Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: Happy_Weasel on May 01, 2006, 07:33:28 PM

Title: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: Happy_Weasel on May 01, 2006, 07:33:28 PM
I know....old divisive topic. So sue me.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: Ever on May 01, 2006, 07:38:09 PM
Why!? Why must you stoke the fires of an issue which cannot be resolved given the values of those who support the opposing views?!
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: Happy_Weasel on May 01, 2006, 07:42:43 PM
I understand, but something has to give.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: fatchance on May 01, 2006, 08:15:45 PM
Well, here goes...



So, i believe that we all agree that Babies outside of the womb are human persons..

And some argue that the "Unborn" (that should be neutral enough) are not human persons..
 
Then what difference between the two disqualifies the Unborn from personhood?
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: Happy_Weasel on May 01, 2006, 08:19:10 PM
Well, here goes...



So, i believe that we all agree that Babies outside of the womb are human persons..

And some argue that the "Unborn" (that should be neutral enough) are not human persons..
 
Then what difference between the two disqualifies the Unborn from personhood?

I guess some of us are a bit dumbfounded by the idea that someone you cannot see or feel is a person, it seems pretty....umm....suspcious to us. Also, you don't live in a house that's not finished.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: fatchance on May 01, 2006, 08:26:08 PM
Im confused about the see or feel question.

What does seeing or feeling have to do with anything?

If you cant see someone are they not a person? Shall we aquit a blindman of a crime just because he cannot see? After all he cannot see them, they must not be persons?

And feeling falls the same way.

Also, I cannot see you right now, but you are still a person. :)



Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: Happy_Weasel on May 01, 2006, 08:48:50 PM
Im confused about the see or feel question.

What does seeing or feeling have to do with anything?

If you cant see someone are they not a person? Shall we aquit a blindman of a crime just because he cannot see? After all he cannot see them, they must not be persons?

And feeling falls the same way.

Also, I cannot see you right now, but you are still a person. :)





Yea, but we are talking about someone that no one can see,feel,hear or anything. Also, would you live in an unfinished house? A newborn baby is complete, an embryo isn't. Why do we have to expand the moral circle at the harshest expense of those already in it?  :) What is it with anti-choicers and the smiley face, anyway, its kinda queer.  :P  ::) Is it some type of trying to feel superior or perhaps it is part of the culture of nullification? I blame the introduction of drugs such as Lithium,Prozac,Lexapro,Respirdol and other anti-depressants onto the general population.

Make one joke about mandatory abortion in high school and it haunts you for years... I'm not making that mistake again.

What part of "diddy mao" don't you understand?  :)
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: King Dunson on May 01, 2006, 09:02:29 PM
I don't think abortion should be legal.  I do not see the difference between that and murder.  Even if I were to concede some abortion rights, the legislation should certainly not give women full discretion, nor should it allow healthy, financially stable women to abort their babies.  I think it is wrong to end a life.  I think people need to have sex responsibly and accept all the consequences of their actions.  I think the argument that "it's my body" is completely and utterly unconvincing.  I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  I hope it will be soon. 

Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: Happy_Weasel on May 01, 2006, 09:03:44 PM
I don't think abortion should be legal.  I do not see the difference between that and murder.  Even if I were to concede some abortion rights, the legislation should certainly not give women full discretion, nor should it allow healthy, financially stable women to abort their babies.  I think it is wrong to end a life.  I think people need to have sex responsibly and accept all the consequences of their actions.  I think the argument that "it's my body" is completely and utterly unconvincing.  I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  I hope it will be soon. 



What about the death penalty then? You're Catholic, right?
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: fatchance on May 01, 2006, 09:06:03 PM
Seeing or feeling have nothing to do with personhood. You didnt defeat my argument, you merely repeated yours. I cannot see or feel you, do you forfit your own personhood?

I chose the word Unborn for neutrality. I dont call them babies (since that begs the question) because you dont think they are babies. Calling it an embryo assumes the very position you are trying to prove. No matter, call it what you wish.

As for the embryo being underdeveloped, I believe this misses too. Teenagers arent fully developed but we cannot use them as doormats. People with birth defects arnet fully developed, they are still persons. Developement does not matter.

As far as the smiley face goes, I simply meant to show good will. This debate can get ugly sometimes and I was trying to keep it kind.

