Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Nov 1, 2012.

?

Do I support the proposition? (see post #2)

Poll closed Nov 11, 2013.
  1. Anti-abortion: Yes

    22.2%
  2. Anti-abortion: No

    5.6%
  3. Pro-choice: Yes

    44.4%
  4. Pro-choice: No

    16.7%
  5. Other (Please explain below)

    11.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The issue of how, when, and why a developing embryo becomes a person is a complex and interesting and significant one no doubt.

    My observation was only that a three month embryo is not considered a person, by anyone I have ever met or known of or heard account of, in almost any of the myriad situations in which the matter would be considered.

    By "almost" is referenced: Claims otherwise are found only among religious fundamentalists when in political arenas involving willful abortion.

    To continue the argument: That seems to me far too narrow and biased a category of circumstance, far too loaded with ulterior motive and psychiatric symptom, to support a discarding of otherwise conventional and universally accepted evaluations, or justify the acceptance of ad hoc and incoherent assertions as basic principles behind applications of the power of the State.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Still unclear how having one's umbilical cord snipped suddenly renders one "viable".
    Left unattended, even newborn babies have a mortality rate of about 100%

    IOW you are still relying wholeheartedly on political speak ( ie : shroud a topic in purposeful vagueness to lend support to an agenda).

    IOW one could just as easily define "viability" in terms of a functional human being capable of existing without any assistance or reliance on others (or whatever other arbitrary terms one draws up to meet whatever agenda one cares to push)



    Its accurate

    If you want to start talking about the sexual maturity of apple trees as an analogy, its plainly obvious you are not talking about infants or adolescents carried through to an example on the life-cycle of humans



    along similar lines, if an unborn child, newborn, or adolescent continues to survive, they will (in all probability) grow up to be an adult capable of sexual reproduction.

    Indeed its the nature of encountering death (either in the womb or outside of it, or in the germinated seed or seedling stage) that any further developments are curtailed. Hence utilizing death is a popular yet controversial method for getting rid of living entities one does not want.

    Given that you started the ball rolling by bringing in a comparison between sprouted apple seeds and apples in order to contextualize the concept, I'm not surprised that you are not surprised .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Its amazing that you continue with this false idea despite being repeatedly told that you are ill-informed

    You've repeatedly refused to acknowledge this here and here

    I'm pretty sure there are one or two other examples that I couldn't find.

    So I will say it again for probably the 5th time just in case you've somehow missed this on the several occasions beforehand.

    there are some traditional customs in other cultures that recognize the embryo at different stages through different ceremonies (or "samskaras") ... before western models became more popular, new born children were aged at 1 (since it seemed quite absurd to think it was 0 up until it came out the womb ) and similarly, in the case of twins, the first born is recognized as the youngest (since the second born is actually conceived first)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    abc mod check
    Its amazing that you continue with this false idea despite being repeatedly told that you are ill-informed

    You've repeatedly refused to acknowledge this here and here

    I'm pretty sure there are one or two other examples that I couldn't find.

    So I will say it again for probably the 5th time just in case you've somehow missed this on the several occasions beforehand.

    there are some traditional customs in other cultures that recognize the embryo at different stages through different ceremonies (or "samskaras") ... before western models became more popular, new born children were aged at 1 (since it seemed quite absurd to think it was 0 up until it came out the womb ) and similarly, in the case of twins, the first born is recognized as the youngest (since the second born is actually conceived first)
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    But not people, of course.

    Not all "living entities" are people, and you - like the rest of us - do not consider a three month embryo to be a person any more than you consider a recently germinated apple seed to be an apple tree - sexually mature or otherwise.

    The major difference is your complete lack of personal integrity in confronting your own beliefs, which is visible in your manner of argument displayed above - twisting and misrepresenting what you find uncomfortable, dealing in accusation and assault rather than consideration and acknowledgment.
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    unfortunately there is a mod inspection thing so there will be a delay (I think) in my reply to your original query about three month embreyo's and your apparent understanding that no one recognizes them as people (for some reason it gets delayed like this when I post links)


    stay tuned, the links are to your previous posts where you brought up this exact same point and your failure to respond to them.

    For some reason I don't expect this instance to be any better. I guess it will just provide another opportunity to provide the link when you attempt to bring up the same point in the future.
    :shrug:
     
  10. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Just post a place-holder post - one that contains only three characters. That one will most likely get posted. Then edit it and post the actual content.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    So instead of providing an explanation for how ontological personhood can "come into existence," you resort to popular consensus among a specific population (which is not representative of the human population as such), and to ad homs.
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Ad homs indeed don't help.


    Again, explain how birth is the prerequisite for personhood, as it was your claim that it is:

    You are the one saying that personhood begins at birth:

    Meaning that five minutes before birth, the unborn is not a person.


