23 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloNemesio: I am also very interested in figuring out a proper criterion for personhood (in terms of both necessary and sufficient conditions). I have been doing some research on the matter, and if you allow me some time over the next week or so, I will offer up for discussion some of the main criteria that have been proposed before in the literature.
No, that is not the way it works. The notion of fundamental rights concerns personhood, not humanhood. Apparently, by your implicit criterion, personhood and humanhood are indistinguishable, interchangeable, and essentially identical; but you have presented no reasons why this should be the case.
Yes, the fetus is a human organism. But for reasons a ...[text shortened]... er up for discussion some of the main criteria that have been proposed before in the literature.
Have you come up with other criteria then the Neo-Kantian ones yet ? You know I'm looking for information on this issue which might be able to help me in my quest for a philosophically and scientifically based theory about the personhood of the zygote.
23 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeHave you come up with other criteria then the Neo-Kantian ones yet ?
Have you come up with other criteria then the Neo-Kantian ones yet ? You know I'm looking for information on this issue which might be able to help me in my quest for a philosophically and scientifically based theory about the personhood of the zygote.
Nope. I still maintain that the capacity for consciousness is a necessary condition for personhood. Concerning a criterion (both necessary and sufficient conditions), I don't profess to know which is right (indeed, I have never endorsed any particular criterion); and I am inclined to agree with marauder that any such delineation will be subjective to at least some degree. I still owe Nemesio some discussion in this area.
You know I'm looking for information on this issue which might be able to help me in my quest for a philosophically and scientifically based theory about the personhood of the zygote.
Well, good luck with aaaaaallll that. I wish I could aid you in your struggles, but I simply fail to see how anything that cannot be harmed in any way and lacks even the capacity to suffer can be morally considerable. Therefore, although I see subjectivity in the delineation of a criterion of personhood, I see no subjectivity whatsoever concerning the exclusion of the young fetus from personhood. Thus, I believe the woman clearly has the right to abort the young fetus. Maybe you will be able to convince me otherwise; but then we must be prepared to tackle the plethora of outlandish and ridiculous legal absurdities that follow (as pointed out earlier by marauder and howardgee).
23 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeOut of curiosity, hoe, do you ever not whine and complain like a wee girl? If you look closer, Bosse added some good insight to this thread, including an open and honest account of his own first-hand experiences and struggles with abortion. He has been on the front lines whilst I blow smoke rings from my comfy armchair.
Reading again through this thread I cannot help noticing the sheer stupidity, shallowness and superfluous character of many of your remarks, which are undoubtedly meant to be funny ...... terrible.
23 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloLemon jello: "If you look closer, Bosse added some good insight to this thread, ... "
Out of curiosity, hoe, do you ever not whine and complain like a wee girl? If you look closer, Bosse added some good insight to this thread, including an open and honest account of his own first-hand experiences and struggles with abortion. He has been on the front lines whilst I blow smoke rings from my comfy armchair.
All the more reason not to post these terrible, ugly, annoying, very frequent, very UNfunny remarks .......
I'm getting to a point where I do not read his remarks or comments anymore .... because of the sheer annoying unbrilliance of their contents.
It is simply a sincere and good advice from me ... in a rather cristalclear not to be misunderstood and not to be forgotten colourful wrapping .... I must add .....
23 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeDo you have any answer to this post of mine:
[b]Lemon jello: "If you look closer, Bosse added some good insight to this thread, ... "
All the more reason not to post these terrible, ugly, annoying, very frequent, very UNfunny remarks .......
I'm getting to a point where I do not read his remarks or comments anymore .... because of the sheer annoying unbrilliance of their contents.
It ...[text shortened]... lclear not to be misunderstood and not to be forgotten colourful wrapping .... I must add .....[/b]
Could someone please respond to my point that accepting that a fetus is a human being not only means that a woman can't abort it, but she cannot do anything that entails a risk of harm to the fetus (that's endangering the welfare of a child). Thus, there would have to be criminal laws enforced against pregnant woman not eating right or not exercising regularly or not getting proper prenatal tests done or a myriad of other acts or omissions that could conceivably harm the fetus human being. Isn't that the logical outcome of a legal finding that a fetus is a human being?
Well, Ivanhoe??
23 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOne look at all the fat kids out there shows that (USA) society doesn't have strong laws against providing a crappy diet to kids after birth; there is no law that I am aware of that requires anyone to exercise regularly, or to force their offspring to do so. Therefore, I don't see any basis for forcing such laws on a pregnant woman, even if there was a legal finding that her fetus was human.
Do you have any answer to this post of mine:
Could someone please respond to my point that accepting that a fetus is a human being not only means that a woman can't abort it, but she cannot do anything that entails a risk of harm to the fetus (that's endangering the welfare of a child). Thus, there would have to be criminal laws enforced a ...[text shortened]... the logical outcome of a legal finding that a fetus is a human being?
Well, Ivanhoe??
23 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeDo you ever have anything to add to a discussion other than ridicule of the people involved? You are out of your depth here; I recommend you return to your "religion sucks because I say so" threads.
Are you a politician, KYJelly?
If not, you should be, as you have the uncanny ability to use many, many words to say absolutely nothing.
23 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHere's a summary of my evidence for the humanity of the fetus i.e. that it is a human being:
No.
1. There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that human life begins at conception. Let me quote from some scientific references for you:
"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
- Dr Bradley M. Patton, Human Embryology, 3d ed
"The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being" "Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote".
- Dr Keith L. Moore, The developing Human: Clinically Orientated Embryology 2d ed.
"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."
- J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics.
I can continue ad nauseam.
Here's just what a few prominent scientists had to say on the matter to the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee* on when life begins:
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes the termination of human life.... I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being, than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effect of puberty is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.
- Dr Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania
"after fertilization has taken place, a new human being has come into being... It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion... not a metaphysical contention; it is plain experimental evidence... Each individual has a very neat beginning at conception.
- Dr Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, the discoverer of chromosome pattern of Down syndrome
The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill"*, summurized the issue this way:
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological and scientific writings.
* Subcommittee on Seperation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 1981
23 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBigDogProblem gave an excellent answer. Don't you agree ?
Do you have any answer to this post of mine:
Could someone please respond to my point that accepting that a fetus is a human being not only means that a woman can't abort it, but she cannot do anything that entails a risk of harm to the fetus (that's endangering the welfare of a child). Thus, there would have to be criminal laws enforced a ...[text shortened]... the logical outcome of a legal finding that a fetus is a human being?
Well, Ivanhoe??
23 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, your point has been the self-autonomy of the pregnant woman,
If you did not want to talk about the subject I was addressing, then you shouldn't have replied and quoted my post. My main observation was that in this entire debate the right to self-autonomy of the pregnant woman has been entirely ignored. You continue to ignore it. If all you want to do is tsk-tsk that some women decide to have abortions, then that ...[text shortened]... because that's the issue I'm concerned with, not your moral beliefs which I don't care about.
I understand that. The vast majority of other posters have been
concerning themselves as to when life begins, more specifically when
it begins within the woman. You put yourself into my conversation
and then start talking about how I was not addressing the issue
you care about, duh! You even complained that no one addressed
what you thought was important; you are a little confused here.
I don't care about your opinion on the self autonomy of pregnant
women with regard to this discussion. They have every right to do
with their bodies what they will, and if they do not have a right,
they have been given the ability to do what they will anyway. Yes,
I do ignore your point, is it secondary to the life within those
pregnant women, and if those women cared about those lives within
them, that point would be secondary to them too. You have no issue
ignoring or dressing down that life within those women, so you feel
it is justified to see them killed at another’s whim or desire.
Kelly
23 Nov 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemBut if a parent fed the child nothing but bread and water leading to illness/disease and/or death, then the parent would be imprisoned for neglect.
One look at all the fat kids out there shows that (USA) society doesn't have strong laws against providing a crappy diet to kids after birth; there is no law that I am aware of that requires anyone to exercise regularly, or to force their offspring to do so. Therefore, I don't see any basis for forcing such laws on a pregnant woman, even if there was a legal finding that her fetus was human.
If the Foetus was given rights, then every miscarriage must potentially be investigated fr similar nutritional abuse.