abortion

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree, just as when you assign worth it isn't anything but an
opinion as well. With that opinion there are some levels of human
development we arrive at carry more worth, and other levels that
are worth less; so much so that before that arrival of worth there
can be an ending of the life process in human development. The
whole life time that would o ...[text shortened]...
of importance using your argument. only those parts you happen to
favor at the moment.
Kelly

If it is your argument that all value is relative (which appears
to be what you are saying), then why do you insist that I
respect your point of view? If value is whatever I assign it,
if I don't value your life (or yours mine), then it would be
morally permissible to kill each other. That's stupid.

If you are saying value is a fixed thing, then demonstrate it:
Why is human life intrinsically valuable? What gives humans
intrinsic (rather than extrinsic) moral consideration?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
If it is your argument that all value is relative (which appears
to be what you are saying), then why do you insist that I
respect your point of view? If value is whatever I assign it,
if I don't value your life (or yours mine), then it would be
morally permissible to kill each other. That's stupid.

If you are saying value is a fixed thing, th ...[text shortened]... valuable? What gives humans
intrinsic (rather than extrinsic) moral consideration?

Nemesio

Prove value to you, either you value something or you do not, it is
shown by your arguments on what is important to you. If there are
placed certain levels of value on the different stages of human
development, than there is willingness to make some stages of life
more valuable than others. That speaks volumes toward the
willingness to change the value of a human life, because of what is it
at the time it is looked at, or thought about! The only relative view
about abortion comes to human beings when you or anyone else
feels the need to place the value label some where. If human life is
valued for the sake of human life, than all stages of development
should be valued, for it is a process that we have gone through, it is a
process that everyone that is to come must go through. It only
becomes gray and fuzzy when you think there are lines that need to
be drawn for a being to be worth more or less.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Prove value to you, either you value something or you do not, it is
shown by your arguments on what is important to you. If there are
placed certain levels of value on the different stages of human
development, than there is willingness to make some stages of life
more valuable than others. That speaks volumes toward the
willingness to change the value ...[text shortened]... en you think there are lines that need to
be drawn for a being to be worth more or less.
Kelly

If you think that value is intrinsic, then it should be provable such
that a rational person could not reject the claim.

If you think that value is extrinsic, then why do you insist that I
value your opinion?

Which is it: is human life instrinsically valuable or do we just arbitrarily
assign value to life?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
If you think that value is intrinsic, then it should be provable such
that a rational person could not reject the claim.

If you think that value is extrinsic, then why do you insist that I
value your opinion?

Which is it: is human life instrinsically valuable or do we just arbitrarily
assign value to life?

Nemesio

Like I said, either you value something or not. Your not carrying
about life at certain stages, and more at others shows some value,
and some lack of it. Your own words show what is within you, the
value of life is there, and the lack of it too. It is a common thing
for man to value some lives above others for some reasons of
their own making, the differences are simply what they choose
to value, and what it is they are willing to do to those lives they
have no value for, or like sometimes.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said, either you value something or not. Your not carrying
about life at certain stages, and more at others shows some value,
and some lack of it. Your own words show what is within you, the
value of life is there, and the lack of it too. It is a common thing
for man to value some lives above others for some reasons of
their own making, the diff ...[text shortened]... t it is they are willing to do to those lives they
have no value for, or like sometimes.
Kelly

I'll ask again, KellyJay:

It is a fact that human life is either intrinsically valuable or it is
not valuable, but we assign it value. One of those things MUST
be true.

Either you believe the former or the latter.

If you believe the former, why? If you believe the latter, then
why should anyone care what you think and why do you insist that
we do?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'll ask again, KellyJay:

It is a fact that human life is either intrinsically valuable or it is
not valuable, but we assign it value. One of those things MUST
be true.

Either you believe the former or the latter.

If you believe the former, why? If you believe the latter, then
why should anyone care what you think and why do you insist that
we do?

Nemesio

I value human life, period. I believe we are made in God's image
and that Jesus died for each of us. You may not share that
assessment, but you asked so there it is. Another may value white
people, another black, some those that are perfect, others male or
female, and with their preferences hate that they do not value
which would be non-white or non-black and so on. When placing
a scale of worthiness on human life, on what is and isn’t important,
there is what is important and what isn’t, any criteria has what is
valuable and worthless as it is applied to all human life.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Shit. I recced your post earlier by accident -- wish I could take that back because I think your post is pretty content-free and confused.

Most of your efforts are aimed at trying to convince me that the fetus is human. LOL. Of course it is human; it is a human organism and I am not disputing that. The problem lies with moral personhood, not humanh ...[text shortened]... sponses anytime soon. So take care of your morally considerable self in the meantime, will you?

I humbly bow out to the more persistent LJ and Nemesio. I don't have the time (or the patience) to take this argument through all the ad hoc theories, possibilities and never ending circles.

My closing statement is that I don't find the arguments for (IMO untenable) "moral consideration" compelling, because:

1)within a subjective value system it will be as relative and intangible as the flight pattern of a cock-eyed gnat - slippery slope coming up next.
2)to debunk the classical definition of personhood - a member of the genus Homo Sapien, I need more than the (obviously impossible) possibility of Neanderthal's and aliens - I never expected that one LJ, surely the elves in my nose which cause my olfactory perceptions would have been a better bet in qualifying for human rights.
3)whatever the criteria (for moral considerability) you eventually succeed in agreeing on, I contend it will cause some members of our society to be more human (and therefore morally considerable) than others - this inequality of humanity is an erosion of the bedrock of our civilization and democracy.
4)the current criteria - cognitive infrastructure - is biologically vague and therefore useless.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I value human life, period. I believe we are made in God's image
and that Jesus died for each of us. You may not share that
assessment, but you asked so there it is. Another may value white
people, another black, some those that are perfect, others male or
female, and with their preferences hate that they do not value
which would be non-white or non-b ...[text shortened]... n’t, any criteria has what is
valuable and worthless as it is applied to all human life.
Kelly

I'm glad you said your point of view. Since it is an
opinion, I hope that you will never vote to impose a
law that is predicated upon it. Otherwise you are an
oppressor.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Halitose
I humbly bow out to the more persistent LJ and Nemesio. I don't have the time (or the patience) to take this argument through all the ad hoc theories, possibilities and never ending circles.

My closing statement is that I don't find the arguments for (IMO untenable) "moral consideration" compelling, because:

1)within a subjective value system it ...[text shortened]... 4)the current criteria - cognitive infrastructure - is biologically vague and therefore useless.

I'm sorry that you are unable to provide a cogent defintion
which is predicated on logic but, instead, on concepts which
entail the tacet acceptence of divine notions.

I should hope that, realizing your own ineptitude, you will
never vote in favor of a law that imposes your opinion on
other people.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Halitose
4)the current criteria - cognitive infrastructure - is biologically vague and therefore useless.

Either a person is capable of thought (has the neurological aparatus
for cognative thought) or is not capable of it (lacks same).

There is nothing vague about this. It's totally transparent.

Furthermore, it is also transparent that things that lack the capacity
for cognitition lack the capacity to suffer. A tree (obviously lacking
in this capacity) cannot experience events such that it senses that
things have gotten better or worse from its point of view, because of
the obvious fact that it lacks a point of view.

I don't know why you find this vague, because it is definable, testable,
observable, and knowable, and it is self-evident that things that lack
this capacity cannot have a point of view.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm glad you said your point of view. Since it is an
opinion, I hope that you will never vote to impose a
law that is predicated upon it. Otherwise you are an
oppressor.

Nemesio

Why don't you try to understand people instead of constructing all kinds of accusations and judging them ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Why don't you try to understand people instead of constructing all kinds of accusations and judging them ?

I do try, Ivanhoe. But, as you can see, the two of them aren't
presenting an argument. They are saying 'Humans are valuable...
just because' or 'I don't want to address your concerns, just accept
my opinion.'

I'm sorry, Ivanhoe, but that's not what rights and laws are about.
Neither is a law predicated on an unprovable thing like 'a soul'
(although, as I said, I believe in this concept).

I look forward to understanding you when you make good on your
definition of 'identity.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Ivanhoe: I write rather precisely. If I meant moral impermissibility, then I
would have said it.

Part of my moral framework entails the notion of a 'soul.' However I don't
demand that people respect that or any aspect of that framework which rests
on it because notion of the existence of such an entity is illogical.

Nemesio

Nemesio: "Ivanhoe: I write rather precisely. If I meant moral impermissibility, then I would have said it."

Then tell me what comes first ? Establishing the moral (im)permissibility or the legal (im)permissability of performing abortion ?

Originally posted by Nemesio
I do try, Ivanhoe. But, as you can see, the two of them aren't
presenting an argument. They are saying 'Humans are valuable...
just because' or 'I don't want to address your concerns, just accept
my opinion.'

I'm sorry, Ivanhoe, but that's not what rights and laws are about.
Neither is a law predicated on an unprovable thing like 'a soul' ...[text shortened]... forward to understanding you when you make good on your
definition of 'identity.'

Nemesio

Nemesio: " I do try, Ivanhoe. ... "

Reading your reactions and comments do raise doubt on this issue.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm glad you said your point of view. Since it is an
opinion, I hope that you will never vote to impose a
law that is predicated upon it. Otherwise you are an
oppressor.

Nemesio

Interesting, the way you avoided the points I was bringing up by
calling my point of view on life oppressive. Not even the points I was
using for debate, but my view on life itself. I value human life so my
view is oppressive, end of discussion? If my point of view on life is
oppressive what is yours, enlightenment? If you desire to address the
actual points I was bringing up in this discussion let me know. If not I
guess you can cop out by calling my views on life oppressive, and
move on. Your support for the right to kill those that do not fit your
standard of life or personhood, are without value; why, well you seem
to think so I guess, so it must be true.
Kelly