John S
How much have you studied history? Slave owners in America were not allowed to murder their slaves or torture them because they were considered human. "In State v. Hoover (1839) the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for a master who tortured his slave to death. Shortly before the Civil War, a few Southern states made rape of a slave a crime, although there is no instance of a white man being prosecuted for such a crime." Paul Finkelman, author of several books on American slavery and law.
Laws have varied over time and in different places. The Bible allows for some form of slavery so man being created in the image of God is not a sufficient argument for Abolition. I don't think my moral code allows for slavery, murder, or most other crimes. Therefore, I think it is a superior system when weighed by the outcomes of its implementation.
I get that your shtick as a blogger is to be inflammatory and argumentative, but when we strip the name-calling and silliness away from your posts, there's nothing left. It just doesn't feel productive. I've stated repeatedly what my moral code is, I've cited philosophical grounding for it (Kant, Bentham, the long tradition of Humanism), and I've provided definitions for seemingly every word I've used. I've told you what I believe and why. I honestly don't know what other kinds of justification you want.
Please provide a positive argument for your definitions. Explain to me why we should define the conceptus as a human.
Rhology
And the Dred Scott decision? 3/5 of human ≠ human.
True, your moral code doesn't allow for slavery, murder, or most other crimes, but how many times do I have to ask you to justify your moral code and tell us why it's correct before you'll do so?
You said:
--"I think it is a superior system when weighed by the outcomes of its implementation."
Well, I'm sorry, but that judgment merely begs the question that your moral code is the correct one by which to judge outcomes.
You said:
--"the name-calling and silliness away from your posts"
Would it be asking too much if I asked you to quote me calling you a name?
You said:
--"Explain to me why we should define the conceptus as a human"
B/c:
-of all the things I've said so far wrt the relatedness of murder, kidnapping, and slavery.
-"viability" is fraught with absurdities as I've demonstrated.
-the point of conception is the only time in the life of the baby at which bestowing rights is not arbitrarily up to the whim of the powerful.
-it's the verdict of science - http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
-it is a simple matter to reduce any pro-choicer to absurdity by taking a stepwise order of questioning. Like so:
Prochoice: Life begins with brainwaves
Prolife: What about one second before brainwaves occur? Is it human life then?
Etcetera.
-a new human begins at conception - DNA, blood type, all that stuff.
-size or physical appearance, level of development, environment (ie, physical location), and degree of dependency do not affect personhood/humanity in any other case, so why would we think it affects it in this case?
-most importantly, b/c God has decreed that's when life begins, and you don't get to change it nor supersede His authority. It's not your life to take, and it's not the mother's either. Your argument is with God. You may not believe in God, but that changes nothing about the reality of the situation. You may say that the God hypothesis is irrational, but your absurd answers (and non-answers) to my questions belie the truth that's not the case.
One will search in vain for that level and quality of argumentation in the pro-baby-murder camp. Nothing to do with me, everything to do with truth.
12 comments:
size or physical appearance, level of development, environment (ie, physical location), and degree of dependency do not affect personhood/humanity in any other case, so why would we think it affects it in this case?
They don't affect their personhood (which is not the same as humanity), but they do affect the type and extent of the rights accorded to that person, and the corresponding responsibilities of others towards that person. It is therefore perfectly acceptable to claim that a foetus has less rights than a newborn, in exactly the same way as a newborn has less rights than an adult. As I said, the question is what type and extent of rights do they have.
"size or physical appearance, level of development, environment (ie, physical location), and degree of dependency do not affect personhood/humanity in any other case, so why would we think it affects it in this case?"
Perhaps they don't affect personhood (which is different to humanity, a gap through which many things might slip in your argument) but they do affect the type and extent of rights given to that person (and the corresponding responsibilities towards them by others).
(Sorry about the dumb spam filter)
but they do affect the type and extent of the rights accorded to that person,
1) Argument?
2) If I'm bigger and older than you, do I get a bigger vote than you? If I vote to kill you and you vote that I can't, do I win b/c I'm bigger and older?
If not, why doesn't that follow from what you said?
1) Argument? 2) If I'm bigger and older than you, do I get a bigger vote than you? If I vote to kill you and you vote that I can't, do I win b/c I'm bigger and older? If not, why doesn't that follow from what you said?
You just provided the argument yourself. If you are 20 and I am 14, then you get to vote in elections and I don't, QED. Note that we're not discussing the specifics of those rights (i.e. whether you can vote to kill me) - that's irrelevant here.
Your argument is that "size or physical appearance, level of development, environment (ie, physical location), and degree of dependency" do not affect the a person's rights, and this is demonstrably false.
Why is whether I can kill you irrelevant here? That's THE question at hand in abortion.
And is voting a right? Or a privilege? How do you know it's a right?
Why is whether I can kill you irrelevant here? That's THE question at hand in abortion. And is voting a right? Or a privilege? How do you know it's a right?
Your assertion was that "size or physical appearance, level of development, environment (ie, physical location), and degree of dependency do not affect personhood/humanity in any other case, so why would we think it affects it in this case?"
My point is simply that it does not affect personhood, but that it does affect the rights afforded to that person, and the corresponding responsibilities of others towards that person. It is the latter that is the relevant issue here.
Please clarify whether you agree or disagree with me, and then we can hopefully move on to the issues that follow on from that point.
In the context of this discussion of abortion, no, I don't agree.
But I don't see why, if SLED does indeed affect rights in the way you propose, I don't have the right and justifiable freedom to kill you if I feel like it.
You also didn't answer the question about voting. Why consider it a right (rather than a privilege)? Or perhaps you have another example.
Please, answer the question: do you agree that "SLED" does affect the rights we give to people?
Or do you think that foetuses have the right to vote, to drink, to drive and to bear arms?
Are those rights?
Are those rights?
Yes.
Now please answer my question.
I disagree that those are rights. Please make an argument to that effect.
Post a Comment