13 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseAn old Ivanhoe argument.
LJ, I've tried to get the ideas into a more coherent line of thought:
Here's another quote from Peter Singer:
"When the life of an [born] infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the 'prior existence' and the 'total' version of utilitarianism entail that, if ...[text shortened]... ess.
Of course the eugenics program is not far below the surface once the plunge is taken.
I notice that not one person has discussed the rights of the pregnant female. Apparently she has none. She is merely a convenient carrying case for an embyro/zygote/fetus. The anti-abortionists and even those who argue about the "personhood" of the fetus have made her wants, wishes and desires completely irrelevant.
Very revealing.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThe anti-abortionists and even those who argue about the "personhood" of the fetus have made her wants, wishes and desires completely irrelevant.
An old Ivanhoe argument.
I notice that not one person has discussed the rights of the pregnant female. Apparently she has none. She is merely a convenient carrying case for an embyro/zygote/fetus. The anti-abortionists and even those who argue about the "personhood" of the fetus have made her wants, wishes and desires completely irrelevant.
Very revealing.
The whole point of discussing personhood is to determine the "status of the fetus." The whole point of determing the status of the fetus is to determine where the rights of the fetus (and consequently the rights of the woman with respect to abortion) begin and end. If the fetus is not a person, then the woman has every right to act on whatever wishes she may have to abort it. On the other hand, if the fetus is a person with rights, then the woman does not have the right to act on her desire to abort it, except maybe in extreme, extenuating circumstances (e.g., the woman's health is seriously jeopardized or something). Therefore, the woman's rights are an integral part of the discussion, but her rights with respect to abortion are an endogenous -- not exogenous -- variable.
But my point is this: the only ones here who are completely disregarding/disallowing/ignoring the rights of the woman are the ones who keep insisting that personhood begins at conception merely because that is what they have been brainwashed/programmed to believe without good reason.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't agree. See my post on page 4 for why. You are arguing an arbitrary concept ignoring that it will have real and serious consequences to the personal autonomy of the women involved. "Personhood" in this case is begging the question.
[b]The anti-abortionists and even those who argue about the "personhood" of the fetus have made her wants, wishes and desires completely irrelevant.
The whole point of discussing personhood is to determine the "status of the fetus." The whole point of determing the status of the fetus is to determine where the rights of the fetus (and consequ ...[text shortened]... y[/i] because that is what they have been brainwashed/programmed to believe without good reason.[/b]
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloInteresting, if my view of personhood begins at conception
[b]The anti-abortionists and even those who argue about the "personhood" of the fetus have made her wants, wishes and desires completely irrelevant.
The whole point of discussing personhood is to determine the "status of the fetus." The whole point of determing the status of the fetus is to determine where the rights of the fetus (and consequ ...[text shortened]... y[/i] because that is what they have been brainwashed/programmed to believe without good reason.[/b]
I'm brainwashed/programmed to believe it without good reason.
You, I assume are just simply enlightened or what? You pick the
variables you want to use to fulfill state that you call
“personhood”, and say these variables cause someone to be
worthy of rights to the life they would have if we allow them to
live. I disagree, and I'm the one who has a belief without good
reason. What you have is simply logic based on your personal
tastes, what is important is what you like and call important, it
is good and logical, why, because it comes from you?
Kelly
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOh my nooooooooo....I'm in agreement with no1maruder!
I don't agree. See my post on page 4 for why. You are arguing an arbitrary concept ignoring that it will have real and serious consequences to the personal autonomy of the women involved. "Personhood" in this case is begging the question.
Ahhhh, what do I do now? Ahhhh
😳
Kelly
14 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI read your post on page 4 (which I think is a good, interesting post, by the way -- a lot more engaging than the usual drivel). Our views lead to the same overall conclusion, but, yes, they are fundamentally different.
I don't agree. See my post on page 4 for why. You are arguing an arbitrary concept ignoring that it will have real and serious consequences to the personal autonomy of the women involved. "Personhood" in this case is begging the question.
One reason I think the concept of personhood (which is simply a concept that identifies fundamental rights and moral consideration) is necessary is the following: in your post, you say that the fetus is wholly contained within the woman's body, which is true, of course. However, even before the fetus is viable (basically from conception), the fetus is not part of her body: the fetus is genetically distinguishable from the rest of her body. Therefore, all I am doing is simply inquiring whether or not this already genetically separate entity possesses properties that suffice for moral consideration and the possession of fundamental rights that may not be violated. It just so happens that I do not see any such sufficient properties before the third trimester, which is why our views lead to the same overall conclusion. However, our views certainly are fundamentally different because if I, on the other hand, did see such sufficient properties before the third trimester, then our overall conclusions would be very different.
But, I do think you have an interesting viewpoint. I am going to have to think about your case a little bit more.
14 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "An old Ivanhoe argument."
An old Ivanhoe argument.
I notice that not one person has discussed the rights of the pregnant female. Apparently she has none. She is merely a convenient carrying case for an embyro/zygote/fetus. The anti-abortionists and even those who argue about the "personhood" of the fetus have made her wants, wishes and desires completely irrelevant.
Very revealing.
That is not relevant. What is relevant is that the abortion practise is allready being used as a means to dispose of handicapped people. If Singer, so admired among liberals, gets his way this eugenic practise will spread to young children. According to Singer they can be killed because they do not possess personhood à la Singer.
EDIT: In the Netherlands killing handicapped BORN children is allready happening. See my next post about the "Groninger Protocols".
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseHalitose: "... the abortionist Jim Newhall, cited by Maureen O'Hagan in Willamette Week, 3, May 1995 said the following: "Not everybody is meant to be born. I believe, for a baby, life begins when his mother wants him."
LJ, I've tried to get the ideas into a more coherent line of thought:
Here's another quote from Peter Singer:
"When the life of an [born] infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the 'prior existence' and the 'total' version of utilitarianism entail that, if ...[text shortened]... ess.
Of course the eugenics program is not far below the surface once the plunge is taken.
..... and what about his father ?
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardA fetus does not have a point of view.
Yes but not from YOUR point of view, how many time do I have to say this?
If I travel back in time and abort your fetus it would have the same effect as if I would shoot you now....
If you traveled back in time and aborted the entity that I was before I was
a person, then I would never have known.
That is the difference. I have interests, a fetus (mine or anyone's) does not
have interests because it doesn't have the capacity for interests.
Nemesio
14 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseHalitose: "If Singer has his way, infanticide should be a valid option for a child born with any defects.
LJ, I've tried to get the ideas into a more coherent line of thought:
Here's another quote from Peter Singer:
"When the life of an [born] infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the 'prior existence' and the 'total' version of utilitarianism entail that, if ...[text shortened]... ess.
Of course the eugenics program is not far below the surface once the plunge is taken.
In the Netherlands the killing of handicapped children is already a practise. The procedures followed in case of killing these children are formulated in the so called "Groninger Protocols".
Children with for instance Spina bifida are being euthanised because they are suffering unbearably, according to the doctors who killed the children. There are neurologists and neuro-surgeans however, who claim that they never observed children with such handicaps to be suffering unbearably. It seems the criterion of "unbearable suffering" in the instance of performing euthanasia for people who are able to express their wishes, is being used as a smokescreen to get rid of handicapped children, who cannot express their wishes at all ..... and all this with the help and approval of their, of course "liberal", parents.
In the Netherlands eugenics is not a frightening perspective for the future anymore, but an idea which is allready being practised ..... without any protest from the overall liberal majority I may add.
It seems the only organised group who is protesting vehemently against these unwanted developments is the Roman-Catholic Church:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pont-acd_life_doc_20040903_euthanasia-netherlands_en.html
14 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeWe've been all through this; your claim concerning the "Groninger Protocols" is ludicrous as the only sites you've ever given which give details of the Groninger Protocols don't support your claims. Instead you rely of some secret "Groninger Protocols" which seem to exist only in the mind of you and others who want to adopt a Chicken Little approach. There isn't a shred of proof that handicapped children are being euthanized and you know it.
[b]Halitose: "If Singer has his way, infanticide should be a valid option for a child born with any defects.
In the Netherlands the killing of handicapped children is already a practise. The procedures followed in case of killing these children are formulated in the so called "Groninger Protocols".
Children with for instance Spina bifida are ...[text shortened]... tifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pont-acd_life_doc_20040903_euthanasia-netherlands_en.html[/b]
EDIT: The site you gave is a perfect example of Chicken Littleism and hysteria even though they concede they don't have any knowledge of the actual text of Groningen Protocols or any evidence that 12 year old children are being euthanized.
14 Nov 05
The line between killing unborn children and trying to save them is becoming more and more blurred. There are children aged 24 weeks who are being treated with all possible methods and care in order to save their lives in one section of the hospital while in another section of the same hospital a child with the same age in utero is being killed.
Rational ? Not in my book.