1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI overstepped to club you and Singer together into a ribbon-wrapped t#@d, please accept my apologies.
Goo. I challenge you to find exactly where I said that I am a "big fan" of Singer. All I said was that I sat in on some of his classes as an undergrad; further, I said that I think he has some good ideas. I also think he has some lousy ideas. You are the one who keeps bringing up Singer, trying to support your ridiculous 'slippery slope' no ...[text shortened]... my car needs some new windshield wipers. Could you please tell me which brand Jesus would buy?
Okay, lets see how this goes, its a bit of a change of hats, but I'll try my best.
1) Humans are merely more evolved animals.
2) The property which distinguished humans from other animals is our cognitive ability stemming from our cognitive infrastructure.
3) Humans with 2) merit moral consideration.
4) Humans without 2) merit no more moral considerability than any other animal - i.e. they should be treated with kindness where possible, but they possess no intrinsic rights or value.
5) Humans with incurable medical conditions which result in a relative absence of 2) and have no other intrinsic worth (i.e. loved ones to whom they are dear) qualify for 4).
So, there. 😛
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJello"only that the woman has the right to intentionally kill the young fetus insider her if she alone so desires."
I never said that I have the right to go around intentionally killing young fetuses -- only that the woman has the right to intentionally kill the young fetus insider her if she alone so desires.
Yes, and the argument you used to support this was based on the premise that you can kill every living being as long as it has no personhood.
This premise tells me you are "brainwashed".
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI'm interested LOTC, as an Agnostic Buddhist (which is interesting in itself) from which philosophical angle do you approach the sanctity of life?
[b]"only that the woman has the right to intentionally kill the young fetus insider her if she alone so desires."
Yes, and the argument you used to support this was based on the premise that you can kill every living being as long as it has no personhood.
This premise tells me you are "brainwashed".[/b]
I have a question for those adamant pro-life people here.
Your wife, daughter, girlfriend, sister is raped by a clinically insane serial murderer/rapist (and believe me, there are a number of them in our prison systems in the US) and is impregnated.
What do you do?
Convince the mother to allow the birth, even with the strong chance of the child growing into a demonspawn with the same bent as the father?
This is not a troll, a flame or an attack. I really want to know what you would do. (I know of someone to whom this happened - she aborted.)
Originally posted by KnightWulfeI can only quess the trauma a raped women would be going through, but for me the bottom line remains:
I have a question for those adamant pro-life people here.
Your wife, daughter, girlfriend, sister is raped by a clinically insane serial murderer/rapist (and believe me, there are a number of them in our prison systems in the US) and is impregnated.
What do you do?
Convince the mother to allow the birth, even with the strong chance of the child ...[text shortened]... really want to know what you would do. (I know of someone to whom this happened - she aborted.)
The child was conceived in great evil, but is itself innocent.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI remember a buddhist master saying in a lecture that in essence buddhism is basing your choices on your feelings. This made perfect sense to me because reason itself just fails to determine what is right and wrong.
I'm interested LOTC, as an Agnostic Buddhist (which is interesting in itself) from which philosophical angle do you approach the sanctity of life?
Aside from basing their choices on feeling, buddhists always consider the law of karma. (every action has a reaction)
So I base my opinion on abortion and other forms of killing on my feeling and on the law of karma.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseThat is nowhere close, Hal. First, you were supposed to start with my claim that the young fetus is morally inconsiderable (better yet, start with the claim that the young fetus is morally inconsiderable because it lacks the capacity for consciousness). Second, you were supposed to argue to your 'slippery slope' which in your own words is limited to "the terminally ill, disabled infants and the mentally insane." However, there is no general correlation between these cases and the lack of cognitive ability of which I speak. In fact (for example), by any sensible definition, in order for someone to be "mentally insane," they must possess cognitive faculties that the young fetus lacks. It would indeed only be a very extreme/rare case in which one suffers the type of complete and irreversible brain damage that would lead back to the lack of capacity for consciousness. The "terminally ill, disabled infants and the mentally insane" do not fit this category.
I overstepped to club you and Singer together into a ribbon-wrapped t#@d, please accept my apologies.
Okay, lets see how this goes, its a bit of a change of hats, but I'll try my best.
1) Humans are merely more evolved animals.
2) The property which distinguished humans from other animals is our cognitive ability stemming from our cognitive infras ...[text shortened]... o other intrinsic worth (i.e. loved ones to whom they are dear) qualify for 4).
So, there. 😛
Keep trying, Hal, and I do belive you will eventually see the light: concerning my views, there is no slippery slope except the imaginary one for which you and ivanhoe keep supplying the ramp and grease.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardthe argument you used to support this was based on the premise that you can kill every living being as long as it has no personhood.
[b]"only that the woman has the right to intentionally kill the young fetus insider her if she alone so desires."
Yes, and the argument you used to support this was based on the premise that you can kill every living being as long as it has no personhood.
This premise tells me you are "brainwashed".[/b]
No. Maybe you should go re-read my arguments so that you don't keep distorting my view. My argument is based on the claim that the young fetus is morally inconsiderable because it lacks the capacity for consciousness; ergo the woman may choose to abort it. This is different from saying that I (or you or anybody) is free to intentionally kill any young fetus we come across.
I use the term "brainwashed" to refer (although not exclusively) to cases in which one shows extreme devotion to arbitrary claims -- for example, many religious beliefs fit this description. If one more person chooses to believe in the arbitrary claim that a supernatural being called "God" exists, that usually doesn't affect others too much. However, in the case of brainwashed views on abortion, they often blanketly reject and deny rights that belong to the woman.
Originally posted by LemonJelloSuppose that I am injected with a drug, COMA-IN, that renders me comatose. moreover, I will remain comatose until I die unless I am given the only known or possible antidote, COMA-OUT. Luckily, I also get injected with COMA-OUT, which works slowly over months or years to restore my mental abilities. But right now, just after injection with COMA-OUT, I have no capacity for consciousness, and currently exhibit no characteristics of a person.
[b]the argument you used to support this was based on the premise that you can kill every living being as long as it has no personhood.
No. Maybe you should go re-read my arguments so that you don't keep distorting my view. My argument is based on the claim that the young fetus is morally inconsiderable because it lacks the capacity for consciou ...[text shortened]... nwashed views on abortion, they often blanketly reject and deny rights that belong to the woman.[/b]
Question 1: Is it permissible to kill me because I currently lack personhood, even though I will gradually acquire it, in all probability, in a few months time?
Question 2: Is it permissible to kill a fetus because it currently lacks personhood, even though it will gradually acquire it, in all probability, in a few months time?
You may answer Question 1 and Question 2 differently because I have a history of being a person and the fetus doesn't. But why should that matter?
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhich premise do you reject and why?
That is nowhere close, Hal. First, you were supposed to start with my claim that the young fetus is morally inconsiderable (better yet, start with the claim that the young fetus is morally inconsiderable because it lacks the capacity for consciousness). Second, you were supposed to argue to your 'slippery slope' which in your own words is limited to ...[text shortened]... ery slope except the imaginary one for which you and ivanhoe keep supplying the ramp and grease.
Originally posted by LemonJelloHow does this change the premise in your argument?
[b]the argument you used to support this was based on the premise that you can kill every living being as long as it has no personhood.
No. Maybe you should go re-read my arguments so that you don't keep distorting my view. My argument is based on the claim that the young fetus is morally inconsiderable because it lacks the capacity for consciou ...[text shortened]... nwashed views on abortion, they often blanketly reject and deny rights that belong to the woman.[/b]
Now the premise becomes: A woman can kill her young fetus becouse it lacks the capacity for conciousness.
1. Using your premise I have presented an argument that shows the flaw in your reasoning. (the man in coma argument)
2. I have presented an argument showing you can't use reason to make a moral choice because you will always base the reasoning on a premise.
People who seem to think they are on the rational side of the argument have failed to present any argument against both of these but somehow dont agree with me. Please explain why...
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardEh? Just because there are premises doesn't mean one can't use reason to move from those premises.
How does this change the premise in your argument?
2. I have presented an argument showing you can't use reason to make a moral choice because you will always base the reasoning on a premise.
Unfortunately even when shown an obvious moral truth (e.g. it is wrong to murder an innocent person, to commit genocide, etc.) you cannot recognise it as such.
I don't know why, if you believe what you say, you participate in moral debates. Your presence here is an _inconsistency_.