Originally posted by bbarrI had lunch with a friend.She said she will not eat for 24 hours.I called her crazy.She said,I said,it turned into a fight.She says by doing this she will emphasise with them.I say no way.Lyn.
The capacity to suffer isn't an attribute of self-awareness, as a creature can have the former but not the latter. The capacity to suffer, however, does presuppose sentience. The capacity to suffer involves being able to experience an adverse psychological state. Self-awareness involves a creature being able to represent it's own psychological states to i ...[text shortened]... entational complexity necessary for self-awareness that can conceive of the 'I' ceasing to be.
Originally posted by bbarr
Thank you, that was helpful. I am especially impressed that you admit that an aborted zygote has not been harmed in any way.
I have been thinking more about this and it is clear that, before the nervous system is sufficiently developed, there is no physical pain. But I have begun to wonder whether there is any non-physical ('spiritual' perhaps) pain suffered by a being upon physical termination. Obviously, I have no way of knowing whether there is or is not. I prefer to believe that there is not, but would not want to bet on it. Even then, in the case of the unborn I still believe they are taken into Heaven where their joy will far exceed any pain, physical or not, which they might have experienced in this world or during their exit from it. That, of course, is comforting.
Now, just to clarify, you believe that God creates new souls and infuses the conceptate with a soul at the moment of creation, is that correct?
In a word, yes. In more words: I wouldn't want to speculate about the mechanics of the process, but I do believe the non-physical aspect(s) of the human come into being at the same time that the body of the human comes into being (ie, at conception).
With no ulterior motive, I am curious about your beliefs regarding souls. Some of our private discussion seems to indicate that you believe there to be a non-physical 'portion' of the human being (or at least of some human beings) which survives physical death. How would you describe your beliefs on this matter?
Originally posted by bbarr
When we say that some act is immoral, we are saying that everyone has an overriding reason not to perform that act.
I was thinking about this post at work today. Would the 'overriding reason' be of the same type as the reason we all have not to claim that 1+1=3? That is, would an immoral act be wrong only in the sense of being logically invalid?
Immorality is a particularly heinous form of irrationality.
When you say 'heinous' do you mean 'Grossly wicked or reprehensible; abominable'? (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
Or do you mean the word more loosely, like saying 'Immorality is really, really, really irrational'?
Originally posted by A7A7: "I have read alot on the subject, and am now against abortion."
Hi, am A7.
My abortion debate is 2mora.
I will be debating on the pro side.
I have read alot on the subject, and am now against abortion.
Well i don't know, if i was put in the situation where abortion was an option, i would like that choose. 😕
Congratulations, you've made the right CHOICE.
Originally posted by A7Exactly, if you were in that position you would like to have that choice. Although the issues become complex in the late stages of pregnancy, no woman should be denied that same choice early on in her pregnancy. Only persons have rights, and fetuses aren't persons, therefeore fetuses don't have rights. Women, however, do have rights. Specifically, women have the right to determine what will and will not allow to happen to their bodies. To deny a woman an abortion in the early stages of a preganancy is to deny an actual person her rights. Thus, such a prohibition amounts to the decree that women are to be respected merely as chattel, there for the purposes of reproduction, and in this respect is just a thinly veiled misogyny.
Well i don't know, if i was put in the situation where abortion was an option, i would like that choose.
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "Only persons have rights, and fetuses aren't persons, therefeore fetuses don't have rights."
Exactly, if you were in that position you would like to have that choice. Although the issues become complex in the late stages of pregnancy, no woman should be denied that same choice early on in her pregnancy. Only persons have rights, an ...[text shortened]... eproduction, and in this respect is just a thinly veiled misogyny.
You just declare human beings as not being a person and as by magic [disguised as "reason"] you have a right to kill them. This is irrationality at its peak. You Bbarr are an advocate of very dangerous ideas.
Bbarr: " Thus, such a prohibition amounts to the decree that women are to be respected merely as chattel, there for the purposes of reproduction, and in this respect is just a thinly veiled misogyny. "
This statement is an example of your eloquent reasoning. It's sheer demagogy.
It also reveals that all that babbling about the unborn having rights as soon as they become persons is in fact a smokescreen, a trick to make abortion, killing the unborn, acceptable. It is just a stage in making killing as such an acceptable idea to the masses.
The real idea behind all this reasonal bla bla is that the woman has a right to decide to kill her child in ALL circumstances, no matter in what stage the pregnancy is, no matter what her circumstances are. However it is too early to communicate that idea with the masses. The people are not ready for it. Maybe you yourself are not ready for this idea. You will be someday, believe me, because you lack the antivenin.
Originally posted by ivanhoeMust be nice to live in a world of "Black and White" where you are always right.
Bbarr: "Only persons have rights, and fetuses aren't persons, therefeore fetuses don't have rights."
You just declare human beings as not being a person and as by magic [disguised as "reason"] you have a right to kill them. This is irrationality at its peak. You Bbarr are an advocate of very dangerous ideas.
Bbarr: " Thus, such a prohibition amo ...[text shortened]... ready for this idea. You will be someday, believe me, because you lack the antivenin.
To bad reality is many shades of grey. Ivan, no one wants an abortion... but if a mother must for some reason abort a child it is good they have a choice.
When is it right? Hardly ever!!!
P-
Originally posted by Phlabibit
Must be nice to live in a world of "Black and White" where you are always right.
To bad reality is many shades of grey. Ivan, no one wants an abortion... but if a mother must for some reason abort a child it is good they have a choice.
When is it right? Hardly ever!!!
P-
Then we agree as far as the analyses is concerned. You draw the conclusion that it is all right to do something that is not all right. I on the contrary say that when something is not right it will stay that way and it will not become all right because of the circumstances or because we can "reason" it to be right.
Another thing is how we deal with people in a broken world. There is forgiveness, thank God. But that can never change our understanding of what is fundamentally wrong and right.
You just declare human beings as not being a person and as by magic [disguised as "reason"] you have a right to kill them. This is irrationality at its peak. You Bbarr are an advocate of very dangerous ideas.
This is a misstatement of my view. I think most human organisms are persons, as most human organisms have the capacity to suffer and the capacity of self-awareness and the capacity for rationality. I’ve made this point exceedingly plain in my previous posts in this thread, so I won’t belabor the point here. Suffice it to say that if you think all human organisms are persons, then you think brain-dead human organisms who are artificially kept alive are persons. But you’ve claimed in the euthanasia thread that a brain-dead human organism is no longer a person. So, an entailment of your own view is that not all human organisms are persons. I’ve suggested there are properties something must have for it to be considered a person and thus for it to have interests that need to be taken into consideration. The fetus, early in the pregnancy, has none of these characteristics because it doesn’t have the necessary neural infrastructure responsible for such properties. Hence, fetuses are not persons, at least early on in the pregnancy.
This statement is an example of your eloquent reasoning. It's sheer demagogy.
To deny a woman an abortion early on in a pregnancy is to consider her right to control her own body less important than the life of a creature who can’t suffer, can’t think, and has no sense of self. Such a denial is an attack on her autonomy and her personhood, and as is an instance of misogyny.
It also reveals that all that babbling about the unborn having rights as soon as they become persons is in fact a smokescreen, a trick to make abortion, killing the unborn, acceptable. It is just a stage in making killing as such an acceptable idea to the masses.
Nope, I think fetuses have rights as soon as they are persons. In fact, I think fetuses have to taken into account in our moral deliberations as soon as they have the physiology sufficient to allow them the capacity to suffer, and this occurs before they are full persons.
The real idea behind all this reasonal bla bla is that the woman has a right to decide to kill her child in ALL circumstances, no matter in what stage the pregnancy is, no matter what her circumstances are. However it is too early to communicate that idea with the masses. The people are not ready for it. Maybe you yourself are not ready for this idea. You will be someday, believe me, because you lack the antivenin.
This is not something I endorse. Even in our very first exchanges on this topic I told you that I think abortion becomes more morally problematic as the fetus develops. There should be no question that the interests of the mother, whatever they may be, outweigh the importance of a creature without even the capacity to have interests. Thus, abortion early in the pregnancy is never morally wrong. Abortion early on may be tragic, if the mother really wanted a child and couldn’t find the requisite means, or was pressured into an abortion by another. But the wrongness of these cases is a function of the mistreatment of the mother, and the infringement upon her interests, not in any wrong done to the fetus, for the fetus cannot be wronged because it has no interests.
Originally posted by bbarrYou keep forgetting that the mother was there when she chose to have sexual intercourse. You keep denying the fact that her pregnancy is her own choice. The woman has a choice. She can sleep with a man yes or no. THAT is her CHOICE.
[b]You just declare human beings as not being a person and as by magic [disguised as "reason"] you have a right to kill them. This is irrationality at its peak. You Bbarr are an advocate of very dangerous ideas.
This is a misstatemen ...[text shortened]... etus, for the fetus cannot be wronged because it has no interests.[/b]
You want to make a victim out of a pregnant woman. A victim of what ? Tell me bbarr, a victim of what ? You are denying her responsabilities. You are denying her dignity as a woman. In fact you are dehumanising her. You say to her: You don't have to take up your responsabilities, because if something happens you do not want we can "fix" it.
You can kill the child but you cannot kill the guiltfeelings and the following depresssions and other diseases a woman can suffer after performing abortion. YOU bbarr are the one who is irrational, because you refuse to take into account the negative consequenses, not only for the human being who is denied a life, but also the health risks, both physical and psychological of the woman involved. You close your eyes for this situation and at the same time you claim to be an advocate of the woman's interests. You're NOT.
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not denying that she may intentionally have engaged in intercourse, and thus run the risk of getting pregnant. In some cases, however, the woman gets pregnant through rape or incest, in which case she doesn't consent to getting pregnant. Will you deny her the right to an abortion in those cases as well? But even if the woman did consent to have intercourse, that's not the same as consenting to getting pregnant. If a woman takes birth control or uses contraception, she is obviously not consenting to getting pregnant, she is trying actively to prevent getting pregnant. To say that she consents to getting pregnant in such cases is equivalent to claiming that someone who gets injured in a car accident consents to getting injured, because he knew before he got into the car that it was possible he would get injured in an accident. Further, I'm not saying women ought to have abortions, but that they ought to have the right to an abortion. So I'm not in any way denying that there are health risks to having an abortion nor am I denying that there are often emotional side effects of getting an abortion. I think the woman should be fully informed of such potential side-effects and their severity before she makes her decision whether to have an abortion. I'm all for women being fully informed. You, apparently, want victims of rape and incest to be forced to bear the children of their attackers. You also apparently want to blame the victims of auto accidents for their injuries, because they consented to ride in a car.
You keep forgetting that the mother was there when she chose to have sexual intercourse. You keep denying the fact that her pregnancy is her own choice. The woman has a choice. She can sleep with a man yes or no. THAT is her CHOICE.
You want to make a victim out of a pregnant woman. A victim of what ? Tell me bbarr, a victim of what ? You are denying he ...[text shortened]... ion and at the same time you claim to be an advocate of the woman's interests. You're NOT.
.
Originally posted by UncleAdamSo the woman must suffer an extra 9 months constantly thinking about what is inside them and how it got there?
Bearing the child does NOT mean they have to keep the child, they can always put the child up for adoption.
They must take a hormone driven emotional roller coaster with this child inside them, plus the risk to their helth to bear this child... and the cost to an over populated society.
A child that shouldn't have even been there?
Come on!?