Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gaffo
Posts: 2157
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Age: "I have already explained what a 'person' is, to me."

Post by gaffo » Thu May 16, 2019 5:45 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 5:51 pm

Consider: June Wisenheimer is one month shy of her 100th birthday. Without any number of regular medical treatments and procedures, June will give up the ghost. Her days of biological viability are behind her. By your logic: we ought suspend any and all life-preserving -extending care and let her croak. Never mind that her mind is sharp, or that she might object to gettin' shoved into a grave.
i do not see the relivance of the above to abortion.

clarify how it is apt if you are willing.

thanks for reply.

Age
Posts: 2012
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: "I have already explained what a 'person' is, to me."

Post by Age » Thu May 16, 2019 1:30 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 5:51 pm
I missed that. Please, repost.
A 'person' is the individual thoughts and feelings, within an individual human body.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4406
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Gaffo

Post by henry quirk » Thu May 16, 2019 2:25 pm

I asked: why is the six week old embryo a potential human, but anyone reading this an actual human? What's the difference between that embryo and you?


You responded: viability outside the womb. take modern science into account and move the weeks of preg as "murder" vs removing a clump of cells. i,e, make abortion legal to the time prior to viability, and move that timeline back as science progresses. easy peazy.


I countered: June Wisenheimer is one month shy of her 100th birthday. Without any number of regular medical treatments and procedures, June will give up the ghost. Her days of biological viability are behind her. By your logic: we ought suspend any and all life-preserving -extending care and let her croak. Never mind that her mind is sharp, or that she might object to gettin' shoved into a grave.


You responded: i do not see the relivance of the above to abortion.


If 'viability outside the womb' is dividing line between a clump of cells and a person, then June Wisenheimer, with her decrepitude (her lack of viability) might be considered just a clump of aged cells not deserving of life-extending or -preserving care. Sounds silly, but it is the logical conclusion if 'viability outside the womb' is the litmus test. If we abort, based on inviability then we have no good reason to provide care to the inviable outside the womb.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4406
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Age

Post by henry quirk » Thu May 16, 2019 2:45 pm

You wrote: A 'person' is the individual thoughts and feelings, within an individual human body.

Sure, but thinking and feeling occur within that particular context (the body), yeah? Doesn't matter if thinking and feeling are computation or the action/function of 'soul', either way the particular thinking and feeling (the person) relies entirely on his body. That is: computation or soul, it all 'happens' in the body. Without a body (to compute or house the soul) there is no thinking and feeling, yeah?

Now, in context of this thread, I go back to sumthin' you posted: When a human 'being', or 'person' actually comes into existence or comes to 'be/ing', needs to discussed and decided first, before that part of your wuestion could be answered.

If, as you say, 'A 'person' is the individual thoughts and feelings, within an individual human body.', then the next questions are...

How do we determine when thinking and feeling begins, in the womb?

Does the quality of the thinking and feeling have any bearing on one's status as 'person'?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5473
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Age: "I have already explained what a 'person' is, to me."

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm

Age wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 1:30 pm
A 'person' is the individual thoughts and feelings, within an individual human body.
That definition fits a foetus...at least in the latter phases of development, and we don't know about the earlier ones.

But we do know for sure and for certain that babies can be born "pre-date" and be perfectly viable. And women who carry babies keep telling us that they have relationships with their child even before it exits the womb. How would that be possible, if humanity only commences when the child exits the mother?

It's all well and good to say, "Well, let's not just go gratuitously calling abortion 'murder.'" Okay. But let's not go the other way either: to rule without any certainty at all that killing a child in utero is NOT murder. We have no reason to have any confidence at all about that.

Now, you might say, "Well, it's a wash, then: you don't know if it's a human being, and I don't know if it's not. So no decision is possible." Of course, that's neither necessary nor true. Firstly, we might well know, and be obdurate about the facts because either you or I simply does not want to look at them. That's possible. But secondly, and more importantly, when we don't know if something is a human being, it's not a tie.

What it means is that a moral person does not kill something unless he is 100% certain he is NOT committing murder. A person who allows the same to live cannot possibly be committing murder. But one who doesn't know, and still kills the child, may well be committing a homicide.

So the net effect of that argument is, "Don't kill anyone until we know for sure." At least, that's what an ethical person would do.

Age
Posts: 2012
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age

Post by Age » Thu May 16, 2019 11:04 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:45 pm
You wrote: A 'person' is the individual thoughts and feelings, within an individual human body.

