| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2012 11:28:47 AM · #401 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sorry for the abbreviation Judith. MR is medical shorthand for mental retardation.
Here's an interesting question. How would you show a one day old infant was sentient? |
Why don't you first make an argument that a fertilized egg is sentient? I think we are already in agreement that a one-day-old is fully human and has obtained personhood rights.
Message edited by author 2012-02-25 11:30:19. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 02:43:47 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sorry for the abbreviation Judith. MR is medical shorthand for mental retardation.
Here's an interesting question. How would you show a one day old infant was sentient? |
Why don't you first make an argument that a fertilized egg is sentient? I think we are already in agreement that a one-day-old is fully human and has obtained personhood rights. |
That's an odd request when sentience is part of the basis for your argument not his. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 03:31:34 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by yanko:
[quote=Judith Polakoff]
...What I find ironic in all of this is you would think religious people would be the ones carrying the pro choice banner since the embryo/fetus/baby would go to heaven if aborted ... |
Actually, unless they changed the rules in the catholic church since the last time I was involved... this is not true. An unbaptized child has NO chance of getting into heaven.
I am not certain of this, but I have heard that Pope Benedict reversed this decision in 2007, but I will leave that to practicing catholics since they would know.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 03:34:29 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I thought all newspapers were hotbeds of editorial liberalism... ;) |
...and you would be wrong. Most are informed, enlightened, and open minded maybe... but certainly not hotbeds of liberalism. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 04:08:24 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sorry for the abbreviation Judith. MR is medical shorthand for mental retardation.
Here's an interesting question. How would you show a one day old infant was sentient? |
Why don't you first make an argument that a fertilized egg is sentient? I think we are already in agreement that a one-day-old is fully human and has obtained personhood rights. |
That's an odd request when sentience is part of the basis for your argument not his. |
So you are arguing that something could be a person but not sentient? I guess the Republican debates provide some evidence for this argument, but still ... ;-) |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 05:51:51 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by yanko:
[quote=Judith Polakoff]
...What I find ironic in all of this is you would think religious people would be the ones carrying the pro choice banner since the embryo/fetus/baby would go to heaven if aborted ... |
Actually, unless they changed the rules in the catholic church since the last time I was involved... this is not true. An unbaptized child has NO chance of getting into heaven.
I am not certain of this, but I have heard that Pope Benedict reversed this decision in 2007, but I will leave that to practicing catholics since they would know.
Ray |
Oh I meant religious people in general. I'd imagine if you ask people on the street who believe in an afterlife, "Do babies go to heaven?" the answer would be a resounding yes. Well unless you ask someone who just got off a plane sitting next to crying baby for the past 3 hours then maybe some answers will differ a little. :P |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 06:05:21 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sorry for the abbreviation Judith. MR is medical shorthand for mental retardation.
Here's an interesting question. How would you show a one day old infant was sentient? |
Why don't you first make an argument that a fertilized egg is sentient? I think we are already in agreement that a one-day-old is fully human and has obtained personhood rights. |
That's an odd request when sentience is part of the basis for your argument not his. |
So you are arguing that something could be a person but not sentient? I guess the Republican debates provide some evidence for this argument, but still ... ;-) |
Yes, there are a lot of brain dead politicians in Washington so as you see personhood isn't all that exclusive to begin with. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 06:13:20 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Yes, there are a lot of brain dead politicians in Washington so as you see personhood isn't all that exclusive to begin with. |
... ah yes, but do they have a soul?
Ray |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 06:15:44 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sorry for the abbreviation Judith. MR is medical shorthand for mental retardation.
Here's an interesting question. How would you show a one day old infant was sentient? |
Why don't you first make an argument that a fertilized egg is sentient? I think we are already in agreement that a one-day-old is fully human and has obtained personhood rights. |
That's an odd request when sentience is part of the basis for your argument not his. |
Whether or not his argument rests on the sentience of the fertilized egg, he seeks to limit my freedom to exercise control over my body and, by extension, over my life in very fundamental ways. Therefore the burden is on him to make an argument that, first of all, that fertilized egg has any rights at all; and secondly, that if those rights exist they should supersede my right to control my body in the way I see fit (within the law, of course). |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 07:13:47 PM · #410 |
| I think Judith's argument hits the nail on the head. The personhood of the baby means everything because otherwise there would be no reasonable argument to limit the bodily autonomy of a woman. BUT, Richard is right too. I don't need to prove sentience because it was never part of my criteria for personhood. There is, of course, a very easy criteria that is quite defendable...being human. It seems self-evident that human rights can reasonably be granted to...humans. And if one takes this postulate then the unborn baby DOES have a say in the equation and Roe V. Wade itself admits that if this is the case then the automatic right of the mother to an abortion is suspect. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 07:38:01 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sorry for the abbreviation Judith. MR is medical shorthand for mental retardation.
Here's an interesting question. How would you show a one day old infant was sentient? |
Why don't you first make an argument that a fertilized egg is sentient? I think we are already in agreement that a one-day-old is fully human and has obtained personhood rights. |
That's an odd request when sentience is part of the basis for your argument not his. |
Whether or not his argument rests on the sentience of the fertilized egg, he seeks to limit my freedom to exercise control over my body and, by extension, over my life in very fundamental ways. Therefore the burden is on him to make an argument that, first of all, that fertilized egg has any rights at all; and secondly, that if those rights exist they should supersede my right to control my body in the way I see fit (within the law, of course). |
Oh I agree, he needs to make a compelling argument and I think he's trying to do just that. Now if you think there are logical inconsistencies then you should point them out but what I see you trying to get him to argue one of your points rather than trying to get him to prove his. Now my stance is simple. If it's a life then the default response should be to protect it just like any other unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. The reality is everyone here agrees with me on this stance when it applies to their own life. Unless I'm assuming too much, chances are everyone here is glad to be alive. If that's the case then what justification do you have to make that choice for someone else?
BTW, if you haven't already noticed I've been using the word choice a lot. To make a compelling pro-life argument I believe you have to be pro choice too. It's about two lives not one. This is in contrast to most pro-life and pro-choice, which to me is less about choice and more about being pro-self or pro-women, if you ask me but you didn't so never mind.
Message edited by author 2012-02-25 19:49:38. |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 07:43:29 PM · #412 |
| After the first few divisions, each of the 2, 4, 8 or 16 cells of a fertilized egg are still totipotent, with the potential to develop into a complete human being. If separated, you get twins, triplets, etc. if not, then perhaps we should consider every baby a mass murderer for failing to allow each cell to develop and live its life. Of course, each of THOSE cells would then divide into 2-16 potential people, and then each of those, and... omigosh it's genocide! |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 07:48:50 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
After the first few divisions, each of the 2, 4, 8 or 16 cells of a fertilized egg are still totipotent, with the potential to develop into a complete human being. If separated, you get twins, triplets, etc. if not, then perhaps we should consider every baby a mass murderer for failing to allow each cell to develop and live its life. Of course, each of THOSE cells would then divide into 2-16 potential people, and then each of those, and... omigosh it's genocide! |
Maybe we should lock you up for killing too many brain cells with that comment. :P |
|
|
|
02/25/2012 11:04:01 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Maybe we should lock you up for killing too many brain cells with that comment. :P |
I'm not sure they add up to a full person. ;-P |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 12:34:27 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think Judith's argument hits the nail on the head. The personhood of the baby means everything because otherwise there would be no reasonable argument to limit the bodily autonomy of a woman. BUT, Richard is right too. I don't need to prove sentience because it was never part of my criteria for personhood. There is, of course, a very easy criteria that is quite defendable...being human. It seems self-evident that human rights can reasonably be granted to...humans. And if one takes this postulate then the unborn baby DOES have a say in the equation and Roe V. Wade itself admits that if this is the case then the automatic right of the mother to an abortion is suspect. |
I'm not arguing about the personhood of a baby. As I said, we all agree that a one-day-old baby who has been born, and even an unborn fetus at some point in its development, has obtained personhood rights. I was arguing about the personhood of a fertilized egg. Since you would seek to also ban abortion in the earliest stages of a pregnancy, it's incumbent upon you to make an argument for why that fertilized egg should obtain personhood rights that are equal to or supersede the woman's rights. Is a human fertilized egg made up of human tissue, human cells, human DNA? Yes, that's self-evident. It's also self-evident that a human fertilized egg is also not yet a person. If you think otherwise... |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 01:16:57 PM · #416 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by yanko:
[quote=Judith Polakoff]
...What I find ironic in all of this is you would think religious people would be the ones carrying the pro choice banner since the embryo/fetus/baby would go to heaven if aborted ... |
Actually, unless they changed the rules in the catholic church since the last time I was involved... this is not true. An unbaptized child has NO chance of getting into heaven.
I am not certain of this, but I have heard that Pope Benedict reversed this decision in 2007, but I will leave that to practicing catholics since they would know.
Ray |
While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which Catholics are free to accept or reject. - Wikipedia
Furthermore, the Church has never had an official stance on that, only theory by various theologians which faithful are free to accept or reject. Personally, why anyone would believe a person would be sent anywhere but Heaven, if baptism was physically impossible, is beyond me as a pretty devoted Roman Catholic myself.
Message edited by author 2012-02-26 13:17:13. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 01:23:33 PM · #417 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Is a human fertilized egg made up of human tissue, human cells, human DNA? Yes, that's self-evident. It's also self-evident that a human fertilized egg is also not yet a person. If you think otherwise... |
Here's where I think your argument goes awry. The idea of "personhood" is not provable in a scientific sense, it is definable in a philosophical sense. Using the conventions of societal or relativistic morality we understand that a society can define for themselves who is a person and who is not. A society can grant personhood to whomever or whatever they want.
Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes (something that NEVER happens on rant). Consider the following two statements.
1) In a legal sense a fertilized egg is not a person in the US.
2) In a moral sense a fertilized egg is a person in the US.
The first statement is true and if that is your self-evident idea, then I agree. BUT, laws change. At one point blacks were not full persons. Now they are. The second statement is the statement up for debate and it is far from "self-evident" that there is an obvious answer (especially under a relativistic system).
I have proposed that personhood is granted to all human beings. It is a statement that could be accepted arbitrarily or accepted on the merits of its simplicity or its logic. You have yet to propose when and why personhood is granted. At times you seem to have requirements (like sentience) but they seem to change to suit your need (a one day old, you argue, is a person whether or not it fits a definition of sentience). So here is what I ask. Both sides of a debate have to have a position to defend. What is your position on personhood? When is it granted and why? What specific criteria are required to become a person? If you cannot articulate your position then honestly I have no respect for it. You have not fully thought through the moral dilemma of abortion. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 02:24:35 PM · #418 |
| "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" becomes a pretty silly question if you claim they're both chickens. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 04:47:18 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Is a human fertilized egg made up of human tissue, human cells, human DNA? Yes, that's self-evident. It's also self-evident that a human fertilized egg is also not yet a person. If you think otherwise... |
Here's where I think your argument goes awry. The idea of "personhood" is not provable in a scientific sense, it is definable in a philosophical sense. Using the conventions of societal or relativistic morality we understand that a society can define for themselves who is a person and who is not. A society can grant personhood to whomever or whatever they want.
Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes (something that NEVER happens on rant). Consider the following two statements.
1) In a legal sense a fertilized egg is not a person in the US.
2) In a moral sense a fertilized egg is a person in the US.
The first statement is true and if that is your self-evident idea, then I agree. BUT, laws change. At one point blacks were not full persons. Now they are. The second statement is the statement up for debate and it is far from "self-evident" that there is an obvious answer (especially under a relativistic system).
I have proposed that personhood is granted to all human beings. It is a statement that could be accepted arbitrarily or accepted on the merits of its simplicity or its logic. You have yet to propose when and why personhood is granted. At times you seem to have requirements (like sentience) but they seem to change to suit your need (a one day old, you argue, is a person whether or not it fits a definition of sentience). So here is what I ask. Both sides of a debate have to have a position to defend. What is your position on personhood? When is it granted and why? What specific criteria are required to become a person? If you cannot articulate your position then honestly I have no respect for it. You have not fully thought through the moral dilemma of abortion. |
And I have been waiting for you to articulate your position. You ask me a question -- what specific criteria are required to become a person? -- that you have yet to answer. So far your argument is: a fertilized egg is a human being because it is a person; or, (and it doesn't matter in which order, I think), a fertilized egg is a person because it's a human being. This does not make sense, and you haven't answered your own question.
My answer is that in order to be considered a human being/person, one must have at the very least a BODY! If a fertilized egg is a person, then it is a most peculiar person, one with no body, no brain, no heart, no lungs, no blood, no vital organs, not to mention the higher-order functions such as thought, emotion, sensation, desire, self-awareness (or awareness of any kind for that matter). If I put a fertilized egg in a line-up with actual human persons (like you and me), I think any 2-year-old would be able to pick out the one that didn't fit with the others.
Now, please tell me why I'm wrong or why you disagree. And please, no more shuckin' and jivin'. |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 04:55:35 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by SwordandScales:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by yanko:
[quote=Judith Polakoff]
...What I find ironic in all of this is you would think religious people would be the ones carrying the pro choice banner since the embryo/fetus/baby would go to heaven if aborted ... |
Actually, unless they changed the rules in the catholic church since the last time I was involved... this is not true. An unbaptized child has NO chance of getting into heaven.
I am not certain of this, but I have heard that Pope Benedict reversed this decision in 2007, but I will leave that to practicing catholics since they would know.
Ray |
While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which Catholics are free to accept or reject. - Wikipedia
Furthermore, the Church has never had an official stance on that, only theory by various theologians which faithful are free to accept or reject. Personally, why anyone would believe a person would be sent anywhere but Heaven, if baptism was physically impossible, is beyond me as a pretty devoted Roman Catholic myself. |
Like I said, I am unsure as to the current doctrine of the church, but I can absolutely guarantee you that in years past the prevailing belief was that an unbaptized child did not go to heaven. I clearly remember the priest telling me that very thing prior to my son's death.
Who knows... maybe he was mistaken.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 06:55:17 PM · #421 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by SwordandScales:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by yanko:
[quote=Judith Polakoff]
...What I find ironic in all of this is you would think religious people would be the ones carrying the pro choice banner since the embryo/fetus/baby would go to heaven if aborted ... |
Actually, unless they changed the rules in the catholic church since the last time I was involved... this is not true. An unbaptized child has NO chance of getting into heaven.
I am not certain of this, but I have heard that Pope Benedict reversed this decision in 2007, but I will leave that to practicing catholics since they would know.
Ray |
While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which Catholics are free to accept or reject. - Wikipedia
Furthermore, the Church has never had an official stance on that, only theory by various theologians which faithful are free to accept or reject. Personally, why anyone would believe a person would be sent anywhere but Heaven, if baptism was physically impossible, is beyond me as a pretty devoted Roman Catholic myself. |
Like I said, I am unsure as to the current doctrine of the church, but I can absolutely guarantee you that in years past the prevailing belief was that an unbaptized child did not go to heaven. I clearly remember the priest telling me that very thing prior to my son's death.
Who knows... maybe he was mistaken.
Ray |
You are correct Ray. Infants who were not baptized could not go to heaven but were supposed to go to "Limbo" because they were not free from "Original Sin". Sounds so silly doesn't it. :-( |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 06:58:20 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And I have been waiting for you to articulate your position. You ask me a question -- what specific criteria are required to become a person? -- that you have yet to answer. So far your argument is: a fertilized egg is a human being because it is a person; or, (and it doesn't matter in which order, I think), a fertilized egg is a person because it's a human being. This does not make sense, and you haven't answered your own question.
My answer is that in order to be considered a human being/person, one must have at the very least a BODY! If a fertilized egg is a person, then it is a most peculiar person, one with no body, no brain, no heart, no lungs, no blood, no vital organs, not to mention the higher-order functions such as thought, emotion, sensation, desire, self-awareness (or awareness of any kind for that matter). If I put a fertilized egg in a line-up with actual human persons (like you and me), I think any 2-year-old would be able to pick out the one that didn't fit with the others.
Now, please tell me why I'm wrong or why you disagree. And please, no more shuckin' and jivin'. |
+1
|
|
|
|
02/26/2012 07:16:16 PM · #423 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
...the prevailing belief was that an unbaptized child did not go to heaven. |
Just like everyone else. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/26/2012 08:17:53 PM · #424 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
...the prevailing belief was that an unbaptized child did not go to heaven. |
Just like everyone else. ;-) |
eew i dun wanna go to heaven all the uptight trolls are gonna be there...
|
|
|
|
02/26/2012 08:22:14 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And I have been waiting for you to articulate your position. You ask me a question -- what specific criteria are required to become a person? -- that you have yet to answer. So far your argument is: a fertilized egg is a human being because it is a person; or, (and it doesn't matter in which order, I think), a fertilized egg is a person because it's a human being. This does not make sense, and you haven't answered your own question.
My answer is that in order to be considered a human being/person, one must have at the very least a BODY! If a fertilized egg is a person, then it is a most peculiar person, one with no body, no brain, no heart, no lungs, no blood, no vital organs, not to mention the higher-order functions such as thought, emotion, sensation, desire, self-awareness (or awareness of any kind for that matter). If I put a fertilized egg in a line-up with actual human persons (like you and me), I think any 2-year-old would be able to pick out the one that didn't fit with the others.
Now, please tell me why I'm wrong or why you disagree. And please, no more shuckin' and jivin'. |
Read, girl, READ! I have laid out my position at least twice now. What specific criteria are required to become a person? Being a human being. Full stop. "Human" is a scientific term and can be determined quite easily. "Being" denotes the difference between an embryo (or a grown person) and a skin cell. One has all the needed potential to become or be fully grown, the other does not. Don't bother quibbling about the exact details here because the intent is obvious. A wart is not a being. A baby is. An embryo shares a special quality with the baby which makes it distinct from the wart. On the other hand a dog is a being, but isn't human.
The application is easy. If subject A is both human and has the full potential to become fully grown it is a human being and thus is a person.
Now what's your position? (and whatever it is I'll just assume Jeb +1's it...)
We can use test cases and you can explain why some are persons and others are not. I'll do it for my position:
A fertilized egg, a fetus with brain activity, a fetus with a heart beat, a viable fetus, an unborn term baby, an infant, an invalid, a person in a coma, a person with severe mental retardation (we can use the term "vegetable" though I don't mean that in any derogatory way), a monkey, a dolphin, a dog.
My position is easily applied. All are persons except the monkey, dolphin and dog on account of them not being human.
Message edited by author 2012-02-26 20:31:22. |
|
