Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:36 pm**

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:08 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:58 pm Okay, what is wrong with cutting off an early stage foetus?
The question is, "What is wrong with arbitrarily killing a person?"
That might be somebody's question, but it wasn't mine.

That's because your question was premised on a false assumption. You don't realize that a foetus and a person are the same thing.

Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off.
Yes, that is correct, but, again, I ask what is it about that situation that is wrong?

Murder. The aborter is trying to cut off a person.

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:37 pm**

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:29 pm

When do you believe the cluster or mass of human cells in a woman's womb becomes a person?

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:39 pm**

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:40 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:31 am
Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:24 am

What a crock! The pregnant woman knows it is a fetus, not a "baby" That's why she is contemplating an abortion, not infanticide.
She knows it will be a person, in every sense that word can have. And at all costs, she's ready to make sure that person never gets the "choices" or privileges or chance at a life that she's had. She does not fear two cells: she fears the existence of the person.

And you know it, too.
There are different words for humans in different stages of development.

That means nothing. There was once a different word for "slave," too..."property." That didn't make it right.

Calling a fetus a "baby" is clearly an intentional lie.

Nope. It's a biological fact. A fetus is not a cat or an emu. A human being, her child, is exactly what the aborter is trying to cut off. And she knows it.

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:49 pm**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:59 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:35 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:32 pm

Is it OK to abort a zygote or blastocyst if a person doesn't want to carry through with their pregnancy?
You're missing the point: it's a person that the aborter is trying to kill. She doesn't even care about a zygote. That tells you she knows exactly what she's really doing.
I might be missing the point. Are you suggesting that an abortion amounts to some kind of premeditated murder of a future to be person on the part of a pregnant woman?

I'm saying that abortion aims at murdering a person. And that's exactly what it is prized for doing...nothing less. If it did not achieve exactly that, no woman would even want it.

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:55 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm
LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 7:28 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2024 5:32 pm
Personhood isn't "conferred" at all. It's intrinsic. A person is a person, whether or not some other group of persons decide to agree she is.

If they don't, then to what do they "equate"? To fishes? To dogs? To emus? Obviously not. And there's nothing casual or even extraordinary about the realization that that is the case; the whole point of abortion is to cut off the existence of a person...not of a dog or emu. It's only because the baby will necessarily make the demands of a mother that any child, any fully-fledged person would, that they are even treated as problematic in the first place. What the woman is fearing is having to have a baby, a toddler, a child, and eventually, a teenager and adult. She doesn't fear the presence in the world of just another emu.
Most view fetuses as potential people (not emus). That is, not granted the rights and priveleges afforded to adults, or even minors. That is certainly their legal status.
"Most" what? And who's doing the "viewing"? A lot of what "most people" believe has always been simply untrue. At one time, "most" believed the world was flat. It didn't make it true.

And "legal status"? Well, "legal status" is the present decision of a merely human convention, not a divine fact. So it's hard to see what "the many" and "law" have to contribute to the discussion of the actual status of a particular act.

The answer would be that they are both after-the-fact judgments, and not at all guaranteed to be right, especially if the opinion of some "many" and some "law" fail to line up with truth -- as they have done in cases like slavery and racism, for example.

Well since you're spouting opinions, as are everyone else (including me), the popularity and reasoning behind those opinions are important, but these interpretations don't change opinions into facts which are "right".

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:58 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:34 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:29 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:19 pm I have a question...

At what point during pregnancy does the cluster or mass of human cells in a woman's womb become a person?
That is entirely dependant upon who is answering the question.
You can be certain that's not true.

Too late for that, I'm afraid; I'm already certain that it is true. Ask 100 people when an embryo/foetus/baby becomes a person, and you will probably get 100 different answers.

Whatever the answer may be, it's not "whatever you think it is.

Believe it or not, I have never really considered the question, so have never really thought of what the answer might be. "Person" is just a word, with a pretty loose definition.

Logically, there has to be a point at which a person is constituted, even if it were to be the case that nobody knows exactly when it is.

Well I'll leave you to figure out where that point is, Whereupon I may or may not agree with you.

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:58 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:08 pm Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off. If she would stay a couple of cells, there would be no problem at all.

Likewise, you killed a few future children when you decided not to rape women at gunpoint every chance you got. How many future children did you kill?

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:07 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:36 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:08 pm
The question is, "What is wrong with arbitrarily killing a person?"
That might be somebody's question, but it wasn't mine.
That's because your question was premised on a false assumption. You don't realize that a foetus and a person are the same thing.

Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off.
Yes, that is correct, but, again, I ask what is it about that situation that is wrong?
Murder. The aborter is trying to cut off a person.

You are avoiding answering my question, and just throwing around emotive terms like "murder", instead. Why is it not possible to have a grown-up conversation about why it is wrong to deny a foetus (correct term) the opportunity of developing into a fully formed human being? Don't worry, I'm no longer actually expecting a reasonable answer to that question.

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:13 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:37 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:29 pm
When do you believe the cluster or mass of human cells in a woman's womb becomes a person?

As I have just told IC, it isn't something I've thought about. The word, "person", is okay for casual conversation, but I can't see much use for it in a philosophical discussion.

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:19 pm**

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:55 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 1:06 pm
LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 7:28 am

Most view fetuses as potential people (not emus). That is, not granted the rights and priveleges afforded to adults, or even minors. That is certainly their legal status.
"Most" what? And who's doing the "viewing"? A lot of what "most people" believe has always been simply untrue. At one time, "most" believed the world was flat. It didn't make it true.

And "legal status"? Well, "legal status" is the present decision of a merely human convention, not a divine fact. So it's hard to see what "the many" and "law" have to contribute to the discussion of the actual status of a particular act.

The answer would be that they are both after-the-fact judgments, and not at all guaranteed to be right, especially if the opinion of some "many" and some "law" fail to line up with truth -- as they have done in cases like slavery and racism, for example.
Well since you're spouting opinions,...

Not at all. I'm pointing out facts.

All I'm doing is pointing out what abortion aims at...the murder of a person. The woman who aborts knows that, as do I. She wants to kill her child. If she were not going to be a child, the aborter wouldn't even bother. So we're agreed on the status of what she's doing; all we're disagreeing about is whether or not she's right to do it.

So if you want to call it an "opinion," it's an opinion which ever side already agrees upon: the goal of abortion is to cut off a child...nothing else.

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:21 pm**

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:34 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:29 pm That is entirely dependant upon who is answering the question.
You can be certain that's not true.
Too late for that, I'm afraid; I'm already certain that it is true.

Well, then, your application of logic has failed you, obviously.

A thing is what it is, regardless of opinions. If a child is a child, no "opinon" will make her otherwise; and if she is not, then "opinion" can't make her into one.

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:22 pm**

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:08 pm Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off. If she would stay a couple of cells, there would be no problem at all.
Likewise, you killed a few future children...

Never, of course.

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:23 pm**

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:07 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:36 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:19 pm
That might be somebody's question, but it wasn't mine.
That's because your question was premised on a false assumption. You don't realize that a foetus and a person are the same thing.

Yes, that is correct, but, again, I ask what is it about that situation that is wrong?
Murder. The aborter is trying to cut off a person.
You are avoiding answering my question,

The question is what we call "loaded," meaning, "already assuming the conclusion it wants." You don't get to declare a foetus a non-person in the question: you'd have to prove she is, first.

Go ahead.

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:26 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:22 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 2:08 pm Because it's the inevitable person, not "an early stage foetus" that the aborter is trying to cut off. If she would stay a couple of cells, there would be no problem at all.
Likewise, you killed a few future children...
Never, of course.

You could have raped those women to make future children. To make a future child, we need a little cell from a man and a little cell from a woman, and we just have to put them together. You had your little cells, didn't use them, you've chosen a lifestyle of premeditated murder. Why have you chosen this lifestyle?

Posted: **Mon Jul 15, 2024 4:28 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2024 3:39 pm
Nope. It's a biological fact. A fetus is not a cat or an emu. A human being, her child, is exactly what the aborter is trying to cut off. And she knows it.

Once again you are lying, and thus in thrall to your master, Satan. If you called a fetus "human", you would, at least, have a case. Calling it a "baby" is equivalent to calling an adult a baby, a baby an adult, or a septagenarian a teenager. All misrepresent (in your case inentionally) the truth about the age and stage of development of the organism involved.

The "biological fact" is irrelevant. You are a lying propagandist, who, according to you, will be reviled and shunned by God. Good luck in hell.

Philosophy Now Forum

Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

Re: Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!