    Qualify all your statements about personhood as being about legal personhood which we have already established as being something quite relative; but if you are talking about ontological personhood, you still have some explaining to do.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I responded to those links, pointing out that they failed to provide examples of anyone treating an actual three month embryo as a person, in the exact thread you linked.

    The next post down, in your link, for example, contains such a response. This contradicts your claim that I ever failed to "acknowledge" the existence of your bs. The matter being long settled, I will continue to treat your repetitions of false claims about my posts as typical dishonesty from you, and more evidence supporting my observation that you lack personal integrity to a fairly startling degree.

    But more to the point, your stretching so far afield for your supposed examples highlights the lack of such material in the US or among any of the populations represented on this or any similar thread. If you had found some distant and ancient culture that treated early gestation miscarriages as persons, for example, (buried them, named them, counted them among the ancestral dead, etc etc etc), the only revision forced on my observation would be a restriction to Western cultures of the past thousand years and all the Western members of them. That seems a small modification, of no relevance to this thread.

    I made no such restriction in my argument - quite the contrary. And regardless of your gullibility regarding lg's twisted little postings, it is at least (as lg conceeds in default) representative - in fact inclusive - of the entire population represented on this forum.
    I have posted no ad hominem arguments whatsoever.

    Disparagements, even direct insults, are not ad hominem arguments - see any good dictionary. The fact that mine are accurate, easily supported by piles of evidence off the top of anyone's head who bothers, has no bearing on their role in the argument either - if they were false, they would still not be ad homs.

    As far as the "ontological personhood" pettifoggery, I have no real interest in the "how". For all I know, that might vary among people in ways impossible to settle. My observation is that however it happens, we are in real world agreement that it has not happened as of the fourth month of gestation - no graves, no population statistics, no acknowledgement in medical records, no religious rituals, no concomitant or appropriate behavior of any kind, indicate otherwise. So the problem of how is your problem, as much as anyone else's, and your question to answer.
     
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    There's a broader point that I haven't seen addressed yet in this discussion.

    A fetus is viable once it reaches 22 weeks or so. At least those are the guidelines in the UK, or they were in 2009. That's the point in Gestation where they go all out to save a premature birth.

    And there in lies the point that I'm not sure I've seen discussed. Tiassa suggests that the rights of a fetus should be considered once the fetus can be considered viable. But at what point do you consider the fetus viable, and able to survive (albeit assisted) outside the mothers womb?

    At what point does it become morally reprehensible to abort an otherwise healthy child rather than deliver and adopt?
     
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Oh well. They sentenced Socrates to death. And for what! And by whom, in what way!
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    rubbish

    All you did was further assert your ignorance of what a samskara is and absolutely, completely and totally ignore the point that in the case of twins the first born is considered the youngest ... and to add to this to have the gall to assert intellectual dishonesty
    :shrug:

    Why did you suddenly switch your tune, speaking of specific populations in the USA (that exist at the specific exclusion of certain minorities even within the USA today) as opposed to "everyone in the world " (apparently meant to include even me)?
    Who is talking about ancient cultures? The practice is still carried forth today and was quite common say circa 19th/20th century ... which hardly rates a distant ancient culture I think. And yes to all the above, they do have a certain type of funeral ceremony for miscarriages (albeit a specific one that distinguished itself from the standard variety) and yes it does warrant a mention in reference to one's family (so that they might say they had a brother/sister who died in the womb or whatever) ... and get this ... the final and repeated point which you are continuing to ignore in the same manner as you have previously ... which of course explains precisely why the second born is considered the eldest of twins on account of having been conceived first

    If you try to cover bullshit with bullshit you are still left with bullshit I'm afraid

    Iceaura : Mention away. Meanwhile, the flagrant and fundamental dishonesty of your arguments and assertions on this subject is something you should correct in the future - you have never in your life shown or advocated general behavior consistent with the belief that a three month embryo is a human being, in any circumstance other than voluntary abortion instigated by the pregnant woman. Neither has anyone else, in all of human history AFAIK. Such a belief cannot be the basis of any argument you make honestly on this forum.

    wtf dude?

    You begin by backing away from your previous over arching gross generalizations to a more modest declaration of an interest in a specific majority population of the USA ... and now , when the scope of discussion broadens into ontology, you say there is a real world agreement on the said specific majority population of the USA.

    When you do this in one post in makes you appear intellectually inferior to a goldfish
    :shrug:
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    rubbish

    All you did was further assert your ignorance of what a samskara is , when they occur, and what they are for and absolutely, completely and totally ignore the point that in the case of twins the first born is considered the youngest ... and to add to this to have the gall to assert intellectual dishonesty
    :shrug:

    Why did you suddenly switch your tune, speaking of specific populations in the USA (that exist at the specific exclusion of certain minorities even within the USA today) as opposed to "everyone in the world " (apparently meant to include even me)?

