HUMAN PERSONHOOD - THE CASE AGAINST ABORTION

[henry quirk]

Which loops back to what I posted earlier, in this thread and over in the 'person or meat?' thread...

When do human cells become a human person?

What or when is the dividing line?

You are not supposed to answer this question. You need to seek help from secular progressive experts trained to answer these questions. Just believe, obey, and pay the bills. Let the experts decide what you are believed incapable of understanding

Them s.p.e.s are like rats: in the walls, the floors, the attic. Beady lil eyes and dirty lil paws. Traps: lots of steel-toothed traps, that's what we need. Some lil rat hotels, the kind they never check out of, we need some of those too. Mebbe some mallets, to whack 'em when the s.p.e.s are out & about.

[Immanuel Can]

n.b. The word “parasite” does not appear in Sculptor’s post above. To me, “parasitic” possesses a fine difference.

Bosh.

Parasitism is a relationship, not a particular entity. But normal reproduction is in no way biologically parasitism. You might better call it symbiosis, but neither is really an apt descriptor. But S. is not known for his precision.

You're making excuses for incorrect and inflammatory language.

[Nick_A]

The author of this rticle sums ip the problem I cannot resolve even after a double scotch. It still seems like hypocrisy

https://www.frc.org/op-eds/fetal-homici ... f-abortion

This is the logical inconsistency of abortion. Why is the "consent of the pregnant woman" the parameter by which personhood is defined? Why is the killing of an unborn child considered "murder" when the woman wants her child, but just a "procedure" when she "chooses" to abort? "Wantedness" or "unwantedness" is not an adequate criteria for defining personhood. If the child in utero is defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development" while carried in the womb, should not her life be protected at all times? And when does anyone's choice determine the humanness and value of another person?

These questions remain unanswered by abortion advocates. Their silence is tragic and telling.

There is something very scary about this. It seems some people are allowed to determine if their lives have value. If a woman wants her baby it is a crime to kill it and if another woman doesn't it is aborted. The fetus has no intrinsic value. Its value is decided by a woman.

How long will it be before ex husbands are aborted for having parasitic effects on their ex?

[Walker]

n.b. The word “parasite” does not appear in Sculptor’s post above. To me, “parasitic” possesses a fine difference.

“parasitic” means similar to parasites with respect to some characteristic of parasites.

During pregnancy, the unborn child takes nourishment from the mother/host. This one thing is a characteristic of both an unborn human child and a parasite.


Read carefully before your emotions drive what you say.

A parasite ultimately kills the host, thus your metaphor.

I can assure you my friend, this is strictly an exercise in logic and rationality.

[Walker]

That they'll move to protect by way of the Endangered Species Act.

Windmills are exempt. Kill that nasty unhuman thing with a windmill. It looks like a souped-up tapeworm, which will also kill a human, and not be born to be human.

Thus the irrelevance of when it is human.

Cut out a gallbladder and it will never be human, unless you're harvesting organs then it will enter a symbiotic and not parasitic relationship with its new host, the organ recipient, and the symbiosis that makes it human is made possible by life. However, harvesting organs and abortion requires an unnatural human intervention. Natural birth does not, although human intervention can increase the odds of survival.

Can a gallbladder even be transplanted? Probably, if necessary.

What is natural is moral, in all things human.

[henry quirk]

windmills: Quixote went after 'em with good cause...windmills roam about at night when folks are asleep...they poison wells, piss on flowers, eat cats...they peek in windows and self-pleasure...they rob liquor stores then sprawl on street corners gettin' blitzed...they harass chicks and hector crones

windmills are bad eggs

[Immanuel Can]

windmills

Sooner or later, I'm taking one of those bad boys down.

[commonsense]

Which loops back to what I posted earlier, in this thread and over in the 'person or meat?' thread...

When do human cells become a human person?

What or when is the dividing line?

When I saw your earlier questions, all I could think to say was that I don’t know.

Then I could see that the bigger problem might be when those cells become potentially human, often called the moment life begins.

Then I recognized that since real rights take precedence over potential rights, it really makes no difference when fetal existence began.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the right involved in this conflict is the right to agency.

I abhor all killing, whether lawful or not. That is why it saddens me to see that philosophical morality favors abortion.

I will be repulsed by the act of abortion, but I will still be able to love the actor.

[Immanuel Can]

Which loops back to what I posted earlier, in this thread and over in the 'person or meat?' thread...

When do human cells become a human person?

What or when is the dividing line?

When I saw your earlier questions, all I could think to say was that I don’t know.

That's an honest enough answer: but we must think about what "not knowing" will rationalize.

Will it give you enough confidence to risk killing a human being in the most violent sort of way possible? It shouldn't, of course. Will it give you enough confidence to let a human being live? Not even a problem; it most definitely should.

So your default position should be anti-abortion, not a shrug and a "rip her to pieces anyway."

Then I recognized that since real rights take precedence over potential rights, it really makes no difference when fetal existence began.

There is no "right to an abortion." No such thing can be rationalized on any terms. That's a false claim they're making. So no "real" rights are even at stake -- except the right of the child to live.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the right involved in this conflict is the right to agency.

There is no "right to agency." There are always actions which are outlawed -- some because of social interests, and some because they're immoral. Nobody has the "right" as an "agent" to perform immoral actions. That's routine.

I abhor all killing, whether lawful or not. That is why it saddens me to see that philosophical morality favors abortion.

"Philosophical morality"?

There is no such unitary thing. What are you trying to appeal to here...Utilitarianism? Pragmatism? Nihilism? Kantianism? Emotivism? Which "philosophical morality" are you invoking?

I will be repulsed by the act of abortion, but I will still be able to love the actor.

That begs the whole question. You can "love" everybody. It doesn't entail that you must approve every actor's actions, or pretend that those actions are moral.

But what does it tell you that you are "repulsed" by what they do? It suggests you have a normal conscience, actually. Because the abortionists are very careful, as Nick pointed out, NOT to let women understand the process they are considering undergoing. One actual glance at what is being done...the violence of the process, the pain of the child, the body parts in a bin...will make any moral person vomit with nausea and shame.

If we respected agency, we'd be informing women...not working as hard as possible to keep them from understanding their agency.

[henry quirk]

windmills

Sooner or later, I'm taking one of those bad boys down.

film it...put it on the u-tube...don't forget to drop lots of f-bombs

[henry quirk]

"I could see that the bigger problem might be when those cells become potentially human, often called the moment life begins."

Well, you're startin' off on the wrong foot. When a woman conceives, automatically she carryin' human cells, and -- since the human cells are alive -- automatically she's carryin' human life.

The question I pose: when do those cells become a person? What's the threshold?

#

"Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the right involved in this conflict is the right to agency."

The woman's agency vs the baby's (or lil fetus-person's) life. Her right to choose vs his right to 'be'. At worst, she is prohibited from exercising her choice in one narrow range of behavior for nine months; for him, at worst, is death.

[commonsense]

"I could see that the bigger problem might be when those cells become potentially human, often called the moment life begins."

Well, you're startin' off on the wrong foot. When a woman conceives, automatically she carryin' human cells, and -- since the human cells are alive -- automatically she's carryin' human life.

The question I pose: when do those cells become a person? What's the threshold?

#

"Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the right involved in this conflict is the right to agency."

The woman's agency vs the baby's (or lil fetus-person's) life. Her right to choose vs his right to 'be'. At worst, she is prohibited from exercising her choice in one narrow range of behavior for nine months; for him, at worst, is death.

Points taken. Thanks for insightful discussion.

[Sculptor]

There is no valid objective case against abortion.

If life is sacred then the life of the woman takes precedence over a mere potential life and it is wholly her decision if she allows this parasitic foetus to grow inside her, taking her sustenance.
It's no business of anyone else but her.

When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder.
Simone Weil

You have proclaimed that this parasitic foetus lacks value so the desire to murder is justified. Seems clear enough. The only question is whose lives have value.

You cannot murder a piece of meat with no identity

[Sculptor]

This is exactly my view as well.

So... baby = parasite. That's your view? Because that's exactly what S. said.

You should note that the "life" of the woman isn't at all at stake, and is no issue here...she will most certainly live to kill her future babies, unless the abortionist kills her, which could also happen.

This woman has good options. She could have chosen not to create a child in the first place. That would have been moral. Or she could easily take the child to term and put her up for adoption...why doesn't she do that? They're short of babies. And there really is only one answer: it's because the woman in question is selfish to the point of homicide, so focused on her own feelings that she'd rather have her child die than live and be happy in somebody else's arms. That's the bottom line.

But for the child, "life" is absolutely the issue. The child will be torn to pieces and vacuumed into a sink, or have scissors shoved down the back of her neck and her spine sliced, skull vacuumed of brain, and then be thrown in a trash bin or sold for parts.

And it's the same thing, you think?

Parasite:
An organism that lives in or on an organism, its host, and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Clearly "parasite" is usually used to describe another species, but other than that the term fits.

[Immanuel Can]

Parasite:
An organism that lives in or on an organism, its host, and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

Clearly "parasite" is usually used to describe another species, but other than that the term fits.

Rubbish. What codswallop.

https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content ... /symbiosis

But the term "reproduction" is the correct one. None of the above relations pertains to pregnancy.