Originally posted by LemonJelloI do believe we are talking past one another, and will let it go.
Good, I'm glad we now agree, as I anticipated we would, that human life (biological sense of 'life'😉 itself is not sufficient for moral consideration. That is, after all, what you just argued -- that the fetus is not considerable just on the basis of constituting human biological life; but rather on that coupled with other considerations (or maybe on the ...[text shortened]... ting MO since your posts are now no longer horizontally challenged (a la Nemesio).
I have changed the way I type here correct, I liked the other way better as far as looks are concern, it takes a little more time. I guess I just don't want to take the time any more. 🙂
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou believe ..... so whassup with the Partial Birth Abortion act and why is there so much bla bla around this law if there are allready laws against late term abortions as you are claimimg ?
Why don't you do your own research? Roe v. Wade allowed states to ban abortions in the third trimester; I believe all of them have.
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder, stop this act of faked moral indignation. I remember it is you who accuses people on a regular bases of being for instance "mass murderers" .... and worse.
BS. In this thread you've described abortion as baby killing. And accused people of supporting the same. So you ARE accusing people of being morally the same as baby killers. Unless you're a total idiot (a distinct possibility) you know this. Stop pretending otherwise.
You're a truly disgusting individual who acts like they're being polite while ...[text shortened]... objectionable things anybody can think of. That's as dishonest as anybody can be, s**thead.
So please, stop the show ...... and stop pretending.
Originally posted by LemonJelloCould you define actual possession as opposed to latent possession? I think there are some “hazy” cases where these definitions would overlap. Wherein do you ground this said possession -- “realized physiological potential” perhaps?
I think the crux of our difference lies in the fact that your definition recognizes what we might call latent possession, whereas mine does not. That is, under your definition a thing could be a person and yet nevertheless lack the actual possession of said capacities (and that would be the case if the thing lacked actual possession of said capaci ...[text shortened]... hat a coma victim actually possess said capacities even though they are not being exercised.
Can't be the instant a single sperm enters an egg .. can it?
If so, would a woman who douches after sex be a murderer?
So when is it?
When does "it" become a human being with human rights? Is it at ANY point before actual birth .. 8 mos. 29 days?
Right now partial birth abortion is allowed I believe .. I think they just rip the head off when it shows itself ... hasn't taken a breath on its own yet .. it ain't a real person.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe proposed laws you are talking about attempt to ban a certain procedure commonly used in the second, not the third trimester. They are also rarely used in the third trimester in those cases where third trimester abortions are allowed (normally to save the women's life).
You believe ..... so whassup with the Partial Birth Abortion act and why is there so much bla bla around this law if there are allready laws against late term abortions as you are claimimg ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeSince you and others are dodging the issues raised by the Army of God website, I'll start a new thread that the anti-abortionists can weasel in or ignore.
Marauder, stop this act of faked moral indignation. I remember it is you who accuses people on a regular bases of being for instance "mass murderers" .... and worse.
So please, stop the show ...... and stop pretending.
1 edit
Originally posted by jammerRight now partial birth abortion is allowed I believe .. I think they just rip the head off when it shows itself ...
Can't be the instant a single sperm enters an egg .. can it?
If so, would a woman who douches after sex be a murderer?
So when is it?
When does "it" become a human being with human rights? Is it at ANY point before actual birth .. 8 mos. 29 days?
Right now partial birth abortion is allowed I believe .. I think they just rip the head off when it shows itself ... hasn't taken a breath on its own yet .. it ain't a real person.
Actually, they deliver the baby feet first, and keep the head inside, 'cuz IIRC, it's considered a birth (and therefore a human being) once the head of a viable fetus appears*. The skull is usually then punctured and the cranial matter suctioned out.
* http://www.answers.com/topic/intact-dilation-and-extraction
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseThat is incorrect. They bring the feet out because they're a lot smaller than the head.
[b]Right now partial birth abortion is allowed I believe .. I think they just rip the head off when it shows itself ...
Actually, they deliver the baby feet first, and keep the head inside, 'cuz IIRC, it's considered a birth (and therefore a human being) once the head of a viable fetus appears*. The skull is usually then punctured and the cranial matter suctioned out.
* http://www.answers.com/topic/intact-dilation-and-extraction[/b]
EDIT: BTW, Hal, nowhere in your cite does it make the claim "'cuz IIRC, it's considered a birth (and therefore a human being) once the head of a viable fetus appears". This is, of course, wildly inaccurate.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is incorrect. They bring the feet out because they're a lot smaller than the head.
That is incorrect. They bring the feet out because they're a lot smaller than the head.
EDIT: BTW, Hal, nowhere in your cite does it make the claim "'cuz IIRC, it's considered a birth (and therefore a human being) once the head of a viable fetus appears". This is, of course, wildly inaccurate.