As far as being Anti-choice (which seems a bit loaded) I prefer anti-abortion (since pro life would be loaded too).
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: King Dunson on May 01, 2006, 09:06:16 PM
I don't think abortion should be legal.  I do not see the difference between that and murder.  Even if I were to concede some abortion rights, the legislation should certainly not give women full discretion, nor should it allow healthy, financially stable women to abort their babies.  I think it is wrong to end a life.  I think people need to have sex responsibly and accept all the consequences of their actions.  I think the argument that "it's my body" is completely and utterly unconvincing.  I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  I hope it will be soon. 



What about the death penalty then? You're Catholic, right?

The death penalty is absolutely immoral.

I am Catholic in background, not practice and am unsure about the existence of God and Jesus.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: Happy_Weasel on May 01, 2006, 09:12:00 PM
I don't think abortion should be legal.  I do not see the difference between that and murder.  Even if I were to concede some abortion rights, the legislation should certainly not give women full discretion, nor should it allow healthy, financially stable women to abort their babies.  I think it is wrong to end a life.  I think people need to have sex responsibly and accept all the consequences of their actions.  I think the argument that "it's my body" is completely and utterly unconvincing.  I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.  I hope it will be soon. 



What about the death penalty then? You're Catholic, right?

The death penalty is absolutely immoral.

I am Catholic in background, not practice and am unsure about the existence of God and Jesus.

Yes, I have wondered if society should adopt an absolute or narrow life principle, instead of one construed to social interest. Then again, what do we do with abortionists in the absolute principle and when does the killing stop in the narrow life principle?
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: H4CS on May 01, 2006, 09:27:20 PM
I chose the word Unborn for neutrality. I dont call them babies (since that begs the question) because you dont think they are babies.

Words have meanings; the word you're looking for is fetus.  Unborn could refer to any number of things, but it makes me think of the undead, which would be just as inaccurate a term as unborn.  While we're at it, I don't think you know what it means to beg the question.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: fatchance on May 01, 2006, 09:37:43 PM
Fetus can be also a loaded term. I just try to avoid terms that seem to presuppose the very argument they are making. Baby, fetus, child and embryo all seem to do this. I use "unborn" because it is the opposite of "Born" which all would agree is a baby. I think the opposite of "Undead" would be "unalive". I use unborn simply because ..it is not born yet. But like I said to Hppyweesl, for the sake of getting back to the debate, we can use any terms one wishes. I wouls place the violatile happyface here, but to avoid problems, please take this in good will.

As far as the meaning of "beg the question" I really dont know what it means, I simply hear it in the context of "presupposing something" so I might very well be using it incorrectly.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: H4CS on May 01, 2006, 09:45:27 PM
Fetus can be also a loaded term. I just try to avoid terms that seem to presuppose the very argument they are making. Baby, fetus, child and embryo all seem to do this. I use "unborn" because it is the opposite of "Born" which all would agree is a baby. I think the opposite of "Undead" would be "unalive". I use unborn simply because ..it is not born yet. But like I said to Hppyweesl, for the sake of getting back to the debate, we can use any terms one wishes. I wouls place the violatile happyface here, but to avoid problems, please take this in good will.

As far as the meaning of "beg the question" I really dont know what it means, I simply hear it in the context of "presupposing something" so I might very well be using it incorrectly.

I think terminology is more significant than anything that can be accomplished in this thread.   The term for a mammalian organism between the embryonic stage and birth is fetus.  One does not dissect undead pigs in biology class*.    My coffee mug was also not born, so I guess it would also be unborn.

To beg the question (petitio principii) is to justify the truth of a statement through an implicit or explicit premise.  Thus, this statement is an example of begging the question: "As foeti are human lives and the killing of a human is murder, aborting a fetus is murder."  This is just tautological and not an actual deduction.

*I never took bio (cheap-ass high school) so I never dissected anything, but that's beside the point.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: fatchance on May 01, 2006, 10:02:22 PM
Your coffee mug can never be born, which is why the statement is akward. A fetus (if you prefer) will eventually be born if allowed to reach term. I think this is the difference.

All this to say that wanted to know from hppywsl the difference between a fetus and a baby (and there are many) that disqualifies the fetus from human personhood.

From now on I will properly use "beg the question". Just dont pick on my spelling or punctuation which are both atrocious (see what I mean).

Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: Happy_Weasel on May 01, 2006, 10:05:16 PM
Your coffee mug can never be born, which is why the statement is akward. A fetus (if you prefer) will eventually be born if allowed to reach term. I think this is the difference.

All this to say that wanted to know from hppywsl the difference between a fetus and a baby (and there are many) that disqualifies the fetus from human personhood.

From now on I will properly use "beg the question". Just dont pick on my spelling or punctuation which are both atrocious (see what I mean).



All I am doing is arguing common sense. How can you be "born" without being born? Sure, when a fetus is capable of being born (viable), it should be protected as a newborn, but that's only because it can be born.  :P
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: H4CS on May 01, 2006, 10:14:43 PM
Your coffee mug can never be born, which is why the statement is akward. A fetus (if you prefer) will eventually be born if allowed to reach term. I think this is the difference.

All this to say that wanted to know from hppywsl the difference between a fetus and a baby (and there are many) that disqualifies the fetus from human personhood.

From now on I will properly use "beg the question". Just dont pick on my spelling or punctuation which are both atrocious (see what I mean).

All I am doing is arguing common sense. How can you be "born" without being born? Sure, when a fetus is capable of being born (viable), it should be protected as a newborn, but that's only because it can be born.  :P

This is mindboggling, I'm out of here.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: fatchance on May 01, 2006, 10:21:47 PM
For someone who balked at my happyface you seem to be quite liberal with your own faces (which are not in goodwill by the way)

Nevermind though, I just would expect the person who started this thread to not lose it the first happyface he gets. You could temper your posts with a bit more tolerance.

So why is viability  the issue. I dont think that disqualifies the fetus of personhood. Diabetics are not viable, they depend on insulin, yet remain persons. Scuba divers and astronauts depend on oxygen from some other source- not viable? Hospitals are full of people who are not viable and rely on all kinds of machinery to sustain life, yet we cannot go around unplugging them.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: conoroberst on May 01, 2006, 10:26:19 PM
Fatchance you say that its a person before its born.  You say that viability shouldnt be an issue.  My question to you is, does this mean that sperm is alive?  It has a chance at developing with a little help into a human.  Wouldnt condoms and birth control be just earlier stages of abortion?
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: fatchance on May 01, 2006, 10:27:28 PM
What's the term for "boring conversation that ended up in a worthless debate over terminology."
I agree, that is why i tried to pick my terms carefully to not get this very result.  ???
Anyway, if you have good arguments (i may or may not) you can use any terminology.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: fatchance on May 01, 2006, 10:32:02 PM
Fatchance you say that its a person before its born.  You say that viability shouldnt be an issue.  My question to you is, does this mean that sperm is alive?  It has a chance at developing with a little help into a human.  Wouldnt condoms and birth control be just earlier stages of abortion?
A sperm has 23 chromosones a fetus is complete with 46 and can have a different blood type from the mother, and has its own unique DNA. No birth control is not abortion, just as not planting a seed is not ending a life.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: conoroberst on May 01, 2006, 10:34:02 PM
You wouldnt say that you were killing half of a life?  If life isnt complete, does that mean its not life at all?  A blind man is still a person.  A deaf man is still a person. 23 chromosomes arent alive?
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: conoroberst on May 01, 2006, 10:34:43 PM
Not trying to be a jackass, or a dumbass for that matter, i've just always wanted to really understand the other side of this issue.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: fatchance on May 01, 2006, 10:42:36 PM
I dont think your being a smartass. It is a good question.

It is not killing half a life. I think something is either alive or not. 23 chromosones are "living" organic matter, but not alive anymore than my arm is alive. My arm is living material attached to I who am alive.

Wheras the fetus is "attached" or "in" the mother, it is still distinct for the same reasons I gave before
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: conoroberst on May 01, 2006, 10:44:22 PM
Fair enough, first "child rights" supporter ever to actually answer those questions for me.  I applaud you for that.
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: fatchance on May 01, 2006, 10:50:06 PM
Fair enough, first "child rights" supporter ever to actually answer those questions for me.  I applaud you for that.
:) Thank you
Title: Re: OK, I'll ask again.
Post by: dbgirl on May 01, 2006, 11:14:48 PM
Well, here goes...



So, i believe that we all agree that Babies outside of the womb are human persons..

And some argue that the "Unborn" (that should be neutral enough) are not human persons..
 
Then what difference between the two disqualifies the Unborn from personhood?

I guess some of us are a bit dumbfounded by the idea that someone you cannot see or feel is a person, it seems pretty....umm....suspcious to us. Also, you don't live in a house that's not finished.
You can feel a fetus.