Philosophy Now Forum

We are not talking about a person.

I think we are: so, no, I've moved no goalposts

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:05 pm
neonate:- What is you stance regarding abortion of an neonate?

person:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a person?

There is no way you can abort a neonate - that is definitilvely impossble.

Since "personhood" is a social categeory defined by law, its too late to abort a person too.

Historically the abandonment of neonates has been very common in history, though. Personhood waited until the new born was accepted as healthy and the family accepting the burden of a child.
Greek lit is full of such stories of babies being left on the hillsides to be exposed to the weather. In later urbanised environments babies were left in pots in the agora to a chance collection by childless couples, or slavers willing to raise the child.

There is no way you can abort a neonate - that is definitilvely impossble.

yeah, as I say, I'm not the one nit-pickin' the language


"personhood" is a social categeory defined by law

you, by your view, are a person cuz The State sez you are

what are you if The State sez you're not?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:19 pm Greek lit is full of such stories of babies being left on the hillsides to be exposed to the weather. In later urbanised environments babies were left in pots in the agora to a chance collection by childless couples, or slavers willing to raise the child.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Maybe pro-lifers would prefer that unwanted babies be left on hillsides after they're born. Or maybe there can be markets of babies in jugs for the countless unaborted, unwanted babies that need homes. That sounds like a great idea: force women to carry and birth babies to overwhelm our system and cause unnecessary and unimaginable suffering and live deaths. This is the horror that some people are too stupid to avoid.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:55 pm Why are you concerned whether one considers a baby a person or person a baby?

if baby is used as most folks do, to refer to what a pregnant woman carries, then the question of its personhood is what concerns us here, yeah?

but, okay, let's get technical...

embryo, fetus, neonate: person or meat?

Nah, but the the thing is you just wasted everyone's time over many pages of posts talking about something of total irrelevance - person\baby so what?

Now you insist that there is something technical - embryo, fetus, neonate: person or meat? btw. You forgot 'baby'

So. Oi - instead of posting an entire bunch of waffle for us to attempt to decipher - just clarify an answer to each of the points you raised..

embryo:- What is you stance regarding abortion of an embryo?

foetus:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a foetus?

neonate:- What is you stance regarding abortion of an neonate?

person:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a person?

meat:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a meat? (personally I tend to eat the stuff)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:43 pm

attofishpi wrote:...is a woman a murderer when she takes the morning after pill in the circumstance where pregnancy would have developed?

We'll address that....we'll get it it, I promise you.

SO.

...is a woman a murderer when she takes the morning after pill in the circumstance where pregnancy would have developed?

*sigh*

embryo:- What is you stance regarding abortion of an embryo?

cuz its a person: murder

foetus:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a foetus?

cuz its a person: murder

neonate:- What is you stance regarding abortion of an neonate?

as sculptor pointed out, you can't abort a neonate, but you can kill one which is murder

person:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a person?

if you abort the person before he's born: it's murder

if you kill the person after he's born without just cause: it's murder

meat:- What is you stance regarding abortion of a meat? (personally I tend to eat the stuff)

meat, as in not-a person: do as you like

-----

some thoughts on person and personhood

sculptor sez "personhood" is a social categeory defined by law

sure, okay

philosophically, though person refers to a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, and self-consciousness

personhood, therefore, is the state of having those qualities, capacities, or attributes

the question then becomes: when do these qualities, capacities, or attributes become active?

as I say in the twaddle atto won't read...

The bulk of the first trimester is a gray area for me. On one hand, the biological machinery isn't firmly set in place till around week 12, so -- from a purely materialistic position -- personhood isn't possible before that. But, on the other, as a deist, I believe the soul affixes at conception. My natural-rights libertarianism straddles both positions (and is of no help pinning this down for me). Best I can do in this conversation is play to the material side, and if I'm gonna do that I gotta say personhood begins at the end of the first trimester (even though my gut tells me it's at conception).

Certainly, from week 12 on, all the biological machinery (organs, nervous system, brain, etc.) is substantially in place. Purely from a materialist's point of view, the things needed for 'personhood' are in place. Anyone should be uncomfortable asserting what a pregnant woman carries from week 12 on is not a person.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:32 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:19 pm Greek lit is full of such stories of babies being left on the hillsides to be exposed to the weather. In later urbanised environments babies were left in pots in the agora to a chance collection by childless couples, or slavers willing to raise the child.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Maybe pro-lifers would prefer that unwanted babies be left on hillsides after they're born. Or maybe there can be markets of babies in jugs for the countless unaborted, unwanted babies that need homes. That sounds like a great idea: force women to carry and birth babies to overwhelm our system and cause unnecessary and unimaginable suffering and live deaths. This is the horror that some people are too stupid to avoid.

equally horrific to you must be the ever-growing population of old folks who, unable to tend to themselves, burden family and friends and tax the social safety net; and the physically and mentally disabled, they too burden family and friends and tax the social safety net

let's rid ourselves of them too

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:02 pm as I say in the twaddle atto won't read...

What didn't I read - I consider myself rather adept at speed reading - just prefer people be more concise - to me it's just polite.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:02 pmThe bulk of the first trimester is a gray area for me. On one hand, the biological machinery isn't firmly set in place till around week 12, so -- from a purely materialistic position -- personhood isn't possible before that. But, on the other, as a deist, I believe the soul affixes at conception. My natural-rights libertarianism straddles both positions (and is of no help pinning this down for me). Best I can do in this conversation is play to the material side, and if I'm gonna do that I gotta say personhood begins at the end of the first trimester (even though my gut tells me it's at conception).

Certainly, from week 12 on, all the biological machinery (organs, nervous system, brain, etc.) is substantially in place. Purely from a materialist's point of view, the things needed for 'personhood' are in place. Anyone should be uncomfortable asserting what a pregnant woman carries from week 12 on is not a person.

See, now I just read rather quickly picking up on key words, and all I see is either you possibly contradicting this thang of 'murder' or a gray area to you is WHAT PRECISELY??? - (remember we are talking about abortion) - what is 'gray' about the biological point in time in relation to with regards to abortion???

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:43 pm

attofishpi wrote:...is a woman a murderer when she takes the morning after pill in the circumstance where pregnancy would have developed?

We'll address that....we'll get it it, I promise you.

SO.

...is a woman a murderer when she takes the morning after pill in the circumstance where pregnancy would have developed?

To me, it's irrelevant.

God can say. I don't have to. Because I'm not going to murder anybody, either the morning after conception, or three trimesters later, or later than that.

And the woman in question does not have to involve herself in that problem either. She has restraint, good choices, contraception, and adoption as walls between her and murder. And if she hasn't taken any of those four options, then she will probably murder anyway. It's pretty clear she's committed to bad choices.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:24 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:43 pm We'll address that....we'll get it it, I promise you.

SO.

...is a woman a murderer when she takes the morning after pill in the circumstance where pregnancy would have developed?

To me, it's irrelevant.

Is it MURDER?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:09 pm equally horrific to you must be the ever-growing population of old folks who, unable to tend to themselves, burden family and friends and tax the social safety net; and the physically and mentally disabled, they too burden family and friends and tax the social safety net

let's rid ourselves of them too

Keeping old or ill people hooked up to life when they would rather be done with their life -- while devastating their families financially -- yes, that's stupid. Do you disagree?

The system is set up to support all sorts of people who want to be here, regardless of their condition -- which is why we don't need a billion unwanted babies added to the mix.

*sigh*

as a deist: I believe the soul (the source of personhood) affixes at conception

i understand, though, not everyone is a deist or believes the soul exists

so, if I'm a person (a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, and self-consciousness), and if I'm gonna look at things from a strictly materialist perspective, then I see the end of first trimester as the point where what a woman carries becomes a person

at 12 weeks what a woman carries has all the same biological machinery I do, biological machinery that, from a strict materialist's perspective, is responsible for my being a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, and self-consciousness

simply: if a particular and peculiar complexity of matter is what makes me a person, then that same particular and peculiar complexity of matter, present in what a woman carries at 12 weeks, makes what a woman carries a person

and: mebbe you ought to slow down when you read

speed readin' is costin' you comprehension (I'm pretty much done repeatin' myself)

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:37 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:09 pm equally horrific to you must be the ever-growing population of old folks who, unable to tend to themselves, burden family and friends and tax the social safety net; and the physically and mentally disabled, they too burden family and friends and tax the social safety net

let's rid ourselves of them too

Keeping old or ill people hooked up to life when they would rather be done with their life -- while devastating their families financially -- yes, that's stupid. Do you disagree?

The system is set up to support all sorts of people who want to be here, regardless of their condition -- which is why we don't need a billion unwanted babies added to the mix.

when they would rather be done with their life: how many old folks want out?

seems to the old wanna live as much as the young; the disabled as much as the able

a billion unwanted babies: a billion unwanted persons, a billion unwanted human beings

how unwanted are they? seems to me: lot's of folks want to adopt

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 6:38 pm *sigh*

as a deist: I believe the soul (the source of personhood) affixes at conception

i understand, though, not everyone is a deist or believes the soul exists

so, if I'm a person (a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, and self-consciousness), and if I'm gonna look at things from a strictly materialist perspective, then I see the end of first trimester as the point where what a woman carries becomes a person

at 12 weeks what a woman carries has all the same biological machinery I do, biological machinery that, from a strict materialist's perspective, is responsible for my being a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, and self-consciousness

simply: if a particular and peculiar complexity of matter is what makes me a person, then that same particular and peculiar complexity of matter, present in what a woman carries at 12 weeks, makes what a woman carries a person

and: mebbe you ought to slow down when you read

speed readin' is costin' you comprehension (I'm pretty much done repeatin' myself)

Certainly - earlier in this thread you claimed or at least considered that this SOUL was not 'affixed' until a later stage than conception.

Why is the SOUL component relevant?