- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Nebraska: Women overwhelmed with joy and in tears, after abortion ban bill fails
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:42 pm to Jack Carter
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:42 pm to Jack Carter
quote:How is a circulatory system relevant to the presence of consciousness? Every multi-called animal on the planet has a circulatory system. Should they all have legal rights?
How about we all agree to a heart beat?
2
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:45 pm to burger bearcat
quote:No, I do not. I readily-admit that it is impossible to do so re sapience/consciousness, on any objective measure.
You struggle delineating a cut-off point
There is no “struggle” in acknowkedging that philosophical questions need not have biological answers.
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:46 pm to AggieHank86
Then I’d humbly request you stop using words like “reason” to make it seem like you’ve bolstered your point of view with a rational stream of thoughts.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:52 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
So you pick a number that enough people see as being “reasonable.”
So you believe whatever the current zeitgeist supports (that is often heavily manipulated by social engineering), is enough to determine if something is "right or wrong"? I'm really trying to understand your moral outlook, or lack thereof on the world. Is it simply the majority opinion at any given time over a landmass that spans from the arctic ocean to the Florida Keys, to the south pacific.
Whereas if the Overton Window shifts at any one time, your moral codes are willing to shift along side it?
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:57 pm to burger bearcat
My personal standards of “right/wrong” do not define societal morality. That is done by the critical mass of the members of the society. Yes, that changes with time and place.
That which was perfectly moral in medieval Japan would not necessarily be moral in 21st century North America. And vice versa.
That which was perfectly moral in medieval Japan would not necessarily be moral in 21st century North America. And vice versa.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
How is a circulatory system relevant to the presence of consciousness?
Consciousness? OK, let's agree to self-awareness. We can abort any human being up until it is self-aware. Can we agree on that you COWARD?
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:02 pm to Jack Carter
No need for the childish prejoratives.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:04 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
No need for the childish prejoratives.
Answer the question you COWARD. You won't because you're a COWARD
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:05 pm to AggieHank86
My issue is you made a claim that your point of view is a reasonable belief because it meets some threshold of consensus in the populace. You can define “reasonable beliefs” as the consensus view if you want to, but that doesn’t really add anything to this discussion or really any discussion because it says nothing about how these beliefs arose or if they ought to have any credence given to them. I much prefer the definition “that which could be ascertained by use of reason”
I think it is worth asking if you are personally prepared to believe whatever the majority believes as “reasonable”? It seems you are sort of forced to.
For what it’s worth, I’d venture to guess the type of relativism you are espousing isn’t a consensus view, so would that call into question how reasonable it is?
I think it is worth asking if you are personally prepared to believe whatever the majority believes as “reasonable”? It seems you are sort of forced to.
For what it’s worth, I’d venture to guess the type of relativism you are espousing isn’t a consensus view, so would that call into question how reasonable it is?
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 8:55 pm
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:08 pm to burger bearcat
Eve fricked it up for everyone, don’t forget.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
How is a circulatory system relevant to the presence of consciousness?
I actually agree with Hank on this point. A lack of heartbeat does not mean it is not a unique life.
There is only one distinct moment in a person's existence that can delineate between "being a human, and not being a human", and that is conception.
Every other suggestion (heartbeat bills, etc) are simply compromises that have been made, as Hank might suggest "reasonable people" will accept in certain states. The less a person looks like a person, the less people tend to feel compassion.
It doesn't make it right or moral, a 6 week old child in utero is no less or more a human than an 8 week child in utero, or a 40 year old grown adult man ir woman, regardless what the law may state.
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:11 pm to burger bearcat
Women have ruined this country. frick them.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:12 pm to burger bearcat
I think Hank nailed it when he says our capacity to engage in rational thought is what gives us moral significance.
I think we just disagree on the fact that you need first demonstrate this capacity in order to realize that moral significance.
But obviously I took issue with the usage of the word “reasonable” as well.
I think we just disagree on the fact that you need first demonstrate this capacity in order to realize that moral significance.
But obviously I took issue with the usage of the word “reasonable” as well.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:15 pm to Ross
quote:
capacity to engage in rational thought is what gives us moral significance
A 4 week child inutero has the capacity for reasoning, there is no denying this fact.
Hank seems to be arguing that "only when humans have achieved the ability to reason" does their life then become of value.
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 7:16 pm
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:16 pm to ShinerHorns
It must suck to know that you will never get laid.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:19 pm to TGFN57
Says the simp
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:19 pm to burger bearcat
Not clicking but I’m assuming no sane male would attempt to impregnate any of them. Liberals are disgusting.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:29 pm to DaBike
quote:
White women are the biggest problem with this country. Not all but too many
And… who gave them the right to vote?
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:32 pm to burger bearcat
quote:
A 4 week child inutero has the capacity for reasoning, there is no denying this fact.
Really? That's surprising, care to show how you came to this conclusion?
Posted on 4/30/23 at 7:41 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Really? That's surprising, care to show how you came to this conclusion?
Per Merriam Webster
Capacity - the potential or suitability for holding, storing, or accommodating
How does a 4 week baby not meet that standard? At that point, it is an unique human being with a distinct DNA code that will never be replicated. With the capacity or potential to develop into a full grown human adult and nothing else.
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 7:44 pm
Page 6 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News