text shortened]... 0 or 15? You mourn the
same...the extra five years don't make it easier or harder.
Nemesio
that they do if they lose a brand newborn.
This is the point I was trying to get across in our last discussion, you’re not qualified to say what the majority of women feel when they miscarry.
You’ve never gone through what they’ve gone through, and the handful of women that you’ve met that have gone through it is not representative of the millions of women all around the world who miscarry.
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]You keep asking me to appeal to my common sense. Common sense is predicated on the actions of the common folk. If the actions of the common folk are to not care much about miscarriages, then common sense would indicate that the embryo has no value.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]I agree that you may have known a woman who had a miscarriage, but this is as much as any man can know. Two of my best friends almost got divorced because she kept miscarrying. Are there women who care less, sure. Are there women who throw their delivered baby into the trash bin, yes. My point is that for a m ...[text shortened]... ce. But a law predicated on Divine concepts is wholly unsound
in American politics.
Nemesio
This is not true. I mentioned that we should use common sense along with empathy. This means have empathy for the fetus, and common sense to know the potential of human life. If you let your common sense be dictated by the majority, then you are lost.
A mother has equally little time to bond with a baby who dies upon birth and a 4 month fetus. That was all I was saying.
It depends on the mother. Part of the bonding process happens when the baby grows in the womb.
You say that women have funerals for 3-month old fetuses. What church did this take place at and when?
KellyJay has had experience with this. The church that he goes to has given funerals to undelivered babies, and I’m sure that his is not the only one.
Women knowingly miscarry all the time. Do you admit that such action is at not normative?
People die from accidents and diseases all the time. This does not mean that nobody mourns them.
So, now a criterion you've added is 'advancement.' What about a super-severely retarded person, one who is less competent than a house cat? Do we have a right to destroy him?
This is the question that I posed to you concerning the consciousness of an embryo, and you couldn’t answer it either. My gut feeling is that they should be given as good a life as possible, and that steps should be taken to prevent babies from being born this way. Soon medicine will give us the ability to repair genes.
It doesn't 'depend' if you hold a logical position. Otherwise you are being arbitrary. If you feel that 'reason' is a criterion worthy of consideration (as you seem to believe above), then you must consider it in all cases where it exists, not just in the cases that are convenient for you.
This is false reasoning. The Inuit’s for example need to kill seals in order to survive. Buddhists don’t like to mow the grass because of the potential danger to the bugs. It depends on the culture and circumstances. This is why common sense is important.
I am not an atheist. And, empathy means to try to feel something vicariously. An embryo lacks the capacity to suffer. How can a person have empathy for that?
By this line of reasoning, it is ok to kill somebody if they don’t suffer. Even atheists know that this is wrong.
And, do you have empathy for a cow, pig, or chicken?
They have the capacity for suffering and reason.
According to the scripture God gave us dominion over the animals. If you don’t accept the scripture, then you could argue this point. Again, it depends on the culture and circumstances.
Infanticide was a common part of pre-civilized human culture (I am assuming you do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis here). I'm not saying it is right (indeed, it is not), but the notion that we are programmed with a sense of right and wrong that has been corrupted in modern times is simply not true (as those cultures who utilized infanticide show).
I disagree with this. God gave us all the capacity for empathy, love, and compassion. These are the foundations of morality and the concept of right and wrong. Just because the cavemen were not perfect does not mean that they had no morality.
What you are asking the atheist to do is to respect a law that is predicated, not on reason, but on religion.
And where do you think our laws come from?
Laws are based on rights. If a person cannot demonstrate why something should have rights, then laws shouldn't pertain to them…a law predicated on Divine concepts is wholly unsound
You miss the point entirely. Laws are based on somebody’s idea of right and wrong. This all goes back to empathy, compassion and common sense. Where do you think we get the notion of morality from?
Originally posted by The Chess Express😉
You keep asking me to appeal to my common sense. Common sense is predicated on the actions of the common folk. If the actions of the common folk are to not care much about miscarriages, then common sense would indicate that the embryo has no value.
This is not true. I mentioned that we should use common sense along with empathy. Thi ...[text shortened]... to empathy, compassion and common sense. Where do you think we get the notion of morality from?[/b]
Kelly
Originally posted by The Chess Express
This is not true. I mentioned that we should use common sense along with empathy. This means have empathy for the fetus, and common sense to know the potential of human life. If you let your common sense be dictated by the majority, then you are lost.
What is common sense? Someone who agrees with you?!?!
Common sense is the prevailing sense of the majority. That is its
definition.
And, you must not know what empathy means. It means feeling the
emotion, suffering, concern, or whatever vicariously. You are asking
people to have empathy for something which has not yet developed
any of these traits.
Your appeals have no currency.
It depends on the mother. Part of the bonding process happens when the baby grows in the womb.
KellyJay has had experience with this. The church that he goes to has given funerals to undelivered babies, and I’m sure that his is not the only one.
He has posted on this before. His church is, by and large, unusual.
And, yes, it depends on the mother. But, (and here was my point),
the vast majority of mothers do not have the same pang of loss
for a miscarriage that they do for a newborn. We can say this with
confidence because of so few funerals.
Here is the math:
Given: 99.8% of mothers want to have a funeral for their stillborn
child.
Given: 99.9% of mothers want to have a funeral for their child who
tragically dies at age 1 (or 10, or whatever).
Given: .001% of mothers want to have a funeral for their miscarriage.
The disparity between these two figures is not a coincidence. It is
a commentary on how women feel about their embryos. They do not
consider the life lost in miscarriage as equal to that lost at birth.
If you feel these numbers are inaccurate, then, by all means, tell me
what numbers you feel are accurate. But, if you cannot demonstrate
something that is statisically similar (say 95% and 99😵, then you
have a duty to explain why?
Are most mothers monsters? Or is the assertion that an embryo has
lesser value a valid one?
People die from accidents and diseases all the time. This does not mean that nobody mourns them.
Precisely. They have funerals and the like. Miscarriages do not
enjoy the same dignity. Why?
This is the question that I posed to you concerning the consciousness of an embryo, and you couldn’t answer it either. My gut feeling is that they should be given as good a life as possible, and that steps should be taken to prevent babies from being born this way. Soon medicine will give us the ability to repair genes.
This is false reasoning. The Inuit’s for example need to kill seals in order to survive. Buddhists don’t like to mow the grass because of the potential danger to the bugs. It depends on the culture and circumstances. This is why common sense is important.
If you ask the Inuit about the common sense of killing a seal, it is
going to be different than if you ask me. Why? Because all
common sense entails is the prevailing opinion of the community in
question. If you asked a 17th-century Southern American about
not beating slaves, their 'common sense' will inform you that slaves
are like horses and don't feel pain.
Common sense should be avoided when it makes no logical sense
and should be embraced when it does make sense.
By this line of reasoning, it is ok to kill somebody if they don’t suffer. Even atheists know that this is wrong.
You are not following the argument. Repeat after me:
Capacity to suffer
Capacity to suffer
Capacity to suffer
Capacity to suffer
According to the scripture God gave us dominion over the animals. If you don’t accept the scripture, then you could argue this point. Again, it depends on the culture and circumstances.
Again, you appeal to a 'Divine' source to 'edit out logic.' This has no
basis in law, which is about rights.
If you think God gave you permission to violate the rights of a pig or
cow to be free from suffering, then someone else could assert that
God gave them permission to make embryos 'suffer.' It is an arbitrary
and meaningless argument.
I disagree with this. God gave us all the capacity for empathy, love, and compassion. These are the foundations of morality and the concept of right and wrong. Just because the cavemen were not perfect does not mean that they had no morality.
You said to appeal to common sense! Now you want to say, because
these cavemen disagreed with you, they lacked common sense!
I'm beginning to think that your definition of common sense entails
'any position which agrees with my illogical viewpoints.'
And where do you think our laws come from?
