| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 26 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: If I thought they had souls it wouldn't change it for me. The bodily autonomy argument is sound regardless of the humanity of the dependent party. oh really? then what's your theory for why we prosecute negligent parents who don't want to provide for their children? | ||
KwarK
United States44311 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:03 IgnE wrote: oh really? then what's your theory for why we prosecute negligent parents who don't want to provide for their children? We prosecute child abuse. We don't prosecute surrendering children to the state as far as I am aware. The difference being that once they're born you can opt out without killing them and if you choose not to opt out then you're assuming responsibility. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5866 Posts
On April 26 2017 00:56 KwarK wrote: The metaphor just doesn't work. I wouldn't be taking your food against your will, you would be choosing to feed me after imprisoning me. You could just let me go. An appropriate metaphor would need the following components. 1) Every time the captor tried to eat the prisoner would restrain them and help themselves to the content of the plate, leaving the captor only what remained. 2) The captor could be forced to have a prisoner against their will by a third party. 3) Every day the prisoner remains restrained there is a considerable chance that they will kill the captor and themselves. 4) The captor may have had no intention of taking a prisoner. 5) If the captor chooses to no longer keep the prisoner a prisoner then the prisoner dies. 1) The metaphor can account for that. Let's say I have my fridge in the basement and have no other source of food. I am not directly feeding you. You can help yourself to my food and limit the amount of food I can eat. 2) My argument doesn't deal with rape. No agency on the mother's side leads to an impasse, I agree (but it also does not lead to the conclusion that the mother's bodily autonomy should take precedence). 3) That can also be accounted for. I don't see a problem. 4) But knew there is a risk of this happening. 5) Or rather: releasing the prisoner necessitates killing him/her. That is the crux of the problem. Your liberty ends just where my nose begins. The mother's choice is limited as a consequence of her earlier choice. On April 26 2017 00:58 IgnE wrote: oh you don't think atheists believe in soul-stuff? Most most likely don't. Either way, I don't. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10954 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:07 KwarK wrote: We prosecute child abuse. We don't prosecute surrendering children to the state as far as I am aware. The difference being that once they're born you can opt out without killing them and if you choose not to opt out then you're assuming responsibility. so in a world without a state apparatus to provide adoption services it would be morally permissible to let any dependents incapable of living on their own die? | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5866 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:09 farvacola wrote: Why don't you believe in soul-stuff, maybenexttime? Define soul-stuff. The role that was historically attributed to a soul is currently attributed to brain functions. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44311 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:07 maybenexttime wrote: 1) The metaphor can account for that. Let's say I have my fridge in the basement and have no other source of food. I am not directly feeding you. You can help yourself to my food and limit the amount of food I can eat. 2) My argument doesn't deal with rape. No agency on the mother's side leads to an impasse, I agree (but it also does not lead to the conclusion that the mother's bodily autonomy should take precedence). 3) That can also be accounted for. I don't see a problem. 4) But knew there is a risk of this happening. 5) Or rather: releasing the prisoner necessitates killing him/her. That is the crux of the problem. Your liberty ends just where my nose begins. The mother's choice is limited as a consequence of her earlier choice. You can't go "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins" with pregnancy. It just doesn't work. The point of that metaphor is that you have liberty right up until you choose to interact with other people. If one party lives inside the other party then one of them has to lose their liberty. There is no "you control your body, I'll control mine". They live in the same body. It just doesn't work. You keep repeating these platitudes about bodily autonomy and liberty and none of them apply in the least bit to the situation at hand. Let's go full violinist. You're out one night and meet this hot girl. You go back to her place and you fuck with a condom. You then fall asleep. You wake up in a strange room hooked up to a strange machine. A complete stranger is also hooked up to the machine. You reach to unhook yourself and the stranger says "Stop, if you unhook yourself I'll die, I have a rare disease and we're a match and your organs are keeping me alive. My crazy ex-girlfriend abducted you because she didn't want me to die". Do you unhook yourself? On the one hand, it'd kill him. On the other, you don't want to be trapped in the machine. But you did have sex, this was always a risk, even with a condom. So maybe you chose for this to happen. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:13 maybenexttime wrote: Define soul-stuff. The role that was historically attributed to a soul is currently attributed to brain functions. do fetuses have brain functions? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44311 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:11 IgnE wrote: so in a world without a state apparatus to provide adoption services it would be morally permissible to let any dependents incapable of living on their own die? Morally? Perhaps not. Legally? Preferable to legally mandated slavery to keep them alive. You're pushing for a choice between two extremes here. Either an individual can declare that a dependent is not their responsibility and allow them to die or an individual who attempts to refuse responsibility must be declared a slave to their dependent. It's a pretty silly hypothetical but since you're pushing for it, I choose the former. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. It displays wants and needs and has a mind of its own. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience and any actual "humanity" of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:17 KwarK wrote: Morally? Perhaps not. Legally? Preferable to legally mandated slavery to keep them alive. You're pushing for a choice between two extremes here. Either an individual can declare that a dependent is not their responsibility and allow them to die or an individual who attempts to refuse responsibility must be declared a slave to their dependent. It's a pretty silly hypothetical but since you're pushing for it, I choose the former. i mean if you don't think we persons have any obligations to any other person then you are at least being consistent. personally i think its more than a little abhorrent that you think it would be morally permissible for a parent of a seven year old kid to abandon them to certain death simply because they got tired of "providing for them" by such actions as sharing food because they didn't want to be a "slave". so my comments about the rationale for abortion were directed towards people who believe that morality does in fact dictate some moral obligations to others edit: or to sharpen it up even further. if we were on a desert island together and i had all the food and you had none and were starving i think i would be morally required to share with you. if you think thats slavery then fine. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:21 Leporello wrote: Yes. Human brain-functions. I'm generally pro-choice, but I can't quite the understand the detachment in saying that a late-term fetus has no bodily rights. Shortly before birth, it's just a baby in the womb. A cesarean operation, for example, doesn't endow the baby with sentience. It's just opening up the womb and removing the baby that exists. You can't say it's removing a parasite. Parasitic=/=parasite. A late-term fetus is parasitic, absolutely. But it is not, factually speaking, a parasite. Denying the sentience of a late-term fetus doesn't do pro-choicers any credit. This is exactly the type of middle-ground that both sides need to move towards, and where we should rely heavily on clinical metrics. By which I don't mean calling it a parasite. I love House MD as much as anybody, but it's a bit sensationalist, imo. so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44311 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:25 IgnE wrote: i mean if you don't think we persons have any obligations to any other person then you are at least being consistent. personally i think its more than a little abhorrent that you think it would be morally permissible for a parent of a seven year old kid to abandon them to certain death simply because they got tired of "providing for them" by such actions as sharing food because they didn't want to be a "slave". so my comments about the rationale for abortion were directed towards people who believe that morality does in fact dictate some moral obligations to others I said it wouldn't be moral. I'm not sure where you're getting "morally permissible" but I specifically addressed the difference between that which is moral and that which should be legally enforced. This can't be the first time you've ever heard of someone having differing views on morality and legality. I answered your question from both a moral and a legal perspective in order to carefully illustrate the difference between the two and you promptly took my legal answer and claimed it was my moral one. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:27 IgnE wrote: so do you eat pork? do you think a post-birth baby has more or less "human-like" brain functions than an adult pig? do you eat octopus? I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. A late-term fetus has sentience. It is human sentience. Abstract, and in many ways, lesser. But still human. This is going right off the deep-end. Again, denying the human-nature of late-term fetuses is really just fuel for the fire, and nothing more. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44311 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote: I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. I'm assuming he was addressing the question of sentience. There isn't any evidence that newborns are sentient, as far as I know. Obviously human babies are more human than pigs, but I'd bet on the pig to pass a mirror test before a newborn baby. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:29 KwarK wrote: I said it wouldn't be moral. I'm not sure where you're getting "morally permissible" but I specifically addressed the difference between that which is moral and that which should be legally enforced. This can't be the first time you've ever heard of someone having differing views on morality and legality. ok i misread it. but you did include the "perhaps" which makes me wonder why you have to hedge your bets or why you think we should legally allow something as morally impermissible as killing a person (endowed with personhood) who is dependent on us? obviously morals are not laws but your argument was about the immorality of abortion here. the justification for "legal permissibility" always hinged only on the arbitrary dictates of the state and has no force beyond that arbitrariness. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5866 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:14 KwarK wrote: You can't go "Your liberty ends just where my nose begins" with pregnancy. It just doesn't work. The point of that metaphor is that you have liberty right up until you choose to interact with other people. If one party lives inside the other party then one of them has to lose their liberty. There is no "you control your body, I'll control mine". They live in the same body. It just doesn't work. You keep repeating these platitudes about bodily autonomy and liberty and none of them apply in the least bit to the situation at hand. I disagree. The mother doesn't lose her liberty. Her liberty is simply limited, as a consequence of her earlier choice (even if unintended). We have our liberty limited in a multitude of ways, doesn't mean we lose it completely. The mother can exert her bodily autonomy in many ways, just not in a way that infringes on the fetus's bodily autonomy. Not to mention the fact that you have yet to present an argument from which it would follow that it's the mother's bodily autonomy that should take precedence. You said that when the parents abstain from surrendering the child to the state, they automatically assume responsibility. Similarly, I argue that the same happens when people choose to partake in an activity that can lead to a pregnancy. Let's go full violinist. You're out one night and meet this hot girl. You go back to her place and you fuck with a condom. You then fall asleep. You wake up in a strange room hooked up to a strange machine. A complete stranger is also hooked up to the machine. You reach to unhook yourself and the stranger says "Stop, if you unhook yourself I'll die, I have a rare disease and we're a match and your organs are keeping me alive. My crazy ex-girlfriend abducted you because she didn't want me to die". Do you unhook yourself? On the one hand, it'd kill him. On the other, you don't want to be trapped in the machine. But you did have sex, this was always a risk, even with a condom. So maybe you chose for this to happen. Are you telling me that being kidnapped is a possible consequence of having sex, one that I should be aware of? No, it's not, don't be silly. | ||
|
Yurie
12168 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:34 IgnE wrote: ok i misread it. but you did include the "perhaps" which makes me wonder why you have to hedge your bets or why you think we should legally allow something as morally impermissible as killing a person (endowed with personhood) who is dependent on us? obviously morals are not laws but your argument was about the immorality of abortion here. the justification for "legal permissibility" always hinged only on the arbitrary dictates of the state and has no force beyond that arbitrariness. Morality changes over time. There were long periods where having slaves (or similar) was morally acceptable and common. Anything talking about morality should use qualifiers about what we consider morally right at this time since it will change to be stricter or more allowable. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 26 2017 01:30 Leporello wrote: I was a vegetarian for many years. But, uh, what? We're talking about human babies. Not pigs. I'm genuinely not sure what this comparison is supposed to prove. But, yes, I do think a human baby is more human than an adult pig... Wow. A late-term fetus has sentience. It is human sentience. Abstract, and in many ways, lesser. But still human. This is going right off the deep-end. Again, denying the human-nature of late-term fetuses is really just fuel for the fire, and nothing more. so you are talking about soul-stuff here. "human-nature?" ousia? what makes it human? dna? a blastocyst is also human? are you telling me ANY level of consciousness in combination with human dna is privileged with all the rights of a human person? do you not see how that is just essentialist soul-stuff? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
GSL
Yamato Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