Sure, but thinking and feeling occur within that particular context (the body), yeah?
To me, yes.
henry quirk wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:45 pm
Doesn't matter if thinking and feeling are computation or the action/function of 'soul', either way the particular thinking and feeling (the person) relies entirely on his body. That is: computation or soul, it all 'happens' in the body. Without a body (to compute or house the soul) there is no thinking and feeling, yeah?
Thinking and feeling being within the body is what I have continually stated, throughout this forum.

Now, in context of this thread, I go back to sumthin' you posted: When a human 'being', or 'person' actually comes into existence or comes to 'be/ing', needs to discussed and decided first, before that part of your wuestion could be answered.

If, as you say, 'A 'person' is the individual thoughts and feelings, within an individual human body.', then the next questions are...
henry quirk wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:45 pm
How do we determine when thinking and feeling begins, in the womb?
Do "we" HAVE TO?

If yes, then why?
If no, then I agree.

Do "you" WANT TO (determine when, and IF, thinking and feeling begins, in the womb?)?

If yes, then why?
If no, then okay.
henry quirk wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:45 pm
Does the quality of the thinking and feeling have any bearing on one's status as 'person'?
To me, no.

Age
Posts: 2012
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: "I have already explained what a 'person' is, to me."

Post by Age » Thu May 16, 2019 11:43 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
Age wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 1:30 pm
A 'person' is the individual thoughts and feelings, within an individual human body.
That definition fits a foetus...at least in the latter phases of development, and we don't know about the earlier ones.
How and why does that definition fits a 'fetus', in the latter phases of development?

Do you have evidence for this, and if so, then what evidence do you have for this? And, if you have this, then at what age exactly do individual thinking and feeling begin. (I should add that it is the internal or emotional feelings that I was referring to, and not the bodies sensory feelings).
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
But we do know for sure and for certain that babies can be born "pre-date" and be perfectly viable. And women who carry babies keep telling us that they have relationships with their child even before it exits the womb.
What do you mean by 'relationships'? And, can "men" have 'relationships' with their child even before it exists the womb, or only the female of the human species?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
How would that be possible, if humanity only commences when the child exits the mother?
What has 'humanity' got to do with this now?

How do "you" define the word 'humanity'?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
It's all well and good to say, "Well, let's not just go gratuitously calling abortion 'murder.'" Okay. But let's not go the other way either: to rule without any certainty at all that killing a child in utero is NOT murder. We have no reason to have any confidence at all about that.
Is this thread about abortion, killing, and/or murder, or about what each of "us" calls 'that' what is being carried within a pregnant female of the human species?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
Now, you might say, "Well, it's a wash, then: you don't know if it's a human being, and I don't know if it's not. So no decision is possible."
I 'might' say that, along with many other things, BUT I have absolutely NO reason to say any thing like that regarding the question this thread is about. And I certainly do NOT have the view that "no decision is possible".

I have already given my answer/decision, which was, and still is; a human body or a human fetus.

When a human being/person actually starts beginning to exist within a human body I really do NOT care. But for all intents and purposes I just usually say that it begins at the birth of the human body or human fetus. Although thoughts and emotions are accepted to begin before the birth of a human body, until there is some actual evidence from at what exact stage or at what particular point during the pregnancy do these thoughts and emotions begin I just see this as a gradual or evolving process and for all discussions about this i just ask if "we" can agree on saying that a human body is born with no thoughts and emotions?

If some one says that can not or will not agree with this, then I will ask them WHEN EXACTLY then do thoughts and emotions begin within the human body or the human fetus?

If they can not or will not give a decisive answer, then I will just ask can "we" then go back to just agreeing, for the sake of the discussion, that human bodies are born without thoughts and feelings?

Then I wait to see what happens.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
Of course, that's neither necessary nor true. Firstly, we might well know, and be obdurate about the facts because either you or I simply does not want to look at them. That's possible. But secondly, and more importantly, when we don't know if something is a human being, it's not a tie.
I have absolutely NO idea where you are taking this nor what you are TRYING TO imply here.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
What it means is that a moral person does not kill something unless he is 100% certain he is NOT committing murder. A person who allows the same to live cannot possibly be committing murder. But one who doesn't know, and still kills the child, may well be committing a homicide.
Is this thread asking: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat? Or, is this thread about some thing else?

I have just been talking about, and replying to, this thread topic title.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
So the net effect of that argument is, "Don't kill anyone until we know for sure." At least, that's what an ethical person would do.
If you say so. But, to me, what you are talking about now is a whole OTHER issue.

By the way, I am unsure of; What do "you" call 'that', which is being carried within the womb of a pregnant female of the human species?

If you would like to discuss the issue of killing, murder, and/or abortions, then maybe if you start by providing your answer, then "we" could discuss, that is; if that is what you really want to talk about and where you really want to take this discussion.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4406
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Age

Post by henry quirk » Fri May 17, 2019 12:54 am

I wrote: How do we determine when thinking and feeling begins, in the womb?

You asked: Do "we" HAVE TO?

No, we don't have to. But, mebbe we want to. Mebbe, for some folks, the information might be useful.

Age
Posts: 2012
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age

Post by Age » Fri May 17, 2019 8:12 am

henry quirk wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 12:54 am
I wrote: How do we determine when thinking and feeling begins, in the womb?

You asked: Do "we" HAVE TO?

No, we don't have to. But, mebbe we want to. Mebbe, for some folks, the information might be useful.
What does 'mebbe' mean?

And, what would that information be actually useful for exactly?

Belinda
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Does a pregnant woman carry a human being/person or just 'life'/meat?

Post by Belinda » Fri May 17, 2019 9:48 am

To deny an abortion to a pregnant woman is to deny her right to own her body. Her foetus is not a person but a foetus and cannot have any rights as it's not in any sense independent. It depends utterly and completely upon the rest of her body . You may as well claim that the woman's heart is a person.

The foetus becomes relatively viable as the pregnancy advances. The trouble with people who believe that a foetus is a person is they have no notion of relativity.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5473
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Age: "I have already explained what a 'person' is, to me."

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm

Age wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 11:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
Age wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 1:30 pm
A 'person' is the individual thoughts and feelings, within an individual human body.
That definition fits a foetus...at least in the latter phases of development, and we don't know about the earlier ones.
How and why does that definition fits a 'fetus', in the latter phases of development?
Because it has "individual thoughts and feelings." It can kick, move and respond without the mother herself instructing it to, and because it has its own body, including it's own heartbeat, circulation and respiration, and a unique genetic code that is not the mother's. That pretty much meets all your criteria there.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
But we do know for sure and for certain that babies can be born "pre-date" and be perfectly viable. And women who carry babies keep telling us that they have relationships with their child even before it exits the womb.
What do you mean by 'relationships'?
You'll have to ask a woman. They assure me that something very intimate and precious is going on there. But so far as I can tell, that relationship is nurtured by the sharing experienced between child and mother. I think most men find they have to await the appearance of the child before they feel the connection...but I'm not all men, so I can't speak for everyone.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
How would that be possible, if humanity only commences when the child exits the mother?
What has 'humanity' got to do with this now?
I should perhaps use the term "personhood," although the fact that the baby is decidedly human as well (as opposed to porcine, bovine or canine) is of some import as well.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
It's all well and good to say, "Well, let's not just go gratuitously calling abortion 'murder.'" Okay. But let's not go the other way either: to rule without any certainty at all that killing a child in utero is NOT murder. We have no reason to have any confidence at all about that.
Is this thread about abortion, killing, and/or murder, or about what each of "us" calls 'that' what is being carried within a pregnant female of the human species?
It's about both, obviously. Because if the entity in a woman's womb is not a child, then no murder is involved. But if it is, then it no longer matters what one decides to "call" what one does: it's murder. So the second question decides the first for us.
When a human being/person actually starts beginning to exist within a human body I really do NOT care.

And yet, without answering that, you would have to admit you have know idea what you are "terminating" or murdering. The status of the act remains unclear, unless you know what entity you're harming.
i just ask if "we" can agree on saying that a human body is born with no thoughts and emotions?
There's too much evidence to the contrary. A child is essentially the same being with one toe in the birth canal, and with that same toe out, 1 millisecond later. And out of the womb, we all concede that the child has thoughts, emotions and full personhood, so it's unreasonable to assume that a child with one toe in the birth canal is something completely opposite.

We know for sure, then, that a being-born child is fully human, and is a person in all the relevant senses (that is, unless we also want to advocate a rationale that would also permit outright infanticide, which I think neither of us does). So why is the child one millisecond before that "not a person," as abortionists are fond of insisting? Obviously, that millisecond does not alter what the child intrinsically is. So we know that for certain there is at least some period of time (let's say third trimester, for argument's sake) that the child is a person inside the mother. But then, we have the same boundary issue again, when it comes to the question, "What's the big difference between very-late second trimester and very-early third?" And again, we'd have to admit that we simply do not know it's not a person.

