(March 27, 2014 at 3:57 am)Heywood Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 3:26 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Heywood, I'm interested in the idea that we grant personhood on the basis of potential. If you could expand...

Is a fertilised but unimplanted egg yet a person?

Oh and afraid I'm with the theist. Whilst I recognise that it's uniquely gender based issue I don't feel that one can exclude men from the debate.

Jacob, it is not that we grant personhood on the basis of potential. It is that we grant beings moral protection on the basis of future personhood. I think there is a subtle difference.

In my opinion a zygote is not a person. But remember it doesn't have to be a person to receive moral protection.

Ok, so in your view should a zygote have the same entitlement to protection as an embryo at, say, 5 weeks?

---

(March 27, 2014 at 3:38 am)tor Wrote: Anyway abort should be allowed but also avoided.
I watched vids and it's pretty fucking disgusting.

Most surgery is.

(March 27, 2014 at 4:08 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 3:57 am)Heywood Wrote: Jacob, it is not that we grant personhood on the basis of potential. It is that we grant beings moral protection on the basis of future personhood. I think there is a subtle difference.

In my opinion a zygote is not a person. But remember it doesn't have to be a person to receive moral protection.

Ok, so in your view should a zygote have the same entitlement to protection as an embryo at, say, 5 weeks?

---

(March 27, 2014 at 3:38 am)tor Wrote: Anyway abort should be allowed but also avoided.
I watched vids and it's pretty fucking disgusting.

Most surgery is.

Yeah and surgery is only done if necessary for health.
Nobody is doing surgery for funz.

(March 27, 2014 at 4:08 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 3:57 am)Heywood Wrote: Jacob, it is not that we grant personhood on the basis of potential. It is that we grant beings moral protection on the basis of future personhood. I think there is a subtle difference.

In my opinion a zygote is not a person. But remember it doesn't have to be a person to receive moral protection.

Ok, so in your view should a zygote have the same entitlement to protection as an embryo at, say, 5 weeks?

In my view any being with a future expectation of personhood should be given moral protection. That does not mean we need to go out of our way to insure its survival. It means we should not take action to insure its destruction.

(March 27, 2014 at 4:17 am)Heywood Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 4:08 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Ok, so in your view should a zygote have the same entitlement to protection as an embryo at, say, 5 weeks?

In my view any being with a future expectation of personhood should be given moral protection. That does not mean we need to go out of our way to insure its survival. It means we should not take action to insure its destruction.

An interesting moral stance. Does it extend to actual people? So for eg, if I see a child fall off a train platform onto the track, do I have a moral obligation to lift the child clear? (go out of my way to ensure its survival)? Or is it enough not to take action to ensure its destruction (push him off).

IUDs work by impeding implantation of a fertilised egg. Is this taking action to ensure its destruction?

---

(March 27, 2014 at 4:10 am)tor Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 4:08 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Ok, so in your view should a zygote have the same entitlement to protection as an embryo at, say, 5 weeks?

---

Most surgery is.

Yeah and surgery is only done if necessary for health.
Nobody is doing surgery for funz.

Or to look different...

(March 27, 2014 at 5:24 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: An interesting moral stance. Does it extend to actual people? So for eg, if I see a child fall off a train platform onto the track, do I have a moral obligation to lift the child clear? (go out of my way to ensure its survival)? Or is it enough not to take action to ensure its destruction (push him off).

Heywood can speak for himself; however, I think he should remember that the same group that makes abortion a political issue is the same group that would like to deny actual children the resources and services provided by programs like W.I.C., Food Stamps, Medicare, CHIP, etc. (US welfare programs).

Also, if a child is lucky enough to reach the age of 18 they are give a free Selective Service lottery card where they have a chance of winning an all expense paid trip to a region of the world they likely would never have visited to be put in mortal danger.

The sanctity of life bit is tiresome. The real reason they advocate against abortion is so that we have a steady stream of malnourished, undereducated, borderline destitute young adults with limited prospects to fill the ranks of a volunteer military.

(March 27, 2014 at 5:48 am)Cato Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 5:24 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: An interesting moral stance. Does it extend to actual people? So for eg, if I see a child fall off a train platform onto the track, do I have a moral obligation to lift the child clear? (go out of my way to ensure its survival)? Or is it enough not to take action to ensure its destruction (push him off).

Heywood can speak for himself; however, I think he should remember that the same group that makes abortion a political issue is the same group that would like to deny actual children the resources and services provided by programs like W.I.C., Food Stamps, Medicare, CHIP, etc. (US welfare programs).

Also, if a child is lucky enough to reach the age of 18 they are give a free Selective Service lottery card where they have a chance of winning an all expense paid trip to a region of the world they likely would never have visited to be put in mortal danger.

The sanctity of life bit is tiresome. The real reason they advocate against abortion is so that we have a steady stream of malnourished, undereducated, borderline destitute young adults with limited prospects to fill the ranks of a volunteer military.

I'd rather keep the argument theological and philosophical than political. For all I know he may be Chinese!

Abortion is a political subject.
Should it be legal, illegal, or unregulated?

(March 27, 2014 at 5:55 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I'd rather keep the argument theological and philosophical than political. For all I know he may be Chinese!

Understand, but politics is where the proof is that their concern ends as soon as the tyke is ejected from the womb. Besides, politics is philosophical.

(March 27, 2014 at 5:24 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 4:17 am)Heywood Wrote: In my view any being with a future expectation of personhood should be given moral protection. That does not mean we need to go out of our way to insure its survival. It means we should not take action to insure its destruction.

An interesting moral stance. Does it extend to actual people? So for eg, if I see a child fall off a train platform onto the track, do I have a moral obligation to lift the child clear? (go out of my way to ensure its survival)? Or is it enough not to take action to ensure its destruction (push him off).

IUDs work by impeding implantation of a fertilised egg. Is this taking action to ensure its destruction?

A)Attempt to push a child into the path of an on coming train.
B)Not attempt to save a child who has fallen in front of an on coming train.

A is not the same thing as B. A is analogous to abortion. B is not analogous to abortion. I fear you are attempting to conflate A with B....but to answer your question I would say yes, you have some obligation to lift the child from the tracks.

---

(March 27, 2014 at 6:04 am)Cato Wrote:

(March 27, 2014 at 5:55 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I'd rather keep the argument theological and philosophical than political. For all I know he may be Chinese!

Understand, but politics is where the proof is that their concern ends as soon as the tyke is ejected from the womb. Besides, politics is philosophical.

I would get rid of food stamps and WIC and give poor people money instead. The problem with being poor is not having any money. The reason people on left and the right like food stamps, housing assistance and such is they think poor people are too irresponsible to make good decisions....so they want to make those decisions for them. I disagree....but that is a political discussion...maybe one day I will do a thread in politics on a negative income tax.

One thing that troubles me about pro-lifers (and I do take their arguments seriously) is this idea that a fetus has personhood rights on the basis of its potential to be a sentient being or in virtue of its human DNA. That's all fine but it seems like if one is going to value the status of a fetus, which is presumably not conscious or aware (question: is it perceptive? I don't see how) then pro-lifers should be adamantly against the way other conscious and sentient animals are treated.