Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "I look forward to understanding you when you make good on your definition of 'identity.'
I do try, Ivanhoe. But, as you can see, the two of them aren't
presenting an argument. They are saying 'Humans are valuable...
just because' or 'I don't want to address your concerns, just accept
my opinion.'
I'm sorry, Ivanhoe, but that's not what rights and laws are about.
Neither is a law predicated on an unprovable thing like 'a soul' ...[text shortened]... forward to understanding you when you make good on your
definition of 'identity.'
Nemesio
This may take a while I'm afraid. Lots of studying have to be done..
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, I trust you enough to know that you will provide a
[b]Nemesio: "I look forward to understanding you when you make good on your definition of 'identity.'
This may take a while I'm afraid. Lots of studying have to be done..[/b]
good-faith effort in this endeavor. And, I trust you enough
to take your statement that you are busy as an honest reflection
of your current status.
Please don't disappoint me.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou made reference to 'Natural Moral Law.'
You and others constantly switch between the two. It is confusing.
You asked me to show the legal impermissibility of abortion, while I am not at all working on this. I am studying the moral (im)permissability of abortion.
By the way, you seem to look upon the American judicial system as the only correct one, the universal system. It is not.
Certainly you would concede that keeping one's head
covered is not part of such a thing (or I would hope).
Yet, the conservative Jewish and Moslem peoples
consider it to be too sexually suggestive (e.g., immoral).
Consequently, I am going to assume that you aren't
going to assert that immorality should be the basis of
law, right? (This might be where you are not following
me.)
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioVery confusing.
You made reference to 'Natural Moral Law.'
Certainly you would concede that keeping one's head
covered is not part of such a thing (or I would hope).
Yet, the conservative Jewish and Moslem peoples
consider it to be too sexually suggestive (e.g., immoral).
Consequently, I am going to assume that you aren't
going to assert that immorality should be the basis of
law, right? (This might be where you are not following
me.)
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeI will try again, then.
Very confusing.
There are a sects within religious groups that hold that,
to view a woman's hair, is too sexually suggestive and,
as such, is immoral (except for her husband [and family?]).
According to their sacred texts, it is 'Natural Law.'
Certainly, you aren't going to hold that morality according
to a given religion's version of 'Natural Law' should be
the basis of law, right?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou are okay with the abortion of millions with the notions of worth
I'm glad that you recognize that your position is predicated on [b]your
notion of what God wants. I know that you would never oppress people
by insisting that they adopt your position.
Thanks KellyJay!
Nemesio[/b]
you hold. So I guess we both have something to be proud of uh.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I've said above, I am not 'okay' with it.
You are okay with the abortion of millions with the notions of worth
you hold. So I guess we both have something to be proud of uh.
Kelly
But my reason for not being okay with it is predicated on the
concept of 'soul.'
Seeing as I cannot prove that the 'soul' exists and, from a rational
standpoint, it's probable that it doesn't, I see no justification for
imposing my opinion on other people.
Furthermore, even if I *am* right, it is my firm belief that God
assumes these non-born souls right into heaven. Any person who
believes in a 'good God' would think the same way, I'm sure. So,
they are the least of my concern.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioPerhaps these souls are pre-destined to be aborted.
Furthermore, even if I *am* right, it is my firm belief that God
assumes these non-born souls right into heaven. Any person who
believes in a 'good God' would think the same way, I'm sure. So,
they are the least of my concern.
Alternatively, we could all get very angy at the fact that God allows abortion.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
To LJ and Nem - You have both agreed that the fetus is "Human". Thus you should concede that it is should have fundamental "Human" rights. Game. Set. Match.
Edit: There is no point in defining which "human" deserves rights, and which "human" does not deserve rights. It would be easier for you to re-define the entire concept of "human rights". Who are you to judge which human deserves rights and which one doesn't?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, that is not the way it works. The notion of fundamental rights concerns personhood, not humanhood. Apparently, by your implicit criterion, personhood and humanhood are indistinguishable, interchangeable, and essentially identical; but you have presented no reasons why this should be the case.
To LJ and Nem - You have both agreed that the fetus is "Human". Thus you should concede that it is should have fundamental "Human" rights. Game. Set. Match.
Edit: There is no point in defining which "human" deserves rights, and which "human" does not deserve rights. It would be easier for you to re-define the entire concept of "human rights". Who are you to judge which human deserves rights and which one doesn't?
Yes, the fetus is a human organism. But for reasons already discussed, I contend that the young fetus is merely a potential person. Potential persons merely have potential qualifications for fundamental rights. How do you suggest we argue from potential qualifications to actual rights? I would really like to know your solution because I am looking for coherent arguments that entitle me to more reasonably priced movie tickets: after all, I am merely a potential senior citizen.
There is no point in defining which "human" deserves rights, and which "human" does not deserve rights. It would be easier for you to re-define the entire concept of "human rights". Who are you to judge which human deserves rights and which one doesn't?
Wrong. There is a point to contemplating the status of the fetus in relation to moral personhood and moral considerability. The obvious point is that many women wish to abort the human organism/parasite growing inside their bodies; and a determination of the status of the fetus can identify those circumstances (if any) under which such abortion is morally permissible. Did you really need me to remind you of that? Who are you to blanketly stipulate that the woman has absolutely no say or choice in such matters concerning her body? If you are so sure that abortion is morally wrong, then present a coherent case for that conclusion.
Nemesio: I am also very interested in figuring out a proper criterion for personhood (in terms of both necessary and sufficient conditions). I have been doing some research on the matter, and if you allow me some time over the next week or so, I will offer up for discussion some of the main criteria that have been proposed before in the literature.