And as long as that remains the case, we are immoral to kill the child. We may well be committing a murder, and have no justification for thinking otherwise, then.
If some one says that can not or will not agree with this, then I will ask them WHEN EXACTLY then do thoughts and emotions begin within the human body or the human fetus?
We don't know.

But that's the point. The fact that we don't know for sure means that we are not free to kill it: because while killing someone is an immoral act, not-killing is not immoral. So we're only morally safe on the question if we permit the baby to come to term.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
Of course, that's neither necessary nor true. Firstly, we might well know, and be obdurate about the facts because either you or I simply does not want to look at them. That's possible. But secondly, and more importantly, when we don't know if something is a human being, it's not a tie.
I have absolutely NO idea where you are taking this nor what you are TRYING TO imply here.
See my answer above. I'm saying that it is not moral to kill entities that, for all we know, are likely to be human. As I say, we know for a fact that a born-baby and an immediately-pre-born baby are both fully persons, in all the defensible senses. What we don't know is the status of the child earlier; and so long as we don't know, we're not free to kill it with saline injections, or tear it apart with forceps and flush it into a sink. That would be an evil thing to do to a "person." And we have absolutely no reason to be confident we're not doing it to a person.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
So the net effect of that argument is, "Don't kill anyone until we know for sure." At least, that's what an ethical person would do.
If you say so.
No, not "if I says so," but both factually and ethically, if you don't know that a child is not a "person," and if you believe that murdering "persons" is wrong. Because until you're sure you're NOT murdering, you ought not to be killing things.

Think of it this way. Suppose I gave you a gun, and said, "Just for fun, let's fire six shots through the middle of the door over there." And you said, "Is there anybody behind the door?" And then I responded, "Maybe: we don't know for sure. It could be nothing, it could be an animal, or it could be your best friend or your spouse."

Would you shoot the gun? Would you be an ethical person if you did?

Age
Posts: 2012
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Age: "I have already explained what a 'person' is, to me."

Post by Age » Fri May 17, 2019 2:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Age wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 11:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm

That definition fits a foetus...at least in the latter phases of development, and we don't know about the earlier ones.
How and why does that definition fits a 'fetus', in the latter phases of development?
Because it has "individual thoughts and feelings." It can kick, move and respond without the mother herself instructing it to, and because it has its own body, including it's own heartbeat, circulation and respiration, and a unique genetic code that is not the mother's. That pretty much meets all your criteria there.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
But we do know for sure and for certain that babies can be born "pre-date" and be perfectly viable. And women who carry babies keep telling us that they have relationships with their child even before it exits the womb.
What do you mean by 'relationships'?
You'll have to ask a woman. They assure me that something very intimate and precious is going on there. But so far as I can tell, that relationship is nurtured by the sharing experienced between child and mother. I think most men find they have to await the appearance of the child before they feel the connection...but I'm not all men, so I can't speak for everyone.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
How would that be possible, if humanity only commences when the child exits the mother?
What has 'humanity' got to do with this now?
I should perhaps use the term "personhood," although the fact that the baby is decidedly human as well (as opposed to porcine, bovine or canine) is of some import as well.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
It's all well and good to say, "Well, let's not just go gratuitously calling abortion 'murder.'" Okay. But let's not go the other way either: to rule without any certainty at all that killing a child in utero is NOT murder. We have no reason to have any confidence at all about that.
Is this thread about abortion, killing, and/or murder, or about what each of "us" calls 'that' what is being carried within a pregnant female of the human species?
It's about both, obviously.
What do you mean by 'obviously'?

To me, this thread title has only one question, which only asks one thing, only.

To me, there is absolutely nothing about murder, killing, not abortion.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Because if the entity in a woman's womb is not a child, then no murder is involved. But if it is, then it no longer matters what one decides to "call" what one does: it's murder. So the second question decides the first for us.
If you say and/or believe so. But really, to me, this is very off topic.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
When a human being/person actually starts beginning to exist within a human body I really do NOT care.

And yet, without answering that, you would have to admit you have know idea what you are "terminating" or murdering. The status of the act remains unclear, unless you know what entity you're harming.
What are you talking about here now?

