No more than an infant being potentially an adult or a 16 year old kid being a potential adult — LostThomist
All the more for why the parents should get to choose. They've invested so much in those children it's only fair they have the choice of killing them if they want. — René Descartes
No more than an infant being potentially an adult or a 16 year old kid being a potential adult
So by that logic you are arguing for infanticide and overall genocide of anyone under 18. — LostThomist
Your claim that personhood begins at birth is no more arbitrary than me claiming that persohood begins at 18 years old. — LostThomist
↪LostThomist I never said personhood "begins at birth". I said personhood, at minimum, requires certain pre-natal developments, which occur after 20 weeks including fetal viability, and a developed CNS enabling consciousness and nociception. The vast majority (98%) of abortions occur prior to 20 weeks. Explain to me how a non-viable, pre-conscious fetus is structurally comparable to a post-natal child. If consciousness, viability, etc. are "arbitrary", then why doesn't personhood extend to all other forms of life, from earthworms to roses? — Maw
You say that A is big and B is small. It is size then: The larger having the right to kill the smaller. Take care. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person you meet with a larger body than your own.
You do not mean size exactly? -You mean that born human persons are developmentally the superiors of the pre-born and therefore have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care again. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person you meet who is more developed in his mind and body than your own.
You do not mean development exactly? -You mean that born human persons have an intellect and a consciousness that is higher than the pre-born and therefore you have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care yet again. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person who has an intellect and a consciousness that is higher than your own.
You do not mean intellect or consciousness exactly? -You mean that the pre-born are not as viable because they are still dependent on the mother and the womb and therefore have the right to kill the pre-born? Take care even still. By this rule you are to be victim to the first person whose independence is higher than your own.
But you say, it is a question of a woman's choice: and if she makes it her choice, she has the right to kill her pre-born child? Very well.... And if another woman can make it her choice, she has every right to kill you.
and if she makes it her choice, she has the right to kill her pre-born child? Very well.... And if another woman can make it her choice, she has every right to kill you. — LostThomist
How do you square this with:How's about a general principle that when a person's personal space is occupied by another - specifically that person A is inside person B, then person B is entitled to evict person A, even if person B is unable to support themselves or find a new home? If it works for houses, it ought to work for bodies. — unenlightened
Personally I am against abortion, I think it is wrong. I find it repugnant. I think it is an abuse. Arguments about what counts as a person seem largely irrelevant, and there seems to me to be no hard line to be drawn. — unenlightened
why do you pick on the on this one obscure issue, that just happens, if you are a man, to be the one that requires nothing from you personally? — unenlightened
my argument is that all human beings regardless of Age, Environment/location,Size, Level of Development, or Degree of Dependency, is entitled to the same fundamental human rights to life. — LostThomist
So in other words...........if I support life when it comes to abortion why don't I also agree on socialist issues? Is that what you are arguing? — LostThomist
“... I’ve long believed that a society can be judged by how we care for its most vulnerable, the aged, the infirm, the disabled, and the unborn.”
That’s a beautiful articulation of both the pro-life movement and political liberalism at their best: advocacy on behalf of those too disadvantaged to advocate for themselves. (One might add “immigrants” to the list of those for whom society needs to care, but the statement is still powerful as it stands.) — LostThomist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.