    (BTW its even flimsy to suggest that of majority populations int USA since its not uncommon for a woman to grieve after having an abortion or even a miscarriage)
    Who is talking about ancient cultures? The practice is still carried forth today and was quite common say circa 19th/20th century ... which hardly rates a distant ancient culture I think. And yes to all the above, they do have a certain type of funeral ceremony for miscarriages (albeit a specific one that distinguished itself from the standard variety ... since in many cases there isn't a body to be dealt with in the standard manner, and in the case of dealing with the body if it is present, dealing with it in a different manner since much of the standard funeral practices meet a different function) and yes it does warrant a mention in reference to one's family (so that they might say they had a brother/sister who died in the womb or whatever) ... and get this ... the final and repeated point which you are continuing to ignore in the same manner as you have previously ... which of course explains precisely why the second born is considered the eldest of twins on account of having been conceived first

    Its plainly clear that if they are granting a special status to the first conceived/second born twin, then obviously it begins at the point of conception .. what to speak of 1 week, 1 month, 3 months or 9 months down the track.

    If you try to cover bullshit with bullshit you are still left with bullshit I'm afraid

    Iceaura : Mention away. Meanwhile, the flagrant and fundamental dishonesty of your arguments and assertions on this subject is something you should correct in the future - you have never in your life shown or advocated general behavior consistent with the belief that a three month embryo is a human being, in any circumstance other than voluntary abortion instigated by the pregnant woman. Neither has anyone else, in all of human history AFAIK. Such a belief cannot be the basis of any argument you make honestly on this forum.

    wtf dude?

    You begin by backing away from your previous over arching (and plainly inaccurate) gross generalizations to a more modest declaration of an interest in a specific majority population of the USA (which even then is kind of weak ... since women who miscarry/abort are in fact known to display appropriate behavior in line attributing the failed pregnancy as involving a person - Hell, sometimes they even talk to it when its only 1 month old .... and all this regardless of chronology, geography, et al or whatever way you want to slice and dice the human population in order to pass your statements off as salient) ... and now , when the scope of discussion broadens into ontology, you say there is a real world agreement based on the said specific majority population of the USA.

    When you do this in one post in makes you appear intellectually inferior to a goldfish
    :shrug:
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    There are a few more broader points that haven't been addressed yet in this discussion.

    Such as whether it is morally reprehensible to engage in sex when children are not desired.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Sorry, that's not an ad hominem - it's just a fact. A year before you were born you did not exist. Neither did I; neither did anyone on this forum. You can make arguments to the contrary but I consider them a waste of time.

    It is not a prerequisite. However, once you are born, a limited level of personhood is a certainty. Twelve months before you are born, NON-personhood is a certainty.

    At some point between those two extremes, you start to gain personhood (specifically rights under the law.) There is no one point where you go from a non-person to a person; it is a gradual change that takes place over nine months.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Not intellectual dishonesty - a personal lack of integrity, and a consistent resort to slander and lies in lieu of actual response. And you provide yet another example. I ignored nothing, and responded - with the obvious dismissal for cause and observation of irrelevance - at the time and subsequent times. You are simply incapable of honest response in this matter, and dedicated to argument by repeated lying. This is typical of the religious fundies here, btw - you are not the only example, merely the least respectable.

    Here si your only attempt at response to the actual posts:
    If you had followed that with an example of such behavior, you would have made your first actual response. Instead, you delivered an example of a woman talking to her embryo during gestation - not a miscarriage or abortion, but an embryo still capable of becoming a person; Not a behavior restricted to persons, but one found in many arenas of emotional attachment and affection. People talk to teddy bears, dude.

    And the real concern emerges from the mud: the sexual behavior of women. Not the personhood of a three month embryo, which is a contemptible ploy to dress the issue in the clothes of high moral character.

    An actual discussion topic, that one. The basic legal handling of that in the US was Roe vs Wade, and the current attempts to assert personhood for embryos were launched in a political campaign to use Roe vs Wade to corral the fundie vote for Republican candidates.
     
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Really? That's what you came up with?

    You know what? I didn't get married so I could be celibate.
     
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Modern views of sexuality tend to be shrouded in taboo ...

    It can be easier to openly talk about sex with a traditional Buddhist monk than with a liberal.
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Jeez
    probably the fifth time you haven't responded to these claims on these forums and instead opt for ad homming or statements that show you have no clue what you are talking about.

    Guess I will just keep tabs on this post so I can re-link it yet again the next time you profess that no cultures/no one has any systems of culture/behavior for acknowledging personhood in the womb outside of the abortion debate ....

    Ever known adults to grieve and seek counseling when their teddy bear gets destroyed?
    Can you find a single web site offering services in this regard?


    wtf?

    I just posted 2 other links where you display the same inability to address the exact same point and you continue again here
    .

    The real question is why you ignore the issues raised to the point of editing them out in your replies
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page