Rights and the reason that stems from permitting a person to
exercise and protect them.
You miss the point entirely. Laws are based on somebody’s idea of right and wrong. This all goes back to empathy, compassion and common sense. Where do you think we get the notion of morality from?
You read my answer, and you disregarded it. I'm not going to
reiterate it. I've addressed the issues of empathy and 'common
sense.'
The reason I'm missing your point is because you keep failing to
make one. You want people to give rights to embryos, but you want
those rights to be predicated on the Divine, one which people don't
even agree exists. Your foundation is Supernatural. As a result, it has
no place in US Law.
Again: if you want to make a rational argument which don't involve
Sacred Caveats, I'm all ears, but I am not going to continue this little
round-about where you keep asserting that common sense and
empathy to your religious perspective should be the basis of law.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayWe can call chicken eggs not chickens
The embryo is simply an early stage of human life, there are various
stages of human life we can call them what we will and place any
value on any stage we desire, we can say that infant is one, toddler,
teenager, adult, elderly if we can just slap a few words around and
call them human stages of life. We can call chicken eggs not chickens
and destroy ...[text shortened]... hickens are required to eggs at some part of their life, as you and I
were once embryos.
Kelly
and destroy all chicken eggs because we don't value them as much
as we do chickens, of course that kills off all the chickens in the
process, because one would be failing to take into account that
chickens are required to eggs at some part of their life
This chicken discourse is tasty and finger lickin' good, but it is also irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I have never heard anyone argue that since the young fetus has no rights, it is therefore fine and dandy to undertake a project aimed at killing them all off. Rather, since the young fetus has no rights, it is morally permissible for the young fetus to be aborted if that is the woman's will. The young fetus is just another portion of the woman's body over which she alone holds dominion. So your chicken/egg story hardly fits.
you and I were once embryos.
I think you are muddying the waters here because you are being imprecise. If you were to describe the concept of "I" an essential feature of the description would no doubt be the cognitive faculties that give rise to your conscious self. Since the young fetus lacks such faculties, I think it is incoherent to say that you and I were once young fetuses. I think it is fair to say that you and I were once third trimester embryos. So I think you are just trying to bestow properties on the young fetus that it does not actually possess in order to engender empathy. This is absurd because there is nothing with which to empathize; you may as well try to empathize with the plight of a rock.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou know so we are not confused, had your mother killed the
[b]We can call chicken eggs not chickens
and destroy all chicken eggs because we don't value them as much
as we do chickens, of course that kills off all the chickens in the
process, because one would be failing to take into account that
chickens are required to eggs at some part of their life
This chicken discourse is tasty and finger lickin ...[text shortened]... is nothing with which to empathize; you may as well try to empathize with the plight of a rock.[/b]
young fetus within her while you were there within her, you would
not be here, that is the plain and simple truth of that.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioI don't believe I said my church did that. I said it was done by a
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]This is not true. I mentioned that we should use common sense along with empathy. This means have empathy for the fetus, and common sense to know the potential of human life. If you let your common sense be dictated by the majority, then you are lost.
What is common sense? Someone who agrees with yo ...[text shortened]... common sense and
empathy to your religious perspective should be the basis of law.
Nemesio[/b]
group of people that all lost children, some that were born and
some that were not. There were believers and unbelievers within
that group. The loss of a child even before they were born is a
great loss, you have what you think is the promise of a child, and
then it is gone. The emotion people feel may not be on public
display but it is there. People may not show "you" their grief, do
not assume because they don't it isn't there.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf my mother had elected to abort the young fetus that eventually later developed into me, then that young fetus would not have developed into the person that I was and am. Yes, that does seems straightforward enough. What exactly does that prove though? Is that supposed to make a point regarding whether that young fetus was morally considerable or not? Are you saying, based on that alone, that it would have been wrong for my mother to abort that young fetus? I don't see the connection.
You know so we are not confused, had your mother killed the
young fetus within her while you were there within her, you would
not be here, that is the plain and simple truth of that.
Kelly