Interesting comment from someone who hasn't bothered to weigh in on the OP's comment. Expected, and so typical.
Last edited:
Texas bans abortion.
- Thread starter thaiboxerken
- Start date
- Status
Interesting comment from someone who hasn't bothered to weigh in on the OP's comment. Expected, and so typical.
And just like a person that invites someone into their home, they can revoke that right, if they feel it necessary.
"I want to punish women for having sex" would have taken fewer words to type.
But would have been an incredibly stupid interpretation of the thought presented.
Warbler
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2021
- Messages
- 410
An IUD, I am not sure of. But a condom and a diaphragm stop the sperm and egg from coming to together, hence no embryo. But Abortion kills the embryo.
Third time: I admit I don't understand the trauma or how emotionally painful it is to give up a child that you would have aborted if not for adoption. As I said I do want to understand this better.
I admit I do not know.
*Sighs*
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, it was dancing around my question and an evasion.
My question was about whether non-sentient 'beings' have more rights than sentient beings. You referred to things that WOULD be sentient at some point in the future, but not sentient AT THE TIME. That was not my question.
Not my "opinion": you decided that something in the future was part of my question. It was not. I think I know better than you what I was asking.
Which was not what my question to you was! I didn't ask if a non-sentient being that will eventually develop into a sentient being has more rights than a sentient being. By bringing that qualifier in, you are attempting to confer personhood onto it.
Again, I'm not asking about what IT WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME: I'M TALKING ABOUT BEFORE THAT. Stop dragging in what something ISN'T and relying on what it WILL BE. You, and others, resort to that because, unless you do so, you are saying that something that cannot think or feel has more rights than a person who can think, feel, and make decisions for herself. A seedling isn't a damn rose!
I notice that you don't address my point that, by the very definition of "separate", that they are NOT.
NO. That is what you BELIEVE, not what you KNOW.
Of course it's a 'fact' that, if all goes well, it will eventually turn into a separate human being. NO ONE is disputing that. Insert banging head on brick wall emoji here.
When you confer "personhood" upon something that has neither a brain nor central nervous system and neither thinks nor feels, you are most definitely appealing to emotion. To deny that is disingenuous.
Do you feel it's "murder" to remove a person from life support who cannot feel or think because there might be a 'miracle' and they may suddenly come out of a 20 year vegetative coma?
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Sure. (But are you arguing that we should go beyond Roe vs Wade?)
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
"Ice cream" takes even fewer words still and if keystrokes count I could have just typed "I".
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Margaret Sanger.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Warbler
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2021
- Messages
- 410
When you said non-sentient being, you were obviously referring to the embryo. I believe in determining its rights, the fact that it is turning into a sentient being matters and is part of the equation.
Sorry, but in terms of talking about what rights the fetus/zygote/embryo should have, I am not going to ignore the fact that it is turning into sentient being. You may think that doesn't matter, I think does.
You can use whatever fancy argument you want. I am not going to believe that mother and child are the same being/lifeform until birth.
Sorry, I accidentally left out the word "don't" that should have read " but I don't know that that is how we should measure whether they are same lifeform or separate lifeforms."
I wasn't conferring "personhood" on the embryo, I was simply saying that in deciding what rights and value it is has and/or doesn't not have, the fact that it is developing into a sentient being should be part of the equation.
It might be murder if the person had a living will with clear instructions that they should not being removed from life support and want to take the chance that there might be a 'miracle' cure. If they have a living will that says the opposite, it would not be murder. I also do not think it would be murder if there was no living will and the doctor says there is no hope and the next of kin decided to pull the plug. We basically had to do that 5 years will my father. He had hit his head, hard. Because he was on a blood thinner, he bled alot and into the brain. He suffered some brain damage. He was recovering somewhat when he went into cardiac arrest, they tried to restart his heart, they tried the paddles and got a faint heart beat and he went into cardiac arrest again and they got a faint heart beat again and had him hooked to life support. There was nothing that could be done. He wasn't going to get any better than a faint heartbeat and would need to be hooked up to life support to keep on living. No chance of having any quality of life beyond just laying there connected to life support. He did not have a living will but we all knew he would not want to live like that. Mom made the decision with the rest of the family's approval. He went very quickly after life support was removed.
Warbler
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2021
- Messages
- 410
and the point of your stupid picture is?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,570
This shows what you are. No one is actually saying that everyone should get abortions. Pro-choice is exactly that, we're fighting to keep a woman's right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy or not. It's not encouraging women to do so.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,570
It's telling that those who are "pro-life" are also the same group of people making it harder for women not to get pregnant, for them not to be able to support children and not afford health care, in general. It all makes sense if you understand that it's about punishing women, though.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,570
Quite often, they develop into waste, without any human intervention.
What a peach she was.
How a woman who advocated for the selective breeding of her fellow citizens came to be memorialized with those who built a country is hard to understand.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-sanger-deserves-no-honors-column/5480192002/
Of course, there are plenty of apologists out there who love her. It's not so different from the dynamic we see in this thread, tbh. Sometimes it's hard to tell if I am at the ISF, or a Third Reich debate club meeting.
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
Only a brain with operative higher order functions can host the narrative that is personhood. This is why there is a growing movement to recognize that, say, comatose patients without those functions are no longer alive, as the personal narrative and awareness of identity are gone forever. Prior to there being such identity, there is no one "there", either. A pregnant women, during the time limits normally established for an abortion, is the only person involved in the operation, no one else. Her rights are the only ones in play.
These assertions are backed up by neuroscience, which operates according to and informed by the natural world. As such, they represent universals, and anyone is free to do science and change our knowledge in agreement with results.
Religious assertions are not based on universals, nor are moral statements. These must be argued and defended. It is possible to argue successfully against abortion and convince a majority to think of it as wrong. Fair enough; social mores are what they are. However, there is no place under the sun to argue moral absolutes, to seek to enforce them, or to -- madman territory -- claim that conceptual space supersedes physical space (i.e., that reason "trumps" fact, a knucklebrained bad habit).
These assertions are backed up by neuroscience, which operates according to and informed by the natural world. As such, they represent universals, and anyone is free to do science and change our knowledge in agreement with results.
Religious assertions are not based on universals, nor are moral statements. These must be argued and defended. It is possible to argue successfully against abortion and convince a majority to think of it as wrong. Fair enough; social mores are what they are. However, there is no place under the sun to argue moral absolutes, to seek to enforce them, or to -- madman territory -- claim that conceptual space supersedes physical space (i.e., that reason "trumps" fact, a knucklebrained bad habit).
Last edited:
Letting a baby develop to term is not exactly a "miracle", by comparison. You occasionally make some valid analogies but this isn't one of them, I'm afraid. Zany comparison.
Last edited:
- Status