The opening topic asks a question, I replied, and replied to that only. You may WANT to talk about some thing else, but if you LOOK back at my words and to what I HAVE actually replied to, then, hopefully, you will NOTICE that you are talking this topic with me nowhere that I was going with this.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
i just ask if "we" can agree on saying that a human body is born with no thoughts and emotions?
There's too much evidence to the contrary. A child is essentially the same being with one toe in the birth canal, and with that same toe out, 1 millisecond later. And out of the womb, we all concede that the child has thoughts, emotions and full personhood, so it's unreasonable to assume that a child with one toe in the birth canal is something completely opposite.
Who is the 'we' that 'you' are referring to here?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
We know for sure, then, that a being-born child is fully human, and is a person in all the relevant senses (that is, unless we also want to advocate a rationale that would also permit outright infanticide, which I think neither of us does). So why is the child one millisecond before that "not a person," as abortionists are fond of insisting?
I do NOT know, for the simple fact that this is certainly not some thing that I would even contemplate, let alone think about nor say.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Obviously, that millisecond does not alter what the child intrinsically is. So we know that for certain there is at least some period of time (let's say third trimester, for argument's sake) that the child is a person inside the mother. But then, we have the same boundary issue again, when it comes to the question, "What's the big difference between very-late second trimester and very-early third?" And again, we'd have to admit that we simply do not know it's not a person.
Is this any different from what I said previously?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
And as long as that remains the case, we are immoral to kill the child. We may well be committing a murder, and have no justification for thinking otherwise, then.
If some one says that can not or will not agree with this, then I will ask them WHEN EXACTLY then do thoughts and emotions begin within the human body or the human fetus?
We don't know.

But that's the point. The fact that we don't know for sure means that we are not free to kill it: because while killing someone is an immoral act, not-killing is not immoral. So we're only morally safe on the question if we permit the baby to come to term.
WHY do you want to talk about killing with me when all I am doing is answering the topic question, from my perspective?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
Of course, that's neither necessary nor true. Firstly, we might well know, and be obdurate about the facts because either you or I simply does not want to look at them. That's possible. But secondly, and more importantly, when we don't know if something is a human being, it's not a tie.
I have absolutely NO idea where you are taking this nor what you are TRYING TO imply here.
See my answer above. I'm saying that it is not moral to kill entities that, for all we know, are likely to be human. As I say, we know for a fact that a born-baby and an immediately-pre-born baby are both fully persons, in all the defensible senses. What we don't know is the status of the child earlier; and so long as we don't know, we're not free to kill it with saline injections, or tear it apart with forceps and flush it into a sink. That would be an evil thing to do to a "person." And we have absolutely no reason to be confident we're not doing it to a person.
As I said: I have absolutely NO idea where you are taking this nor what you are TRYING TO imply here.

Are you all aware what the topic question is asking?

Have I said absolutely anything that would lead any person to talk about killing and/or murder?

As far as I am aware all I have being doing is answering the topic question and replying to that ONLY.

Seriously, what is your fascination here with killing and/or murder?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 3:51 pm
So the net effect of that argument is, "Don't kill anyone until we know for sure." At least, that's what an ethical person would do.
If you say so.
No, not "if I says so," but both factually and ethically, if you don't know that a child is not a "person," and if you believe that murdering "persons" is wrong. Because until you're sure you're NOT murdering, you ought not to be killing things.
This really should be sufficient evidence for WHY making ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEVING things should NEVER be done.

I would really appreciate it if you went back over our discussion in this thread and pointed me/us to WHERE EXACTLY you think/believe that I have ever even started to talk about murder, killing, and/or abortion.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Think of it this way. Suppose I gave you a gun, and said, "Just for fun, let's fire six shots through the middle of the door over there." And you said, "Is there anybody behind the door?" And then I responded, "Maybe: we don't know for sure. It could be nothing, it could be an animal, or it could be your best friend or your spouse."

Would you shoot the gun?
Why would a human being in this day and age, when this is written, even have or own a gun?

What logical explanation could there be given for a gun to even still be in existence?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Would you be an ethical person if you did?
Would you really call that "fun"?

I certainly would NOT.

Now, just for, what I call, REAL FUN, what is your obsession here with killing or murder?

I have NOT even been thinking about those things here, that is; until you STARTED talking about them.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5473
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Age: "I have already explained what a 'person' is, to me."

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri May 17, 2019 4:08 pm

Age wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 2:46 pm
What do you mean by 'obviously'?
Nothing sinister. I just mean that when one knows whether the entity in the womb is human, and when one knows that it is a person, one has different answers to what is ethical to do with it than if one supposes it's not human but only "life," and not a person but "meat."
To me, this thread title has only one question, which only asks one thing, only.

To me, there is absolutely nothing about murder, killing, not abortion.

