Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2013, 07:08 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(11-10-2013 01:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Well, going by this logic,

There is no shortage people, there is no reason to stop people from murder when it is easy to make more people.

You are missing the central point, namely that zygotes, blastocytes and embryos are devoid of personhood, i.e. they aren't "people". That these represent antecedent states of foetuses--that do possess personhood--is irrelevant because personhood is subject to a threshold effect. That is to say there is not a quantitative difference in personhood between zygote, blastocyte and embryo such that with respect to personhood: zygote < blastocyte < embryo. Rather, personhood emerges at a specific instant of neural foetal development and prior to that event we have only more or less developed and differentiated tissue.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
12-10-2013, 12:05 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(11-10-2013 05:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 04:58 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Can a person exist without first being a blastocyte?

Can a blastocyte exist without first being an egg?

That line of reasoning can be carried to ridiculous extremes.

Potential humanity surely needs something more that a blanket determining decree.
The issue relating to any obligation on those propagating the human species, by plan or chance, surely requires some degree of reasoned consideration.....................
Quick fix solutions have a tendency to impact poorly on social/ ethical issues.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 12:23 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(11-10-2013 03:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  A blastocyte is not a person. There is no person until at least the start of the third trimester.

Correct and neither is an embryo a person. Pain perception--for example--is not possible until around the end of the 2nd trimester (~20-24th week) and start of the 3rd trimester (~25th week). That is when the cerebral cortex and thalamus develop and the connection between the two components of the brain develops sufficiently to permit functional communication (see pp.46-47 of 2nd Ed. of and pp.49-50 of 1st Ed of Life Before Birth: The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Fetuses). Pain perception is a primitive cognitive function. The higher cognitive functions that we would associate with a more complex conception of personhood develop in the 3rd trimester.

I can see moral problems only in (very) late-term (>25th week) abortion where ablation will inflict pain on the foetus and where we may be terminating a person's life. In any event later-term abortions are in the minority.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 12:45 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 12:05 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  That line of reasoning can be carried to ridiculous extremes.

Potential humanity surely needs something more that a blanket determining decree.
The issue relating to any obligation on those propagating the human species, by plan or chance, surely requires some degree of reasoned consideration.....................
Quick fix solutions have a tendency to impact poorly on social/ ethical issues.

If the ablation will inflict pain on the foetus and/or the foetus has a mature neurology such that it can be deemed a person then abortion becomes problematic. Both of these situations will arise only in late-term abortions.

The main problem of argumenta from potential--which appears to be what you are proposing--is that they conflate the notion of potential personhood with personhood itself. A potential person is not a type of person hence it cannot attract moral rights or be conceived of as having personal interests. The potential person is an abstraction; treating it as an actual person is reification. The ingredients of beer do not have the same properties as beer by virtue of their potential beerness; potential beer is an abstraction. There is clearly a qualitative distinction between the ingredients of beer and beer itself. So too is there a qualitative distinction between the conglomeration of cells that comprise a zygote/blastocyte/embryo and the person of the mature foetus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
12-10-2013, 04:08 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 12:05 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 05:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  Can a blastocyte exist without first being an egg?

That line of reasoning can be carried to ridiculous extremes.

Precisely. Drinking Beverage
Let's not use that silly argument.

Quote:Potential humanity surely needs something more that a blanket determining decree.
The issue relating to any obligation on those propagating the human species, by plan or chance, surely requires some degree of reasoned consideration.....................
Quick fix solutions have a tendency to impact poorly on social/ ethical issues.

I assume you mean abortion when you say "Quick fix solutions".
It is an ethical issue for a woman, it is a social issue only for those who would try to control her, her body, and her ethics.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-10-2013, 06:20 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
I got a coupla problems here. One, I've mentioned; I mean, muffs lives in a different universe and I'm in America where there's this merge lane from the potentially broad concept of "pro-life" to "Christian" to "whack jobs" to "kill 'em all!"

Which segues nicely into my second point, to wit, I'm a psychopath, and there's a few peeps I know who I could abort now with no skin off my moral nose.

So, I really don't have much of an opinion about muffs being a whack job pro-life. But I ain't doing it. Angel

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 12:12 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(11-10-2013 07:08 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You are missing the central point, namely that zygotes, blastocytes and embryos are devoid of personhood, i.e. they aren't "people".
If you assert that, then does it make it true?
My assertion is as follows:
A person = a human = a human zygot or human baby or human child or human adult.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 12:45 AM)Chippy Wrote:  A potential person is not a type of person hence it cannot attract moral rights or be conceived of as having personal interests.
More made up assertions. Do you have any objective evidence to support your assertions?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 12:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 07:08 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You are missing the central point, namely that zygotes, blastocytes and embryos are devoid of personhood, i.e. they aren't "people".
If you assert that, then does it make it true?
My assertion is as follows:
A person = a human = a human zygot or human baby or human child or human adult.

A zygote/blastocyte/foetus lacks a nervous system until the end of the second trimester. It lacks the means to be a person.

That's what makes the assertion true.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
12-10-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 12:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 07:08 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You are missing the central point, namely that zygotes, blastocytes and embryos are devoid of personhood, i.e. they aren't "people".
If you assert that, then does it make it true?
My assertion is as follows:
A person = a human = a human zygot or human baby or human child or human adult.

Reductio ad absurdum a zygote, blastocysts and embryos are only potentially people. Not much beyond sperm/unfertilised eggs, a matter of degrees. They have no central nervous system and are, for the most part, indistinguishable from any other clump of cells. Now the mother is a full human with a central nervous system and full set of rights, why is it ok to impose at her expense on behalf of something that does not meet that definition?

As a side note a fetus gains human rights once it is a separate entity (ie: at birth) any other division is unprovable assertion.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: