- 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: So is "controlling women's bodies" the preferred term over "killing innocent babies"?
Posted on 5/29/19 at 2:32 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 5/29/19 at 2:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:i stated explicitly in the op of that thread that it costs the mother essentially nothing to deliver the baby and give it up for adoption. it preserves the a fortiori aspect of the anti abortion position. you're trying to make the hilarious assertion that it's "servitude" for her to deliver the baby. you've got to be kidding. that is pathetic. no wonder you disappeared from that thread. chicken
Both this site’s search and a google search provide exactly ONE post from you using the term “servitude.” This post is made in reply to that post.
1
Posted on 5/29/19 at 2:43 pm to bfniii
quote:The point that you TRIED to raise in that OP is completely different from the 13th Amendment analysis. Google 13th amendment and abortion. You will find many law review articles and several SCOTUS briefs.
i stated explicitly in the op of that thread that it costs the mother essentially nothing to deliver the baby and give it up for adoption. it preserves the a fortiori aspect of the anti abortion position. you're trying to make the hilarious assertion that it's "servitude" for her to deliver the baby. you've got to be kidding. that is pathetic. no wonder you disappeared from that thread. chicken
Even if we assume that going through the labor/birth process is not “servitude” for purposes of the 13th Amendment, the woman would still have provided nine months of servitude to this other “person” .... against her will, if she would have chosen abortion. She drags around an extra 40 pounds or so for months. She shares her resources, in terms of food and the like. She suffers various indignities, such as incontinence, etcetera. All for the benefit of a “person” that she did not want to be carrying.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 2:49 pm to AggieHank86
quote:first, you prance around this board like you have some sort of definitive position on abortion. i took you on in that thread and you punked out. second, it's only "played out" because you disappeared after you met with resistance. probably because you know your position is weak
Son, you promote that played-out thread
quote:you can't be serious with this. is this what your position has been reduced to?
the woman would still have provided nine months of servitude to this other “person” .... against her will
quote:again, addressed in the op of the other thread. these things do not give her the right to murder a baby because it's inconvenient. of course, you probably also know that these ridiculous statements fail the sled test.
She drags around an extra 40 pounds or so for months. She shares her resources, in terms of food and the like. She suffers various indignities, such as incontinence, etcetera. All for the benefit of a “person” that she did not want to be carrying
honestly, this is even more pathetic than your performance in my thread
Posted on 5/29/19 at 2:54 pm to piggilicious
quote:
Well I’m a woman so... you know part of the section of the population that can actually get pregnant. And I haven’t clicked on your super duper thread and don’t intend to. the only reason I clicked on this one was to accurately state it is the control of women’s bodies.
So, what is killing a female baby?
Posted on 5/29/19 at 6:19 pm to bfniii
quote:With each new post I am further convinced that you are unable to read and understand the English language
is this what your position has been reduced to?
I never said that the 13th Amendment is my central argument for the legality of abortion. I was simply responding to someone who had raised the issue of “controlling the woman’s body.“ This 13th Amendment analysis is a reasonably-coherent one related to that concern.
After analyzing this issue for more years than you have probably been on the Earth, I continue to think that the most-logical approach is to determine whether a fetus has (or should have) "rights" at a given point in its development, to determine the extent of those "rights" at each developmental stage, to determine the rights of the woman at that stage, and to balance the "rights" of the fetus against the rights of the woman. The 13th Amendment analysis is simply one component of the final steps in that process.
Clearly, a woman has a Constitutional right not to be forced into involuntary servitude, but to what extent is that right absolute, versus becoming subordinate at some point to the rights of a developing fetus? To what extent is that right waived by failure to take legal steps to terminate an unwanted pregnancy BEFORE rights of some sort vest in the fetus?
quote:You continue to START from the premise that a fetus has a negative right not to be terminated ... presumably from Day One. I reject that premise.
these things do not give her the right to murder a baby because it's inconvenient. of course, you probably also know that these ridiculous statements fail the sled test.
As I have explained many times, my premise is that we find it acceptable to kill animals and not to kill humans (at some point) based upon one characteristic ... intelligence/sapience. You do not agree, obviously.
But you have YET to provide a coherent explanation as to what ALTERNATE characteristic separates us from those organisms that it IS acceptable to kill. You can mumble about this sled test (actually S.L.E.D. is just a mnemonic developed by abortion opponents to categorize sever groups of pro-choice analyses, NOT a “test” of any sort), but until you can articulate that distinguishing characteristic, your entire stance falls like a house of cards.
This post was edited on 5/29/19 at 7:22 pm
Posted on 5/29/19 at 7:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:i never said that you did say that. i addressed that comment on it's own merits
I never said that the 13th Amendment is my central argument for the legality of abortion
quote:no it is not. it's stupid and i explained specifically why
This 13th Amendment analysis is a reasonably-coherent one related to that concern
quote:there is no "personhood gap" between offspring and parents. there is no point at which the baby should NOT have rights. if you disagree, prove that there is a personhood gap. that at some point, the life in question is less than a human being and does not deserve to have it's liberty defended
I continue to think that the most-logical approach is to determine whether a fetus has (or should have) rights at a given point in its development
quote:sled test. i have called you out on this. your position here allows for people who have various defects to be euthanized. you can't possibly defend that unless you are a nazi
determine the extent of those rights at each developmental stage
quote:AT NO POINT does a pregnant woman have the right to murder a baby for convenience. i have never seen you mount a rebuttal to this. again, this attests to what i posted in the op of that thread about the anti abortion position being the stronger moral position.
determine the rights of the woman at that stage and to balance those rights against the rights of the woman
quote:it shouldn't be any part of a moral judgment because it is downstream of morality.
The 13th Amendment analysis is simply one component of the final steps in that process
quote:stop it. pregnancy is not in any way shape or form "servitude" and that is just silly.
Clearly, a woman has a Constitutional right not to be forced into involuntary servitude
quote:it's sad that you call sanctity of life "subordinate." she may not have had a choice but it is the deontological truth that she should preserve life
becoming subordinate at some point to the rights of a developing fetus
quote:and i have corrected you on this in the thread you ran away from. it is a POSITIVE right to live
You continue to START from the premise that a fetus has a negative right not to be terminated
quote:because you are not being rational on this topic
I reject that premise
quote:and i refuted this in the other thread. but you knew that already didn't you. so now you're dragging around already refuted assertions into other threads.
my premise is that we find it acceptable to kill animals and not to kill humans (at some point) based upon one characteristic ... intelligence/sapience.
quote:and i responded that your animal analogy is not even relevant. we can determine personhood without any appeal to the animal kingdom. remember?
But you have YET to provide a coherent explanation as to what ALTERNATE characteristic separates us from those organisms that it IS acceptable to kill.
quote:"just a" line of reasoning that you have made no attempt to debunk
actually S.L.E.D. is just a mnemonic developed by abortion opponents to categorize sever groups of pro-choice analyses
quote:it is and i explained how in the other thread
NOT a “test” of any sort
quote:it doesn't even have any place in this discussion. that's why
until you can articulate that distinguishing characteristic
quote:how about you return to the tread you chickened out of instead of spamming up the board with already refuted assertions.
your entire stance falls like a house of cards
you have basically turned into "nuh unh" 90proof
Posted on 5/29/19 at 7:55 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
BUT when a PUBLIC OFFICIAL make OFFICIAL STATEMENTs about a NATIONAL ISSUE that my lead to LEGISLATION - they should be REQUIRED on penalty of expulsion to use the most efficient and direct description of the issue possible.
Most of those shitheads are literally incapable of that. In politics, the scum rises to the top.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 8:00 pm to piggilicious
quote:
piggilicious
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:20 pm to bfniii
bfniii, I enjoy a good discussion, so I am going to make one, final attempt to engage in such a discussion with you. If you actually provide a substantive response, I will continue. If you simply continue your practie of mouthing tautologies, claiming that you have refuted issues that you and not even addressed, and making vaugue references to having provided information elsewhere, I will simply add you to the list of posters who are just not worth the effort.
To me, the analysis is fairly simple. Webster defines "servitude" as a condition in which on lacks the liberty to determine one's own course of action. If a woman's actions are dictated by the fact that she is pregant and/or if she is precluded from certain actions by that condition, she is engaged in servitude to the fetus. If she does not WANT to be carrying the fetus, those controls upon her liberty constitutes "involuntary" servitude.
Please explain whatever flaw you see in this reasoning. Please do NOT simply mouth a platitude about how the EXISTENCE of servitude does not justify abortion. That is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT question, and we WILL address it later. For NOW, we are simply attempting to determine whether a state of "involuntary servitude" has been created, if a woman is forced to complete a pregnancy that she would have preferred to terminate.
Also, please do not waste my time with the usual moralizing about how the woman need not have GOTTEN pregnant in the first place. Yes, all humans could theoretically practice abstinence, not only until they are married but also until as a married person they are ready to get pregnant. Good luck with enforcing that, but that moralizing has ZERO relevance to the simple question of whether forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy that she wishes to terminate would consitute "involuntary servitude" ... which is the question that we are addressing at THIS TIME. Please try to stay focused.
quote:No, you did not. You claimed that you explained your position in the "other thread," but you did not do that either. As I told you, I SEARCHED for that purported explanation, and I found NOWHERE that you used EITHER "involuntary" or "servitude" or "13th Amendment."quote:no it is not. it's stupid and i explained specifically why
This 13th Amendment analysis is a reasonably-coherent one related to that concern (of controlling the body of a woman against her will).
To me, the analysis is fairly simple. Webster defines "servitude" as a condition in which on lacks the liberty to determine one's own course of action. If a woman's actions are dictated by the fact that she is pregant and/or if she is precluded from certain actions by that condition, she is engaged in servitude to the fetus. If she does not WANT to be carrying the fetus, those controls upon her liberty constitutes "involuntary" servitude.
Please explain whatever flaw you see in this reasoning. Please do NOT simply mouth a platitude about how the EXISTENCE of servitude does not justify abortion. That is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT question, and we WILL address it later. For NOW, we are simply attempting to determine whether a state of "involuntary servitude" has been created, if a woman is forced to complete a pregnancy that she would have preferred to terminate.
Also, please do not waste my time with the usual moralizing about how the woman need not have GOTTEN pregnant in the first place. Yes, all humans could theoretically practice abstinence, not only until they are married but also until as a married person they are ready to get pregnant. Good luck with enforcing that, but that moralizing has ZERO relevance to the simple question of whether forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy that she wishes to terminate would consitute "involuntary servitude" ... which is the question that we are addressing at THIS TIME. Please try to stay focused.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:22 pm to bfniii
I had to break up the post, per site physical limitations.
So I ask you, "What do you mean by this term?"
If all you mean is that "personhood" is inherent in every human and that "personhood" is created at fertilization or implantation or whatever, just say that. I promise it will not be difficult to do so.
Of course, the NEXT step may be more difficult. Give me YOUR definition of "personhood." What does that term mean to YOU. This is important, because philosophers far smarter than you OR me have been asking that question for millennia, and there is absolutely ZERO uniformity in the answers that they have devised. It is impossible to discuss "personhood" with you, unless you tell me what that term means to you.
I suspect that it will be entirely circular. "Every human has personhood from the moment of X. Why? Because they are human." That sort of tautology will just not fly. WHAT is it about homo sapiens sapiens that inherently gives rise to "personhood," in your view?
Here is the anti-abortion website which explains S.L.E.D. as being an acronym for several categories of arguments in favor of abortion rights. YES, the author CALLS it a test, but he later describes it as a mere "tactic." NOWHERE does he articulate that test. He does not tell of the ELEMENTS of this purported test. Without such elements, the term is simply an acronym.
So, what are the elements that YOU see as being components of this alleged "sled test." (I will agree to your re-wording of the acronym for purposes of this discussion, simply because it IS easier to type.
Whether a woman has (or should have) such a right is EXACTLY the QUESTION that we are attempting to answer through a logical and deliberative analysis. Stomping one's foot and insisting that such a right does not exist is NOT a part of such analysis.
Every word that I have posted on the topic of abortion IS a rebuttal of your tautology. Women SHOULD have such a right (and they DO HAVE such a right under current Constitutional jurisprudence) for a variety of reasons that I am NOT going to restate here, but which INCLUDE elements of self-determination and the lack of "personhood" (which I essentially equate with sapience) in an early-term fetus.
You feel that the law SHOULD BE otherwise, and that is fine. But stubbornly denying the existence of rights currently recognized under the Constitution does exactly NOTHING to advance your viewpoint ... if you fail to explain WHY the law should be otherwise.
quote:You continue to use the highlighted term as if it has some common meaning in the abortion discussion. If so, I am unaware of it. I have searched this site, and you are the ONLY poster who has EVER used that term. I have also searched the Internet thru Google, and YOUR use of that term on THIS SITE is the ONLY thing that Google seems able to find.quote:there is no "personhood gap" between offspring and parents. there is no point at which the baby should NOT have rights. if you disagree, prove that there is a personhood gap. that at some point, the life in question is less than a human being and does not deserve to have it's liberty defended
I continue to think that the most-logical approach is to determine whether a fetus has (or should have) rights at a given point in its development
So I ask you, "What do you mean by this term?"
If all you mean is that "personhood" is inherent in every human and that "personhood" is created at fertilization or implantation or whatever, just say that. I promise it will not be difficult to do so.
Of course, the NEXT step may be more difficult. Give me YOUR definition of "personhood." What does that term mean to YOU. This is important, because philosophers far smarter than you OR me have been asking that question for millennia, and there is absolutely ZERO uniformity in the answers that they have devised. It is impossible to discuss "personhood" with you, unless you tell me what that term means to you.
I suspect that it will be entirely circular. "Every human has personhood from the moment of X. Why? Because they are human." That sort of tautology will just not fly. WHAT is it about homo sapiens sapiens that inherently gives rise to "personhood," in your view?
quote:Again with this gibberish.quote:sled test. i have called you out on this. your position here allows for people who have various defects to be euthanized. you can't possibly defend that unless you are a nazi
determine the extent of those rights at each developmental stage
Here is the anti-abortion website which explains S.L.E.D. as being an acronym for several categories of arguments in favor of abortion rights. YES, the author CALLS it a test, but he later describes it as a mere "tactic." NOWHERE does he articulate that test. He does not tell of the ELEMENTS of this purported test. Without such elements, the term is simply an acronym.
So, what are the elements that YOU see as being components of this alleged "sled test." (I will agree to your re-wording of the acronym for purposes of this discussion, simply because it IS easier to type.
quote:Another tautology.quote:AT NO POINT does a pregnant woman have the right to murder a baby for convenience. i have never seen you mount a rebuttal to this. again, this attests to what i posted in the op of that thread about the anti abortion position being the stronger moral position.
determine the rights of the woman at that stage and to balance those rights against the rights of the woman
Whether a woman has (or should have) such a right is EXACTLY the QUESTION that we are attempting to answer through a logical and deliberative analysis. Stomping one's foot and insisting that such a right does not exist is NOT a part of such analysis.
Every word that I have posted on the topic of abortion IS a rebuttal of your tautology. Women SHOULD have such a right (and they DO HAVE such a right under current Constitutional jurisprudence) for a variety of reasons that I am NOT going to restate here, but which INCLUDE elements of self-determination and the lack of "personhood" (which I essentially equate with sapience) in an early-term fetus.
You feel that the law SHOULD BE otherwise, and that is fine. But stubbornly denying the existence of rights currently recognized under the Constitution does exactly NOTHING to advance your viewpoint ... if you fail to explain WHY the law should be otherwise.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:23 pm to bfniii
quote:More gibberish.quote:
The 13th Amendment analysis is simply one component of the final steps in that process
it shouldn't be any part of a moral judgment because it is downstream of morality.
I THINK that you are asserting that they law cannot be "X" because "X" is immoral. I am sorry, but that is simply ridiculous. Many moral things are illegal, and a fair number of immoral things are perfectly legal.
quote:Again, I have explained EXACTLY why is IS not only "servitude," but also servitude of the "involuntary" variety. I look forward to an ACTUAL attempt at refutation, rather than yet another false claim that you have ALREADY refuted the notion in question.quote:stop it. pregnancy is not in any way shape or form "servitude" and that is just silly.
