Ice_nine Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 well that's your basic formula for killing off swaths of people and getting to act like a moralist. Rationalize that x group of people, aren't really people at all, but coming up with some rather arbitrary criteron (e.g. they're not "self-aware," they're too sick to live a productive "human" experience, the Negroid skull is clearly subhuman) and then killing them is ok. Quite simple really. I wouldn't say that's the evil of "our time," it seems to be an old trick or loophole once societies generally started caring about silly things like "human rights." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1346690477' post='2477883'] well that's your basic formula for killing off swaths of people and getting to act like a moralist. Rationalize that x group of people, aren't really people at all, but coming up with some rather arbitrary criteron (e.g. they're not "self-aware," they're too sick to live a productive "human" experience, the Negroid skull is clearly subhuman) and then killing them is ok. Quite simple really. I wouldn't say that's the evil of "our time," it seems to be an old trick or loophole once societies generally started caring about silly things like "human rights." [/quote] Being self aware isn't arbitrary. A fetus in the early weeks of pregnancy has no memories, no sense of self, and it never has had these things. There is no question that it would not be considered a person except for religious claims. Even Aquinas did not believe that the fetus had a soul the second conception occurred (although he believed abortion was wrong even before that time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 It is dangerous Hasan to take the power for yourself to decide if another human being is sufficiently "self aware." People before you have used their best judgment in that matter and come to the conclusion that human beings who are mentally ill, developmentally disabled or very old lack self-awareness and can be exterminated. I was wrong in my first post about one thing. This is not the great evil of our time. In fact, its America's original sin. Personhood in the United States 1787 - black human beings count as 3/5ths of "all other persons" 1868- black human beings count as "whole" persons 1973 - fetal human being is declared "non-person" ? - fetal human being counts as 3/5ths of a person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I'm surprised Hasan and frankly find it quite ironic that you, like so many others, support "the Human Rights Campaign" and yet are not interested in the extension of full human rights to all human beings, regardless of the age of their cell division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrestia Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1346692079' post='2477896'] There is no question that it would not be considered a person except for religious claims. [/quote] From a purely biological standpoint, it is an individual person. "Fetus" is just a word that describes the stage of development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1346692079' post='2477896'] Being self aware isn't arbitrary. A fetus in the early weeks of pregnancy has no memories, no sense of self, and it never has had these things. There is no question that it would not be considered a person except for religious claims. Even Aquinas did not believe that the fetus had a soul the second conception occurred (although he believed abortion was wrong even before that time). [/quote] don't be such a doofus. It is arbitrary to say "you are not self-aware, ergo, you shouldn't have legal protection" Making "consciousness" a criterion for personhood is arbitrary. Your point is irrelevant. Edited September 4, 2012 by Ice_nine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1346714486' post='2478008'] I'm surprised Hasan and frankly find it quite ironic that you, like so many others, support "the Human Rights Campaign" and yet are not interested in the extension of full human rights to all human beings, regardless of the age of their cell division. [/quote] I don't believe in an immortal soul. So I don't see any basis for prizing the rights of a division of cells over that of a woman. I think it gets more difficult once you start to get into the later months of pregnancy. And you do begin to run into the sort of issues that you are raising. But in the first few weeks I don't see how your arguments works since nobody could really make the case that a three week old fetus is a person worthy of the same rights as a developed woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1346736089' post='2478177'] don't be such a doofus.[/QUOTE] No. [QUOTE]It is arbitrary to say "you are not self-aware, ergo, you shouldn't have legal protection" Making "consciousness" a criterion for personhood is arbitrary. [/QUOTE] Why? What makes a person a person that does not involve the unprovable assertions of your religious faith? [QUOTE]Your point is irrelevant. [/quote] Well, you have a sock on your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzytakara Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1346739114' post='2478190'] Why? What makes a person a person that does not involve the unprovable assertions of your religious faith? [/quote] I think before my faith developed and before my parents had a certain talk with me about all things life related, I just had a hard time differentiating between say my new born baby sister and what she was inside my mother's womb. To me a person a person in all stages of development. But abortion isn't a black and white issue, there are certain instances where a woman became pregnant due to no fault of her own (rape, not improper birth control use) that blurs the issues of what is right and what isn't. I would never push my opinion on someone else, if its brought up I will defend it, but I would never force someone to do something they didn't want to do. I may be pro-life and I may state my opinions on the topic, but I don't think being Christian is about harassing people into having faith. I know Canada (where I am from) is at least working on making late term (third and I think second trimester as well) abortions illegal. That is a start to me, for as soon as the baby has reached a developmental state that it can live outside of the womb, it should not be aborted regardless of religious beliefs. Edited September 4, 2012 by jazzytakara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) Hasan, I think if you are playing dumb it is not really funny. Recongizing that a human fetus is a human being has nothing to do with whether they have an immortal soul. Biological scientists identify human beings by looking at chromosomal DNA. They refer to a human fetus as "human." A lot of them (most of them) don't believe in a soul either. From a pure science persepctive, a soul is not what makes a human being a human being. Its DNA. That is just hard science , like gravity. I think all human beings, regardless of age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation should be recongized as people. All human beings deserve equal human rights. Some people think we should get to pick and choose which human beings count as people. (Nazis, the KKK ... you apparently?) Edited September 4, 2012 by Lilllabettt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Why, in your opinion, is the human fetus an unworthy human being? Unworthy of human rights, I mean. Because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "real" person should look like? Because it is totally dependent on another for life? Other people have made those arguments, and they ended up gassing Jews and the disabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 [quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1346786097' post='2478358'] Why, in your opinion, is the human fetus an unworthy human being? Unworthy of human rights, I mean. Because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "real" person should look like? Because it is totally dependent on another for life? Other people have made those arguments, and they ended up gassing Jews and the disabled. [/quote] No. Because a fetus, at least in the early stages, has no conception of itself. It's not developed enough to give it now, or at any point in it's part, the qualities that really make a human being human. That's why late term abortion becomes more ethically tricky and I would side with prohibiting such procedures unless the health of the mother was in serious danger. Aquinas didn't believe in the ensoulment of a fetus until, I believe, 4o days after conception, was he a crypto-Nazi like me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) You keep talking about the soul thing. I keep telling you the soul has nothing to do with it. The scientific definition of a human being is determined by DNA, by chromosomes. Like you said earlier (didn't you) Aquinas thought abortion was wrong always. In his view the dignity of a human life was inviolable quite apart from theological speculations about whether there is a soul, or if this human being has a soul etc. If you want to base your definition of "human being" on some mystical philosophy, thats fine for YOU, but I don't think in democratic society a fetus, which is in every scientific objective way a human being, should be denied human rights because they don't measure up as "human" in your personal religious views. I think the sane thing for a multicultural, pluralistic society to do is to go by the objective, biological definition and not some dreamed up benchmarks for what a person is. Because not only are we incompetent judges of that kind of thing, it also frequently ends in murder. Edited September 5, 2012 by Lilllabettt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 What qualities make a human being human in your personal philosophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 lol Hassan, if Lilla ain't getting thru to you, I'm bowing out. This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with biological science. A fetus, a zygote etc is an individual human organism. He/she isn't self-aware. Infants aren't self-aware either. Irrelevant. That doesn't make them non-human, or sub-human because you and a bunch of modern ethicicists think self-awareness is a criterion for personhood and necessary for legal protection. That's not scientific. It cannot be empirically verified. It's a philosophic assertion that has ZERO grounds in biological science (again NOT that fetuses lack cognitive functions such as self-awareness, but that self-awareness is what gives a biological organism value) and it's a shiitake mushroom philosophical assertion at that. There's always someone here on phatmass whining about religious people forcing their unfounded beliefs into public policy, but it's ok I suppose to force unfounded beliefs into public discourse so long as they aren't religious. Then it's totes ok. Excuse the bitchiness. I'm off my meds and my tolerance for this brand of stupid has taken quite a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now