Perhaps in the aide of refocusing my (non-errant) view...lest, the scatter from the above paragraph's aim may be broader than intended.
As for the rest...grab a broom and help Lon clean up the cacophony of words.
Against abortion and against person-hood?
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
Perhaps in the aide of refocusing my (non-errant) view...lest, the scatter from the above paragraph's aim may be broader than intended.
As for the rest...grab a broom and help Lon clean up the cacophony of words.
PureX
Well-known member
'Personhood' already prevails in American law. And it is tied directly to personal autonomy. Town has already acknowledged this fact even though he feels it's an aberration that needs to be eliminated, and has been, somewhat, over time (he sites the equal rights movement).
I disagree. As the fight for legal respect of personal autonomy is still very active and ongoing (the right of homosexuals to marry, for example). 'Personhood' is still directly related to personal autonomy, which is why people will fight for it whenever it's being limited or curtailed by law. To be recognized fully as an autonomous person in our society is tantamount to being able to live our lives as fully as possible. And there is little point to our living at all if we cannot live our own lives according to our own will and desire. Such that the attribution of 'personhood' to a fetus would be a fundamental of reasoning behind protecting it's right to life. And I believe that is exactly why those who seek to protect it's right to life are doing so: because they have convinced themselves that a fetus is a 'person'; deserving the same right to life as any other.
What they are trying to ignore, however, is the fundamental connection between 'personhood' and personal autonomy. Even as the law and society have long since tied them together, and are still doing so.
PureX
Well-known member
That's a matter of personal opinion. A personal opinion that you are completely unwilling to recognize as such. (Much as Town is completely unable to recognize that his "argument" is based on a similar personal opinion, even though he has already admitted that it is, several times.)
Rusha said:
No ... it's not a matter of *personal opinion*. The sole purpose of abortion is to destroy the unborn baby who, by the invitation of the mother and father via consensual sex, is *temporarily* residing in the womb.
I
gcthomas
New member
Consenting to sex doesn't mean consenting to pregnancy, as you must know. Human sex has never been uniquely for reproduction, with the shared fun part of non-reproductive sex very important for building long term monogamous bonding, which is itself important for families and society. While babies are the ultimate reason sex exists, the proximate cause of sex is usually rather different.
Last edited:
To my mind it's like this, I've invested a bit of time in setting out an argument in particular and inviting discussion, rebuttal of it. I spend more responding to a number of issues that didn't address it. I did that in the hope that at some point the conversation would come to the actual challenge issued and I attempted to model the process by meeting parts in my rejection of the larger advance regarding a compromise that, within the context of the argument avoided would be nonsensical. Another reason to address the argument.
I continued to do that until I was literally told it wouldn't happen because, Pure declared, the argument in parts was instead only an opinion---as though believing a thing invalidated the necessity of addressing the argument upon which the belief arose...madness.... At that point the investment I was willing to make in response to yet another regurgitating of points offered and rebutted in their particularity.
So, it's my responsibility advance a point and invite/entertain examination and disagreement on it. At this juncture all I feel inclined to do is say it's in there, that if you read me in my discussion with Pure you'll find more than you credited, both in substance and in methodology. If I grew increasingly short and unwilling to advance without reciprocation I don't believe it's fair to be too hard on the point or to confuse it with the larger body of evidence.
So when I attempt to expand your background, the thing you note I could do...this.
lain:I also found it interesting that in attempting to paint a certain picture in your criticism you used two short responses instead of the rule for my response that proceeded them. The longer consideration by point that led to the one short remark and the more curt rejection of a familiar sum on Pure's part.
Shooting a gun into the air to celebrate doesn't mean you're consenting to murder someone.
Driving drunk does not mean consenting to taking out a family of five either. However, the person involved (n this case the couple having sex) KNOW there is a real possibility that their encounter will result in the creation of another human being.
FTR, IF two individuals wish to have promiscuous sex and risk their OWN health and life, that is their right. However, their choice to do so should not give them the right to intentionally end the life of another human being.
gcthomas
New member
Agreed, but that begs the question of the status of the foetus. The consensus, if the laws of Western democracies is anything to go by in indicating the beliefs of their populations, is that an early stage foetus is not recognised as a human being. Your assertion notwithstanding.
And the assertion of the majority doesn't affect the truth either. At conception, what we have is a living human being. You have no compelling reason to deny him personhood; you're simply looking to justify murder.
Abortion being murder is not the 'truth'. It's a recent claim made by conservatives in their stance against pro-abortion.
Historically speaking, the Church excommunicated women of abortion not under a condemnation of murder, but of Adamic sin.
'Murder' doesn't hold up, at all- even biblically- fetuses were treated as property then, and and they are treated as property now.
So when I attempt to expand your background, the thing you note I could do...this.
I also found it interesting that in attempting to paint a certain picture in your criticism you used two short responses instead of the rule for my response that proceeded them. The longer consideration by point that led to the one short remark and the more curt rejection of a familiar sum on Pure's part.
Spin-doctoring notwithstanding, an economy of words serves just fine. Case and point: Your position is a basic though extreme measure, you aim to repeal or at least null/void the Roe v Wade ruling by establishing rights for the unborn with the intended and necessary aim of regressing/removing the current liberties from women offering the right of choice to an abortion procedure.
I see you're not a fan of the aphoristic style....nonetheless, I dare ask if my take on your abortion position is a mischaracterization or no?
genuineoriginal
New member
Sure it does.
At conception, what we have is a human being. The unjustified killing of a human being is murder.
Look up the meaning of the "genetic fallacy." This is a classic example.
Even if this were true — it's not in either case — you're not providing anything of substance to the argument against personhood.
Like your cherry picking comments to give an inaccurate sense of how most of Pure's advance was met by me without noting how none of my argument was met by him? :think: Or suggesting I disabuse you of a notion and then throwing darts not at the attempt, but the word count? That sort of thing?
lain:One man's economy is another's limited vocabulary. Or, more fairly, Hemmingway is grand, but so is Faulkner. The point is the message. The rest is style and it varies. I'd rather speak to the argument. So long as you have one you can draw it for all I care.
My position is an argument that ends in the logical necessity of protecting against the abrogation of a thing we aren't entitled to abrogate.
To the contrary, I use aphorisms all the time (see: any number of postings in Quixote's). I tend to find serious measures demand a bit more than aphorisms tend to generate, if the point is precision and clarity across a range of readers, instead of aiming for a particular seat in the bleachers, so to speak.
Your characterization of my approach with Pure was...as was the inference to the argument. Above? Let's look at it. To begin, killing where you can't rationally be sure if you're entitled to is more of an extreme measure. The next is better, but still in need of a word or two clarification, in that I'd say if the argument continues to hold Roe would have to be altered, with the only rational exception being a direct threat to the mother's life (and for those who say that never happens a family friend had that happen this week). It wouldn't be establishing the rights of the unborn though, only preventing us from killing a being who arguably has them. The argument isn't about drawing that line, only recognizing that in the absence of an objective means to establish it we can't act to end the life of a being who as arguably has it as not, etc. Lastly, you could say the slave owner had his rights regressed from his then current liberty to run an auction block, but I think it's more accurate to say a thing that shouldn't have existed was being addressed and an injury (in the present case in potential) altered.
Overall, the best way to sum me is in the argument itself, which isn't that complicated or particularly long. :e4e:
Neither argument/excuse is acceptable.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
only to those who can make their point clearly and succinctly
Anyone can do that.
Some points require more than a quick and easy answer. Some don't.
Delmar said he did not want any pro-choice respondents.
In other words, your answer is: "No quip your take was not a mischaractarization but rather I'm insulted at the effort you expended fleshing out the kernel of my unyielding position on abortion in such an unflattering way."
That wasn't so hard...was it?