Clearly, a woman has a Constitutional right not to be forced into involuntary servitude
quote:The rights of one person are OFTEN either superior or subordinate to the rights of another person. It is unfortunate that this truism makes you sad, but your sadness does not change the law.quote:it's sad that you call sanctity of life "subordinate." she may not have had a choice but it is the deontological truth that she should preserve life
becoming subordinate at some point to the rights of a developing fetus
You are misusing the highlighted term. You are again mouthing a tautology. A deontological attempt to formulate a set of rules and tests is EXACTLY the process in which we are engaged.
quote:No, it is not.quote:and i have corrected you on this in the thread you ran away from. it is a POSITIVE right to live
You continue to START from the premise that a fetus has a negative right not to be terminated
Prof. Aeon Skoble provides a succinct summary of the key differences between positive and negative rights. Fundamentally, positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with you and your actions. You have a negative right for me to abstain from killing you. You do NOT have a positive right for me to provide you with food, clothing and shelter. We are discussing whether a fetus has a "right" not to be killed by another person ... not to have someone else (in Skoble's terms) "interfere" with its ongoing life. That is clearly a NEGATIVE right.
quote:Again, no, you did not. Once again, you mouthed a tautology, to the effect that homo sapiens sapiens are inherently "persons" without any need to distinguish between them and other animals.quote:and i refuted this in the other thread. but you knew that already didn't you. so now you're dragging around already refuted assertions into other threads.
my premise is that we find it acceptable to kill animals and not to kill humans (at some point) based upon one characteristic ... intelligence/sapience.
WHY?
You have repeatedly refused to answer THAT question. WHY are homo sapiens sapiens "special?" Simply repeating that they ARE special does NOT anser that question.
You stated that it is not "solely a biological matter." If you are referencing the "soul," just be a man and admit it. Personally, I think it is metaphysical hokum, but if that is the basis for your views, just admit it. I will actually have more respect for you than would be the case if you continue to hide behind sophistry.
quote:Again, HOW do we determine personhood?quote:and i responded that your animal analogy is not even relevant. we can determine personhood without any appeal to the animal kingdom. remember?
But you have YET to provide a coherent explanation as to what ALTERNATE characteristic separates us from those organisms that it IS acceptable to kill.
As an aside, I note that you continue to utilize a concept ("personhood") that is utterly without any biological component ... unless you base it upon the simple presence of 23 chromosome pairs. Is that not far LESS objective than tests based upon certain types of brain activity?
quote:Why would I feel any need to "debunk" your little mnemonic?quote:"just a" line of reasoning that you have made no attempt to debunk
actually S.L.E.D. is just a mnemonic developed by abortion opponents to categorize sever groups of pro-choice analyses
My analysis is not remotely dependent upon size, environment or dependency, but it is OBVIOUSLY based largely upon "level of development." I have never claimed otherwise. To the contrary, I contend that it is the most logical and objective approach to take in attempting to analyze this issue.
quote:No, you did not. You begged the question.quote:it is and i explained how in the other thread
NOT a "test" of any sort
Again, you said it is a "test of personhood and arguments for/against. if the premise contradicts the sled test, it fails the test." Again, what are the elements of this purported test? Number them.
Clearly, the "sled test" will not be applicable to my analysis, given that three of the four "elements" of the S.L.E.D. mnemonic are completely absent from that analysis.
Does my analysis "fail" this purported test because it does NOT address size or environment, or does it "fail" the test because it IS an analysis that is based largely upon the developmental level of the fetus? If the latter, your position simply categorizes my argument. It does NOT apply any objective test to that argument.
quote:Dude, you have not "refuted" anything. You dance around, and you dodge questions. You mouth tautologies and claim to have provided information and explanations that you HAVE NOT provided.quote:how about you return to the tread you chickened out of instead of spamming up the board with already refuted assertions.
your entire stance falls like a house of cards
This post gives you a chance to man-up and remedy all of that. I hope that you actually do so. It would be a nice change of pace.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:24 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
whether a state of "involuntary servitude" has been created, if a woman is forced to complete a pregnancy that she would have preferred to terminate.
In other words, we should let mothers kill their babies if they want to.
Cut to the chase.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:27 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
their babies
quote:
their
you would have to view the fetus as property and not a person in order to deny it rights
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:34 pm to TrueTiger
quote:Not at all. My 9-year-old daughter is clearly a person, and she is denied the right to vote. My cousin is 28 years old and is denied the right to run for President for the next seven years.
you would have to view the fetus as property and not a person in order to deny it rights
Different rights vest at different developmental points. The negative right not to be terminated is clearly a right, and it clearly must vest at SOME point. The question is simply WHERE that point might be ... whether at fertilization or in the birth canal or at some point between the two.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Different rights vest at different developmental points. The negative right not to be terminated is clearly a right, and it clearly must vest at SOME point.
Interesting.
at what point did a black slave's rights vest back in 1860?
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:38 pm to stout
To go back to a point I made earlier, if their belief is that the fetus is not human life, then why waste breath on the women’s rights bit? If it’s not life, there’s no harm in [struggling to find the right verb here: terminating?] it.
That’s right, because even they are willing to admit now that it’s human life, yet are still advocating for aborting it.
Being pro-choice in the 1980s was one thing. Being pro-choice today is turning a blind eye towards human life being snuffed out.
That’s right, because even they are willing to admit now that it’s human life, yet are still advocating for aborting it.
Being pro-choice in the 1980s was one thing. Being pro-choice today is turning a blind eye towards human life being snuffed out.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:43 pm to TrueTiger
quote:There are thousands of "rights." What right do you reference? It may be a right that NEVER vested for slaves, or it might be one that vested at birth. It might be a "right" that varied from one state to the next. Your question is simply too vague and ambiguous to allow an answer.
at what point did a black slave's rights vest back in 1860?
For instance, in most jurisdictions it was illegal to kill a slave ... even one of your own. As such, slaves in those jurisdictions DID have a negative "right to life" ... even if it was not much of a life.
This post was edited on 5/29/19 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 5/29/19 at 10:51 pm to stout
They frame it in a favorable light. Of course they also frame it in a way to avoid as much responsibility as possible.
Posted on 5/30/19 at 1:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:name one
claiming that you have refuted issues that you and not even addressed
quote:"vague." do you want me to actually start linking them for you since you seem incapable of looking them up yourself?
making vaugue references to having provided information elsewhere
quote:you're not even following the conversation. the 13th amendment stupidity was in THIS thread and i did address it. multiple times in fact. you are getting confused
No, you did not. You claimed that you explained your position in the "other thread," but you did not do that either
quote:because it's not THERE. it's HERE. i addressed it. more than once.
I SEARCHED for that purported explanation, and I found NOWHERE that you used EITHER "involuntary" or "servitude" or "13th Amendment."
quote:when a woman is pregnant, ALL of her actions are not DICTATED by the pregnancy so your appeal to the dictionary definition is useless. moreover, (and this is important, it's why you need to go back to the other thread) the definition does not incorporate the aspect of another person's RIGHT TO LIVE.
Webster defines "servitude" as a condition in which on lacks the liberty to determine one's own course of action.
quote:i'm going to say this again.
If she does not WANT to be carrying the fetus, those controls upon her liberty constitutes "involuntary" servitude.
NO WOMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO MURDER A BABY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE.
quote:it's not a platitude because servitude is not a term that even belongs in this topic.
Please do NOT simply mouth a platitude about how the EXISTENCE of servitude does not justify abortion.
quote:her preference does not give her the right to end a life. period. shouldn't even have to say it.
if a woman is forced to complete a pregnancy that she would have preferred to terminate.
quote:when did i say this. i have on multiple occasions acknowledged rape
Also, please do not waste my time with the usual moralizing about how the woman need not have GOTTEN pregnant in the first place.
quote:says the person who is misquoting me and searching for my comments in the wrong thread
Please try to stay focused.
quote:prove that it is wrong
You continue to use the highlighted term as if it has some common meaning in the abortion discussion.
quote:others on this site have used similar reasoning, just different terminology. i can quote them if you like.
I have searched this site, and you are the ONLY poster who has EVER used that term.
quote:if you need for me to tell you what personhood means, you need to stop commenting on this topic and admit you are ignorant
So I ask you, "What do you mean by this term?"
quote:seriously? i have been beating you over the head with this idea. tell me you're on meds. i'll believe that. i wouldn't use the term "created." i would say inherited, passed along, continued, whatever.
If all you mean is that "personhood" is inherent in every human and that "personhood" is created at fertilization or implantation
quote:it would be very easy for me to let you cause the discussion to devolve into an ontological quagmire but it's unecessary. you don't need a full dose of cliff notes on ontology for this. if you agree that a born person has personhood (and i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt despite your lack of scholarship) you cannot pinpoint a period when the baby does NOT have WHATEVER it is you want to define. at the moment of conception, the child inherently has EVERYTHING it needs to be a person, provided it is allowed to live and be appropriately facilitated. the parents pass along everything the child needs in their reproductive contributions. the sperm alone does not have it. the egg alone does not. when they combine, POOF. it's like magic! so go ahead and try to obfuscate but i have already given you the answer you need. there is no personhood (however you want to define it) "gap" between parents and offspring. it's common sense to any reasonable person. pain, heartbeat, level of development are all just biological pieces of the overall anthropological/ontological puzzle, not deciding factors simplicatur.
philosophers far smarter than you OR me have been asking that question for millennia, and there is absolutely ZERO uniformity in the answers that they have devised. It is impossible to discuss "personhood" with you, unless you tell me what that term means to you.
quote:tautologies are not invalid if the foundational premise is acceptable in an axiomatic way. we live by that truth every day. but you knew that already, didn't you?
I suspect that it will be entirely circular.
quote:i have already answered this multiple times. listen, if you're going to get sanctimonious with me, at least get your crap straight. read my comments again and see where i answered this so you stop wasting everyone's time and chicken's server space.
NOWHERE does he articulate that test.
quote:oh. my. word. S.L.E.D. those are the elements of the test. why are you getting your underwear in a bunch about these stupid semantics?
He does not tell of the ELEMENTS of this purported test.
quote:he's asking me to debunk a line of reasoning I PUT FORTH. twilight zone.
So, what are the elements that YOU see as being components of this alleged "sled test."
quote:first, not a tautology which confirms to me you don't know how to use the term. second, you are CONSISTENTLY IGNORING the child's RIGHT TO LIVE. third, the issue has nothing to do with the woman's "rights." admit that you can't face up to the fact that we are discussing MURDER FOR CONVENIENCE. that is NOT a right. fourth, as explained in the op of the real thread, she has the moral duty to preserve life. the anti abortion position is the higher moral position for the reasons listed in the op. there. that ought to be definitive enough even for you.
Another tautology. Whether a woman has (or should have) such a right is EXACTLY the QUESTION that we are attempting to answer through a logical and deliberative analysis. Stomping one's foot and insisting that such a right does not exist is NOT a part of such analysis.
quote:patently false and every time i make that comment, it is because you typed words that did not address the challenge to your position and i explain precisely how every time. you, otoh, post graphics and run away.
Every word that I have posted on the topic of abortion IS a rebuttal of your tautology.
quote:prove it.
Women SHOULD have such a right
Posted on 5/30/19 at 1:07 am to AggieHank86
quote:again, you are still failing to call abortion "murder for convenience" or stating how it trumps the baby's right to live. self determination does not give her to the right to murder for convenience. moreover, you keep advancing this idea in a vacuum. it is not in a vacuum. the baby has the right to live and a woman's convenience does not trump that. it shouldn't have to be explained.
which INCLUDE elements of self-determination
quote:prove it. i have already addressed your silly brain activity assertion, you guessed it, in the other thread. "sapience" or "higher brain functions" are not personhood any more than qualia are the "das ding an sich". this is a point where you are sadly incapable of understanding the issue at a scholarly level. you have demonstrated popular level reasoning and a lack of skill in analytical philosophy, formal logic, metaphysics, epistemology, etc, yet you have questioned my ability to discuss the matter and you have feigned indignation with me. when you start to act like you know more than a child on this matter, perhaps you can dispense with the histrionics and we can actually make progress.
the lack of "personhood" (which I essentially equate with sapience) in an early-term fetus.
quote:wrong yet again. legislation is BASED ON perspectives of morality. that's why it's downstream. but you are trying to treat it like it's the basis for "women's reproductive rights" which is silly. just because something is legal does not mean it's morally acceptable.
I THINK that you are asserting that they law cannot be "X" because "X" is immoral.
quote:and here you are undermining your own idea of using the legislation as some sort of basis for how women should be able to conduct abortion. no one is talking about legislation. we're talking about moral truth.
Many moral things are illegal, and a fair number of immoral things are perfectly legal.
quote:what "right" of one person sanctions them to murder another for convenience?
The rights of one person are OFTEN either superior or subordinate to the rights of another person.
quote:there you go misusing that term again
You are again mouthing a tautology.
quote:lol. let me guess, you googled that term right after i used it. do you know what that term means? it means duty. the rules are based on duty. the woman has a duty to preserve life, even if, GASP, she's pregnant. imagine that! that duty governs the rules by which we should act, as in the ways in which she specifically preserves life.
A deontological attempt to formulate a set of rules and tests is EXACTLY the process in which we are engaged.
quote:not entirely correct but in the context of this subject, this is partially correct: we have the duty to preserve life. that means someone has to protect the liberty of the baby. you don't even realize what you're advocating. the other positive aspect is that the baby gets to defend it's liberty. you don't get to snuff out that right merely because the baby temporarily lacks a mouth or can't write.
positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service.
quote:again, you are making category mistakes. you can't provide living conditions to someone who is dead. that baby has the ontological positive right to life, simplicatur. that means we have the moral duty to preserve the baby's life through the provisions you listed.
You do NOT have a positive right for me to provide you with food, clothing and shelter.
quote:i'm saying all of the above. the baby has the positive right to live. the mother has the duty to protect the life. there isn't a time when the baby lacks this right or the protection of it from others, including the case of rape. you have not refuted ANY of this. you have continued to mislead by not stating that it is murder for convenience and you have continued to defend that unconscionable practice by trying to introduce irrelevancies such as contemporary legislation, the word servitude, species comparisons, silly semantics over positive and negative rights, etc.
We are discussing whether a fetus has a "right" not to be killed by another person ... not to have someone else (in Skoble's terms) "interfere" with its ongoing life. That is clearly a NEGATIVE right.
quote:first, if you need this explained, i'm not sure you can be helped. besides, i told you earlier why this is irrelevant. second, yet again not a tautology. did you just learn that word and it's burning a hole in your pocket? a tautology would have gone "a human is inherently a person." "how do you know?" "because personhood is a trait of humans." that's not what you quoted me as saying thus, not circular. i hope you refine your use of the term in the future.
you mouthed a tautology, to the effect that homo sapiens sapiens are inherently "persons" without any need to distinguish between them and other animals.
quote:demonstrably wrong. i can quote it. multiple places.
You have repeatedly refused to answer THAT question.
quote:that has NOTHING to do with abortion. distinguishing humans from animals is completely irrelevant because we can determine personhood without any appeal to the animal kingdom. i just have to keep repeating this in the hopes that one day it will sink in to you.
WHY are homo sapiens sapiens "special?"
quote:no, i'm referencing personhood, as i've said about a million times.
If you are referencing the "soul,"
quote:says the chicken who weaseled out of the heat in the other thread
just be a man and admit it.
quote:oh my word. another term you don't understand. go look that up so you stop using it incorrectly.
you continue to hide behind sophistry.
quote:wrong. it is not solely ephemeral. it is manifested in conjunction with the physical aspects of our existence. i have commented on this multiple times. they work in concert. brain activity is an aspect of personhood. ditto heartbeat. ditto nervous system activity. ditto circulatory system. they are all important elements that contribute to personhood. i hope you don't get bogged down in this distraction but i suspect i won't be so lucky.
("personhood") that is utterly without any biological component
quote:identity is an aspect of personhood. are you saying that the realization of who one is in distinction to others is subjective? let's see if you've read descartes.
Is that not far LESS objective than tests based upon certain types of brain activity?
quote:i know right? let's just kill all those people who are mentally handicapped or have genetic disorders or are past the age of 65 or are unborn. sanctity of life BE DAMNED!
Why would I feel any need to "debunk" your little mnemonic?
quote:so the test says that the right to live should not be violated merely because a person is at an arbitrary level of development. it opens the door to all sorts of ethical transgressions. THAT is why you need to debunk the "little mnemonic." but you knew that already, right?
it is OBVIOUSLY based largely upon "level of development."
quote:no i explained it. multiple times now. you test an abortion premise against it. if it fails the test, it is not a valid reason for murdering a baby. i can't dumb that down any more for you.
No, you did not. You begged the question.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News