Of course -- but the intention is to get at the head without it also being delivered.
EDIT: BTW, Hal, nowhere in your cite does it make the claim "'cuz IIRC, it's considered a birth (and therefore a human being) once the head of a viable fetus appears". This is, of course, wildly inaccurate.
Thank goodness for the "IIRC" disclaimer. 😀 Since you're the legal expert, and I'm legally illiterate, would you care to enlighten as to when a fetus is considered "born" -- is there something like a "Legal Birth Definition"?
1 edit
Originally posted by Halitose[/b][/b]Btw, I think the medical definition renders the completion of birth at the severing of the umbilical cord, but I'm not too sure if this would also apply to the legal one.
[b]That is incorrect. They bring the feet out because they're a lot smaller than the head.
Of course -- but the intention is to get at the head without it also being delivered.
EDIT: BTW, Hal, nowhere in your cite does it make the claim "'cuz IIRC, it's considered a birth (and therefore a human being) once the head of a viable fetus appears". a fetus is considered "born" -- is there something like a "Legal Birth Definition"?
4 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseThere's no overlap from my perspective since I take 'latent' to imply at least in part 'not yet actual'. Of course, they could overlap if you take 'latent' in some other sense. And your notion of 'inherent capacity' could also overlap with actual possession since there are different ways to interpret, in particular, your use of 'develop'. In my preceding posts, I took your use of 'develop' to mean something like 'bring into a state of being'. Therefore, from my interpretation, in this context there cannot be overlap between possession of 'inherent capacity' for X and possession of capacity for X. There are of course other ways to interpret 'develop', and it certainly could be the case that there may be overlap under these other interpretations.
Could you define actual possession as opposed to latent possession? I think there are some “hazy” cases where these definitions would overlap. Wherein do you ground this said possession -- “realized physiological potential” perhaps?
But, look, this is all completely irrelevant and a total waste of consideration because if there is overlap, then I readily grant you that whatever overlaps onto actual possession of said capacities is a person. The relevant point here is that from my view, if a thing possesses said capacities, it's a person; if it doesn't possess said capacities, it's not a person. On the other hand, in your view, if a thing possesses said capacities, it's a person; but if it doesn't possess said capacities, it's still a person if it's the case that the thing has the capacity to be in a state of spontaneous development of said capacities.
So, you think that a thing that lacks said capacities can still nevertheless be a person under specific conditions, whereas I deny this.
I think your view is similar, but maybe not identical, to lucifershammers' notion of 'potency'. With respect to the abortion discussion, I don't understand why you place more consideration on the life of something that has no interests and cannot suffer than on the suffering and interests themselves of the woman. And with respect to your notion of personhood, I do not understand why you choose to privilege 'inherent capacity' but not, say, 'inherent inherent capacity'. If we're going to privilege potential functional capacities, then why aren't we privileging potentially potential functional capacities? Under your view, why are mereological sums of human sperm and ovum not persons?
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloC'mon. I'm waiting for your definition of actual possession. It'd be interesting to see how you'd frame it so that it includes someone who's in an undetermined, but possibly short-term coma of say, six months, while excluding a second trimester fetus.
There's no overlap from my perspective since I take 'latent' to imply at least in part 'not yet actual'. Of course, they could overlap if you take 'latent' in some other sense. And your notion of 'inherent capacity' could also overlap with actual possession since there are different ways to interpret, in particular, your use of 'develop'. y are mereological sums of human sperm and ovum not persons?
(Sorry, the brevity of my post is due to the lack of time rather than interest. I'll try to address the rest of your post in a bit.)
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm waiting for your definition of actual possession.
C'mon. I'm waiting for your definition of actual possession. It'd be interesting to see how you'd frame it so that it includes someone who's in an undetermined, but possibly short-term coma of say, six months, while excluding a second trimester fetus.
(Sorry, the brevity of my post is due to the lack of time rather than interest. I'll try to address the rest of your post in a bit.)
That's ridiculous. Keep waiting, then. Just insert 'possession' instead, if you're confused. The point is that your notion of what I called latent possession (of X) doesn't imply possession (of X)! That is, under your notion of 'inherent capacity', if some thing possesses the 'inherent capacity' for X, it does not follow that the thing possesses the capacity for X (in fact, my impression was that it implies just the opposite). 'Actual' is just used in this context to make this distinction more (or so I thought) clear -- as in, standing in diametric opposition to that which is merely 'latent'.
In truth, for exactly the reasons cited above, I find your use of 'inherent' to be profoundly, maybe even rigorously, misleading. I think lucifershammers' use of 'in potency' is much more suitable, although as I mentioned before I do not consider your two notions to be identical.