- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Abortion from the Libertarian Perspective: Personhood
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:34 am to Joshjrn
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:34 am to Joshjrn
quote:
I notice that the debate since yesterday has almost exclusively pertained to the active "killing" of something, whether zygote, embryo, fetus, or birthed child. Is there not a distinction between saying "I'm not going to care for this child anymore" and shooting it in the head?
If so, can that distinction be extended to the pre-birth paradigm? Assuming everyone acknowledges that we are already (somewhat) arbitrarily deciding on levels of personhood (adults have more rights than old children who have more rights than younger children), might it not logically follow that a birthed child could have more rights than a fetus, who has more rights than an embryo, who has more rights than a zygote? And if so, could one draw a distinction between refusing to feed a two year old who is conscious and feels pain and a zygote that is neither? And could other distinctions be drawn depending on varying levels of development from zygote to embryo to fetus?
And again, I'm not necessarily advocating for what these distinctions might be. The entire purpose of this thread (other than for me to bitch ) was to get people to acknowledge that we already make personhood distinctions, so the yelling about "irrefutable" bright line rules wasn't constructive.
sure, we could ... but we don't ... there's no gray area with the abortion debate ... there's no intellectual discussion that's going to move the line ... couch it anyway you want ...
you're either ok with it or you're not ...
1
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:44 am to tiderider
quote:
sure, we could ... but we don't ... there's no gray area with the abortion debate ... there's no intellectual discussion that's going to move the line ... couch it anyway you want ...
you're either ok with it or you're not ...
Then I hope you're used to losing the debate, because that's unlikely to change as long as you refuse to acknowledge in debate the differences in personhood you tacitly acknowledge in your every day life. And you can cloak yourself in your self-perceived righteousness if you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that your intransigence is doing nothing to help the third trimester fetus that can feel being actively killed.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:49 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Then I hope you're used to losing the debate, because that's unlikely to change as long as you refuse to acknowledge in debate the differences in personhood you tacitly acknowledge in your every day life. And you can cloak yourself in your self-perceived righteousness if you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that your intransigence is doing nothing to help the third trimester fetus that can feel being actively killed.
not trying to win a debate, slick ... seems you are, which is par of the course these days on the internet ... and i'm not sure how i'm cloaking myself in self perceived righteousness, though i'll claim to the world wide web that YOU are infinitely more righteous than i will ever hope to be, intellectually superior in every way and without flaw in any logic you've ever used for any argument ...
figured that's what this was all about ... happy new year!
Posted on 12/31/17 at 9:54 am to tiderider
quote:
not trying to win a debate, slick ... seems you are, which is par of the course these days on the internet
I'm not talking about a debate on here; I'm talking about the larger debate in this country. The reality is that abortion is currently legal, and half a century of parroting "human life begins at conception" hasn't done a damned thing to change that. But keep refusing to acknowledge any nuance to the debate. I'm sure it will start working eventually
Posted on 12/31/17 at 11:35 am to HurricaneTiger
quote:
The problem is finding where humanity begins.
It is only a problem for those who favor the taking of innocent life.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:03 pm to tiderider
quote:i'm not telling a woman anything. the situation specifically referred to in that comment was rape and i still don't see how what i said was incorrect.
bit presumptuous of you ... who are you to tell a woman what 'the situation' is?
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:11 pm to tiderider
quote:the overwhelming sentiment had nothing to do with nonchristians. the main reason why many, many people came to the colonies was to escape the conditions that led to the 30 years' war - i.e. freedom to worship. catholic nations were punishing protestants and vice versa. the protestants who came to america were interested in preserving the establishment clause to protect against catholic schools indoctrinating colonial children. keep it in europe was their attitude.
there is plenty of evidence/logic/argument by many historians/intellectuals/conservatives/etc to support the idea/notion that the ff did, in fact, want a separation of church & state that afforded protection to nonchristians
do you know who roger williams of Massachusetts bay was? why was he expelled?
did you know that for decades, colonial jews were not allowed to hold office and in some cases vote or own land? for someone to say that there was a sentiment protecting the religious freedom of non christians is to deny what was actually going on. the "evidence" you referred to is usually speculation of the thoughts of the framers based on their writings rather than the actual events happening among basically everyone.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:14 pm to Joshjrn
quote:where did this come from? therefore, to say that the fetus has "fewer" rights is confusing. it's not about "more" or "less." it's about destruction without consent. it's about discrimination against those who have no voice. there just can't be a rational, reasonable person who thinks this is morally justifiable.
adults have more rights than old children who have more rights than younger children
quote:and i've explained how it's untenable to do so
we already make personhood distinctions
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:18 pm to Joshjrn
quote:there isn't nuance. abortion for the sake of convenience is either right or wrong. it should be allowed or not. currently, it is allowed which is the worst, most heinous atrocity of a so called "enlightened" society. it is morally perverted, debase and utterly indefensible. it is an absolute embarrassment that we have allowed this to happen as often and for as long as we have. i am not blaming ethically unregenerate people for this. i am blaming those who know better but have failed to be persuasive and convincing.
But keep refusing to acknowledge any nuance to the debate.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:18 pm to bfniii
quote:
where did this come from? therefore, to say that the fetus has "fewer" rights is confusing. it's not about "more" or "less." it's about destruction without consent. it's about discrimination against those who have no voice. there just can't be a rational, reasonable person who thinks this is morally justifiable.
That's certainly how you're framing it, yes. But that doesn't mean that's reflective of some objective reality. There seem to be millions of rational, reasonable people who think that chemically thinning the uterine wall in order to allow for a zygote to detach and leave the body is perfectly justifiable. You're free to disagree with that, but to act as though such a position is idiomatic is unreasonable.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:23 pm to ljhog
quote:
It is only a problem for those who favor the taking of innocent life.
completely ignorant statement, especially considering some people consider ejaculation into a woman's vagina as "conception" (go look at religious opposition to morning after pills for countless examples)
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:And we both know they are wrong.
...some people consider ejaculation into a woman's vagina as "conception"
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:34 pm to TBoy
quote:
Murder will occur regardless of the law. It always has.
Let's just make everything legal! It's going to happen anyway!
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:35 pm to Wolfhound45
i agree. it's a simple standard but impossible to ascertain in reality
when those cells become a human, it's murder after that point. however, that determination is basically impossible
that's why this is more of a philosophical/religious discussion more than a scientific one, and that's more of an indictment of the liberal, pro-abortion side of the debate. hell the very basis of their argument (science) is making viability earlier and earlier
when those cells become a human, it's murder after that point. however, that determination is basically impossible
that's why this is more of a philosophical/religious discussion more than a scientific one, and that's more of an indictment of the liberal, pro-abortion side of the debate. hell the very basis of their argument (science) is making viability earlier and earlier
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
Do you feel bad about pummeling Kentucker in the other thread?
Posted on 12/31/17 at 4:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
when those cells become a human, it's murder after that point. however, that determination is basically impossible
Would you say having a heartbeat makes it human?
Posted on 12/31/17 at 5:21 pm to bfniii
quote:
quote:
bit presumptuous of you ... who are you to tell a woman what 'the situation' is?
i'm not telling a woman anything. the situation specifically referred to in that comment was rape and i still don't see how what i said was incorrect.
lol ... everything you said was incorrect ... 'a woman hasn't lost anything if she brings the baby to term after a rape' ... so you (presumably a man) get to determine what a woman has or hasn't 'lost' by being forced by your belief to carry a rape-baby to term, and you and like minded people feel you have the moral/intellectual authority to determine the capability of love for a rape-baby ...
or maybe her body can somehow detect it was rape and abort the pregnancy itself ...
Posted on 12/31/17 at 5:31 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Would you say having a heartbeat makes it human?
Its DNA makes it human. If you take DNA sample from a dog, a human or a tomato, the results will identify a dog, a human and a tomato.
Why is this hard to comprehend?
Posted on 12/31/17 at 5:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Actually it's quite easy.
when those cells become a human, it's murder after that point. however, that determination is basically impossible
When the egg and sperm combine and fertilization occurs, you have a new human. At the very beginning of it's life cycle to be sure, but scientifically proven to be unique and separate individual.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 1:23 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
I'm not interested in your definition of intellectual consistency. You have presented an obviously over the top situation in an attempt to box me in, by implying I have to have a uniform opinion for all children and fetuses.
Well, well, well look whose jimmies are all rustled. You can certainly be as arbitrary are you clearly are. Thank goodness you do not set policy and are only one ill formed vote.
quote:
I can easily turn that shitty argument on you, asking if fetuses created through the act of rape must be brought to term, or a pregnancy that will literally kill the mother must be seen through, because by your definition ending both would be murder.
I think abortion is wrong across the board. Rape, incest, and mother's health included. Killing an innocent is wrong no matter. Why is it the unborn is the only one receiving the death penalty in the case of rape?
Mother's health is such an incredibly small percentage of cases if we can draw agreement that abortion is wrong in all other cases we can then work on those so very rare cases.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News