Well, perhaps that's because you missed the strand from which the question was generated, on which the subject (and the application of the question) was abortion. Perhaps that could have been specified, if that's what Henry wanted us to focus on.

You are right to say that you didn't start talking about the abortion/murder issue. However, I doubt it's obscure. And I wonder, then, just what you thought the application of the question was going to turn out to be? I can't imagine what else you thought, but I'm willing to hear.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
i just ask if "we" can agree on saying that a human body is born with no thoughts and emotions?
There's too much evidence to the contrary. A child is essentially the same being with one toe in the birth canal, and with that same toe out, 1 millisecond later. And out of the womb, we all concede that the child has thoughts, emotions and full personhood, so it's unreasonable to assume that a child with one toe in the birth canal is something completely opposite.
Who is the 'we' that 'you' are referring to here?
Generic: call it, "the reasoning person," if you will.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Obviously, that millisecond does not alter what the child intrinsically is. So we know that for certain there is at least some period of time (let's say third trimester, for argument's sake) that the child is a person inside the mother. But then, we have the same boundary issue again, when it comes to the question, "What's the big difference between very-late second trimester and very-early third?" And again, we'd have to admit that we simply do not know it's not a person.
Is this any different from what I said previously?
Only that the following implication can now be added:
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
And as long as that remains the case, we are immoral to kill the child. We may well be committing a murder, and have no justification for thinking otherwise, then.
I have absolutely NO idea where you are taking this nor what you are TRYING TO imply here.
See my answer above. I'm saying that it is not moral to kill entities that, for all we know, are likely to be human. As I say, we know for a fact that a born-baby and an immediately-pre-born baby are both fully persons, in all the defensible senses. What we don't know is the status of the child earlier; and so long as we don't know, we're not free to kill it with saline injections, or tear it apart with forceps and flush it into a sink. That would be an evil thing to do to a "person." And we have absolutely no reason to be confident we're not doing it to a person.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Think of it this way. Suppose I gave you a gun, and said, "Just for fun, let's fire six shots through the middle of the door over there." And you said, "Is there anybody behind the door?" And then I responded, "Maybe: we don't know for sure. It could be nothing, it could be an animal, or it could be your best friend or your spouse."

Would you shoot the gun?
Why would a human being in this day and age, when this is written, even have or own a gun?

What logical explanation could there be given for a gun to even still be in existence?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm
Would you be an ethical person if you did?
Would you really call that "fun"?

I certainly would NOT.

That's all an evasion of the thought experiment. Don't worry...I have no concern about any pro- or anti-gun agenda, at the moment.

Let me reframe the thought experiment this way, so as to avoid your reaction to guns:

There's a (biodegradable, if you like) sack perched on the edge of a river. I say, "Push it in." You say, "What's in the sack?" I say, "Possibly nothing, and possibly your daughter." Would you push it in, without finding out first? And if you just went ahead and pushed it in, even if, at the end of the day it wasn't your daughter in there, what sort of person would that decision make you?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4406
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri May 17, 2019 6:32 pm

"What does 'mebbe' mean?"

'maybe'

#

"And, what would that information be actually useful for exactly?"

You'd have to ask the individual who has an interest.

Jane might have a different reason for wantin' to know than Sally who may have a different reason than Stan who may have a different reason than Lucinda, and on and on.

More generally: new information is always a good thing, yeah?
Last edited by henry quirk on Fri May 17, 2019 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4406
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Belinda

Post by henry quirk » Fri May 17, 2019 6:46 pm

"To deny an abortion to a pregnant woman is to deny her right to own her body."

Mebbe. Could be, though, that temporary and very narrow restraint of the woman is simply meant to preserve another human life.

#

"Her foetus is not a person but a foetus and cannot have any rights as it's not in any sense independent."

The jury is (still) out on what a woman carries. As for its rights being tied to its independence: this is as flawed as 'viability' as the standard. After all: there's a whole whack of oldsters who lack 'independence'. Are they without rights?

#

"It depends utterly and completely upon the rest of her body."

Someone who relies on dialysis or an iron lung is in the same boat. They lack 'rights', yeah?

#

"You may as well claim that the woman's heart is a person."

That's silly. Her heart will never be anything but a heart. That bundle of cells in her womb: that'll become (and mebbe already is) a person.

#

"The foetus becomes relatively viable as the pregnancy advances. The trouble with people who believe that a foetus is a person is they have no notion of relativity."

Mebbe. Or mebbe they simply recognize there are 'absolutes'.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests