Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: Peanut Gallery Thread for Discussion of wiploc and thatguysnephew on the morality of abortion

  1. Top | #21
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    22,825
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    65,298
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person. Going beyond that can only result in ideological posturing.
    I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.
    That's nice. I don't think a woman should be required to endure a pregnancy, birth, and the consequences of both for the remainder of their life based on your (and the "Pro-Life" movement's) opinion on when life "starts".

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,143
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,805
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person. Going beyond that can only result in ideological posturing.
    I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.
    I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person.
    EB

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person. Going beyond that can only result in ideological posturing.
    I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.
    That's nice. I don't think a woman should be required to endure a pregnancy, birth, and the consequences of both for the remainder of their life based on your (and the "Pro-Life" movement's) opinion on when life "starts".
    Pretty sure science validates the pro-life 'opinion' that unborn human beings are;
    a) Human
    b) Alive

  4. Top | #24
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    4,867
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    9,906
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Malintent View Post
    I skimmed through, but missed the part where the existence of a thing people are calling a "soul" is established as real, and not simply imagined.

    It seems a critical point of contention as to the "value" and the "rights" of a clump of undifferentiated cells.

    When does a fertilized egg become something that falls under legal protection? The obvious answer, to me, is "at birth" - a nice clean, clear line that works for every known entity on Earth.
    I think something about neurobiology would be necessary. I think when you are born in Korea you are already one year old, by the way they keep records.

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,032
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,620
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.
    What do you think is the starting point, and why?
    For example, if Bob and Alice decide to have a child, isn't that the starting point of their procreation? At least, it seems reasonable to say that, though arguably their previous relationship counts. Now, if embryos are made in a laboratory with the purpose of doing some experiments, that does not seem to be the start of any procreation - though, of course, if one stipulates that procreation has already happened when there is an embryo of a species, then I guess the researchers' decision to make embryos for experimentation might be reasonably considered a starting point.
    At any rate, this seems to be a matter of preference, and not relevant to the morality of abortion.

    But I would like to ask: what do you think the starting point is, why do you call that the starting point, and why do you think it is morally relevant? (the post of Speakpigeon you were replying to was not talking about a starting point of procreation).

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    Pretty sure science validates the pro-life 'opinion' that unborn human beings are;
    a) Human
    b) Alive
    The use of "unborn human being" to refer to embryos and/or fetuses implies that "human being" in the usual sense of the term, includes them. Science does not validate that (at least, the semantic issue), it seems to me. But leaving that aside, of course human embryos and human fetuses are human, and many of them are alive - though also clearly, many others are dead.
    Also, human ova are also clearly human, and many of them are alive, even though many are dead. And the same goes for human sperm cells.

  6. Top | #26
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,521
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    28,734
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person. Going beyond that can only result in ideological posturing.
    I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.
    I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person.
    EB
    Tea Party wins!

    Why is/is not birth the starting point of personhood?

    Without rationale and argument all either of you are doing is warming up flamethrowers for shame of one sort or another.

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,143
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,805
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post

    I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person.
    EB
    Tea Party wins!

    Why is/is not birth the starting point of personhood?

    Without rationale and argument all either of you are doing is warming up flamethrowers for shame of one sort or another.
    You say that but it must be because you are so very pessimistic about human nature. And, sure, I say what I say because I'm doltishly more optimistic. I said what I said not to signal I had some impregnable (not to confuse with"impregnatable", a word which doesn't seem to have ever been procreated before in English anyway) position but in the foolishly optimistic hope that a few people could be swayed, if not dissuaded (not "disswayeded", which doesn't seem to English in Brexit).

    Anyway, if you have any actual argument showing that most people don't take birth as the process by which a human fetus comes to this world and becomes a human person, I'd like to hear it.

    And, by the way, what I said was an argument and a rationale. Nothing scientific, in my view. Nothing like a metaphysical truth either. Just a pragmatic argument, the sort of thing people, humans, just do to try and live together in society.

    Also, I'm curious for you to explain why you should feel like you want to single me out in a crowd like that? Is this love of what?
    EB

  8. Top | #28
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,521
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    28,734
    Rep Power
    52
    You were not singled out. Both of you are accused.

    Natural isn't what appears it is what is. Birth is not the the beginning of personhood, it is the culmination of within mother development of person. Much of what is to be later seen as expressed personality is already in place at birth. Personhood is what a person has it is not what others see.

    Perspective sir, perspective.

  9. Top | #29
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.
    What do you think is the starting point, and why?
    Conception. Because it's a more definite event on the timeline of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    ...For example, if Bob and Alice decide to have a child, isn't that the starting point of their procreation?
    Thinking about "it" isn't quite as definitive an event as biologists would want.
    Did they both decide simultaneously? Are they both fertile?

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    ...At least, it seems reasonable to say that, though arguably their previous relationship counts. Now, if embryos are made in a laboratory with the purpose of doing some experiments, that does not seem to be the start of any procreation - though, of course, if one stipulates that procreation has already happened when there is an embryo of a species, then I guess the researchers' decision to make embryos for experimentation might be reasonably considered a starting point.
    Destroying human embryos is not an act of creation - it's the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    ...At any rate, this seems to be a matter of preference, and not relevant to the morality of abortion.
    Pro-abortion activists frequently dismiss the religious basis for biblical pro-life arguments but happily invoke the word morality themselves whenever they want. That's hypocrisy.
    Is it moral for a pregnant woman to smoke? To drink alcohol?

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    ...But I would like to ask: what do you think the starting point is, why do you call that the starting point, and why do you think it is morally relevant? (the post of Speakpigeon you were replying to was not talking about a starting point of procreation).
    Pretty sure SpeakPigeon did say birth was the starting point. I disagree.
    When is a chicken 'born'? When the egg is laid or when it eventually hatches?
    As you know, the viable age of embryos to survive outside the womb is getting 'younger' all the time and it's now the case that the physical act of passing down the birth canal does not confer anything 'special' in terms of human rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    Pretty sure science validates the pro-life 'opinion' that unborn human beings are;
    a) Human
    b) Alive
    The use of "unborn human being" to refer to embryos and/or fetuses implies that "human being" in the usual sense of the term, includes them. Science does not validate that (at least, the semantic issue), it seems to me. But leaving that aside, of course human embryos and human fetuses are human, and many of them are alive - though also clearly, many others are dead.
    I'm not arguing for the (post-mortim) rights of non-living things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Also, human ova are also clearly human, and many of them are alive, even though many are dead. And the same goes for human sperm cells.
    When a human sperm or unfertilised egg can autonomously/spontaneously become an embryo then I will revise my position about conception being the event which marks the starting point in the life of a human being - the point at which human rights begin.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,032
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,620
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    Conception. Because it's a more definite event on the timeline of life.
    What do you mean by "more definite"?
    Fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell is a gradual process, as is the formation of the ovum that is later fertilized, as is birth itself, or the split of an embryo to form twin embryos, or the formation of an embryo from an ovum without fertilization in rare cases. Depending on your time scale, you can split it in many subprocesses.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    Thinking about "it" isn't quite as definitive an event as biologists would want.
    Did they both decide simultaneously? Are they both fertile?
    There is no absolute simultaneity, so I guess not (by the standards you seem to have in mind). But that's not the issue. Suppose that Alice decides on her own to get pregnant using frozen sperm from a sperm bank. Isn't that the starting point?
    As for biologists, I'm not sure what they want, but you said the beginning of procreation, not the beginning of the existence of an organism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    Destroying human embryos is not an act of creation - it's the opposite.
    I did not say that. I mentioned their decision to make human embryos, even if they're intended to be destroyed later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    Pro-abortion activists frequently dismiss the religious basis for biblical pro-life arguments but happily invoke the word morality themselves whenever they want. That's hypocrisy.
    Is it moral for a pregnant woman to smoke? To drink alcohol?
    You seem to be changing the subject. Whether it's morally acceptable for a pregnant woman to do that depends on the circumstances. For example, does she intend to abort? Are there other people who might be hurt (e.g., passive smokers, etc.)? Does she know or should know about the consequences of smoking, drinking, etc., or her embryo or fetus?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    Pretty sure SpeakPigeon did say birth was the starting point. I disagree.
    Of personhood, not of procreation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    When is a chicken 'born'? When the egg is laid or when it eventually hatches?
    As I understand the words, the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    As you know, the viable age of embryos to survive outside the womb is getting 'younger' all the time and it's now the case that the physical act of passing down the birth canal does not confer anything 'special' in terms of human rights.
    Why do you think viability at an earlier stage (given sufficient tech) affect the moral issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC
    When a human sperm or unfertilised egg can autonomously/spontaneously become an embryo then I will revise my position about conception being the event which marks the starting point in the life of a human being - the point at which human rights begin.
    Someone might mirror that and say "when an embryo can autonomously/spontaneously become a toddler, I will revise my position about conception being the event which marks the starting point in the life of a human being - the point at which human rights begin."
    The fact is that embryos do not become toddlers or newborns autonomously/spontaneously. They need to be kept in special conditions for many weeks. Similarly, ova do not autonomously/spontaneously become embryos. They usually do so only after they are fertilized, though that is not always so, since ova also become embryos without fertilization in very rare cases (afaik, only confirmed in laboratories using special methods, but there is no impossibility of it happening in the wild, even if it's extremely improbable). But again, why do you think this is morally relevant?
    Last edited by Angra Mainyu; 03-17-2018 at 02:35 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. The Morality of Abortion: wiploc and thatguysnephew
    By Wiploc in forum Morals & Principles
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-05-2018, 09:05 PM
  2. GOP civil war within National Review Peanut gallery
    By funinspace in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-01-2016, 12:44 AM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-15-2015, 05:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •