Author | Message | |||||
|
On April 21, 2012, 4:12AM, ImAWhat said: Feeling pain, resisting death, having a heartbeat, being able to survive on your own - not characteristics of personhood. Signs of life for many forms of life. If you display these important "signs of life" and also contain human DNA, then you are a living human. Now, how should we legally decide whether or not a living human being should be considered a person? Don't confuse ethics with emotion, here. Is it not wrong for you to decide that another living human being is "not a person" and therefore subject to execution? ----- DS Bureaucracyâ¢: Our research has shown *conclusively that modfaggotry is a myth. | |||||
|
If its not a person and you object, then what of cutting my skin? Destruction of human life, no? | |||||
|
On April 21, 2012, 11:49AM, eon said: On April 21, 2012, 4:20AM, ImAWhat said: Also, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy but I'm uncomfortable with Zak's world where obscurity is mortal. Not at all. When you're talking about law, there certainly is a slippery slope. We say it's okay to basically kill babies if no one is going to miss them, then by extension, we're opening the door to arguments about killing other people who might not be missed either. This is how governments chip away at civil rights. It generally doesn't happen all at once, but rather, it's going to be a slow glide. A glide down a slope. A slope that is slippery. But that's my advantage. I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about ethics. As I said, the slippery slope argument is indeed a fallacious argument. To your credit, historically there has been a tendency for slippery slopes to be realized with regards to legislation. It is irrelevant to the matter, though, because it is regarding fetuses and such, not people. You're also clearly begging the question when you say "...okay to basically kill babies if no one is going to miss them, then by extension, we're opening the door to arguments about killing other people who might not be missed either." If we were to put aside the idea that a slippery slope argument isn't ok, we still run into the problem of personhood. We could accept that yes, arguing to kill babies may leave the door open to killing other people as well who are not going to be missed but then as Zak pointed out the convention of the death penalty has already opened that door (especially if we consider the more concerning issue of "utility" as opposed to "They won't be missed by anyone," yes?). We've yet to address the issue of personhood. It is a problem for pro-lifers, as I've said before. On April 21, 2012, 11:02AM, Elle said: I'm fine with it being on an emotional basis. A lot of things are, and it doesn't make them any less valid. Then you have no argument. Your appeal is to emotion, which is about persuasion, not logic and debate. Unless you're saying all ethics are based on emotion, in which case you're free to make that argument. Like murder, for instance. Would killing one person really make so much of a dent in the world that the population would be unable to recover? No. But it would hurt people who knew that person, and they would seek justice, so murder is illegal because it hurts people's emotions. That doesn't make it less important. I'm unsure what you're trying to accomplish with this part in relation to abortion. "Murder" is the wrongful termination of a person's life. One could also argue that there are other reasons for murder being illegal, but in any case it is an appeal to authority as the law and what is ethical are not one and the same. That's post-conventional morality. ----- Believe that one and I'll tell you another. [This post was last updated on April 21, 2012, 5:12PM by ImAWhat.] | |||||
|
"Murder" is the wrongful termination of a person's life. One could also argue that there are other reasons for murder being illegal, but in any case it is an appeal to authority as the law and what is ethical are not one and the same. That's post-conventional morality. Ahh see, but abortion can also be considered murder if the unborn child is developed to a point that it may be viable to survive on its own. Not all ethics are based on emotion, but I do think emotion does drive a lot of ethics. Maybe I'm stretching a bit far here, but it seems the same to me as, like, people experimenting on mice and rats for people as opposed to just experimenting on people. Emotionally it doesn't bother people as much that rats and mice get injected with chemicals that cause them terrible diseases, but do that to a human baby for the same sake of science and suddenly everyone is up in arms about it. Emotion is definitely a part of ethics. ----- Elle ⥠| |||||
|
On April 21, 2012, 6:19PM, ImAWhat said: If its not a person and you object, then what of cutting my skin? Destruction of human life, no? Your skin doesn't fit the criteria. It isn't a complete human organism capable of surviving on its own. Furthermore, it doesn't feel pain, resist death, or have a heart beat. ----- DS Bureaucracyâ¢: Sometimes there when you need us. | |||||
|
On April 21, 2012, 6:38PM, eon said: On April 21, 2012, 6:19PM, ImAWhat said: If its not a person and you object, then what of cutting my skin? Destruction of human life, no? Your skin doesn't fit the criteria. It isn't a complete human organism capable of surviving on its own. Furthermore, it doesn't feel pain, resist death, or have a heart beat. It was humor. See, we're still stuck on personhood though. ----- On January 28, 2011, 10:35AM, seppo said: okay but if he's stupid enough to think of it.. do you think he's smart enough to let him talk you out of it? | |||||
|
Sometime I will come up with something really really useful to say pertaining to this matter. As of now, I'm enjoying reading the intellectual banter. | |||||
|
On April 21, 2012, 6:56PM, ImAWhat said: I'm talking about ethics. As I said, the slippery slope argument is indeed a fallacious argument. The "slippery slope" is only a fallacious argument if a logical chain of events leading us down the slope cannot be established. That is, to claim a "slippery slope" and leave that as an argument to stand on its own is fallacious. However, that is not what I've done here. Zak suggested that we should be able to kill unborn children primarily because they would not be missed. I indicated that this would be a slippery slope, because if we can kill one person based upon the fact that they won't be missed, why not kill others? It's pretty easy to see the logical connection here. A better example of a fallacious slippery slope argument would be if I'd said that allowing these sorts of abortions would lead to the moral decay of society or some nonsense like that. It is true that "slippery slope" refers to an informal fallacy, but that doesn't mean the fallacy is instantly committed upon simply using the phrase. To your credit, historically there has been a tendency for slippery slopes to be realized with regards to legislation. It is irrelevant to the matter, though, because it is regarding fetuses and such, not people. Your opinion. Certainly, we're saying that living human beings should be killed if they won't be missed. Whether or not those human beings are considered "people," you've introduced a fearsome legal precedent. If we were to put aside the idea that a slippery slope argument isn't ok . . . A bad idea, since in this case, it's a perfectly okay argument. . . . we still run into the problem of personhood. We could accept that yes, arguing to kill babies may leave the door open to killing other people as well who are not going to be missed but then as Zak pointed out the convention of the death penalty has already opened that door (especially if we consider the more concerning issue of "utility" as opposed to "They won't be missed by anyone," yes?). People are not sentenced to death based upon the fact of whether or not they will be missed. I fail to see how this is equivalent. We've yet to address the issue of personhood. Again, I say that personhood is irrelevant, both from a legal and ethical standpoint. Both legally and ethically, I argue, it is not your place to decide whether or not another living, breathing member of your own species is a person and therefore, whether or not they deserve to live or die. ----- DS Bureaucracyâ¢: All your log file are belong to us. | |||||
|
On April 21, 2012, 7:05PM, eon said: On April 21, 2012, 6:56PM, ImAWhat said: I'm talking about ethics. As I said, the slippery slope argument is indeed a fallacious argument. The "slippery slope" is only a fallacious argument if a logical chain of events leading us down the slope cannot be established. That is, to claim a "slippery slope" and leave that as an argument to stand on its own is fallacious. However, that is not what I've done here. Zak suggested that we should be able to kill unborn children primarily because they would not be missed. I indicated that this would be a slippery slope, because if we can kill one person based upon the fact that they won't be missed, why not kill others? It's pretty easy to see the logical connection here. A better example of a fallacious slippery slope argument would be if I'd said that allowing these sorts of abortions would lead to the moral decay of society or some nonsense like that. It is true that "slippery slope" refers to an informal fallacy, but that doesn't mean the fallacy is instantly committed upon simply using the phrase. There's nothing to say that that chain of events would happen. We already have abortion and it is already based upon the idea that they're not a person, as in they're not protected by the laws as a person or as a citizen of the united states. This dangerous legal precedent already exists. And it has lead to no slope that I can tell. Just as one could argue that many groups of people wouldn't be missed, one might possibly argue that groups of humans don't count as people. Certainly the argument's basically been made before - "life unworthy of life." But that wasn't a result of abortion, it was an entirely different phenomenon with pseudoscience backing it up. To your credit, historically there has been a tendency for slippery slopes to be realized with regards to legislation. It is irrelevant to the matter, though, because it is regarding fetuses and such, not people. Your opinion. Certainly, we're saying that living human beings should be killed if they won't be missed. Whether or not those human beings are considered "people," you've introduced a fearsome legal precedent. Yes (and no), it is (and isn't, as you'll see) my opinion, and that's why we're discussing this, because we disagree. Killing living human beings, as in homo sapiens, because they're not missed? Ok, not my position at all. I never made any claim as to whether or not a mother would miss their fetus, or miss the potential for having a child. There could be any number of reasons why she'd choose to have an abortion, none of which are any of my business. I couldn't care less if she flipped a coin on the matter, other than the fact that it's inauthentic. Again, my position is different from Zak's. If we were to put aside the idea that a slippery slope argument isn't ok . . . A bad idea, since in this case, it's a perfectly okay argument. Based upon an outrageous speculation with only the thinnest of backing in reality if you could possibly bring yourself down to using anhistorical perspectives and ignoring relevance. Nothing is to say that the abortion of a fetus based upon them not being a person will result in a ridiculous slippery slope, as we've seen nothing of the kind thus far. . . . we still run into the problem of personhood. We could accept that yes, arguing to kill babies may leave the door open to killing other people as well who are not going to be missed but then as Zak pointed out the convention of the death penalty has already opened that door (especially if we consider the more concerning issue of "utility" as opposed to "They won't be missed by anyone," yes?). People are not sentenced to death based upon the fact of whether or not they will be missed. I fail to see how this is equivalent. I was under the impression he meant utility as in benefit to one another, I'll have to re-read his posts. However, people are put to death if they are seen to be not worth whatever boon they may offer to society. Once again, I point to the death penalty. We've yet to address the issue of personhood. Again, I say that personhood is irrelevant, both from a legal and ethical standpoint. Both legally and ethically, I argue, it is not your place to decide whether or not another living, breathing member of your own species is a person and therefore, whether or not they deserve to live or die. Personhood is entirely relevant. It is what decides whether or not a pregnancy should be allowed to be terminated. What else would you have decide it? Physiological development? Relevant to ethics, how? Again if you can't make an argument, an ethical argument, for what constitutes a person and whether or not fetuses should or should not be protected from abortions then you have no right to force women to carry to term a pregnancy which you cannot justify. I am not concerned with the laws, only their effects:coat-hanger abortions by the poor, the rich flying to Mexico and having them done by a (hopefully well-trained and sanitary) doctor. That sort of thing. Of course it is not my place to decide whether a living being is a person or not and therefore whether or not they deserve to live or die. If it were, I'd be saying "Well, this is how it's gonna be guys, like it or not," apparently. But we're discussing the merit of ideas. So it has nothing to do with whom decides what. ----- Shrink your sphere of concern to your sphere of influence, however, neither are fixed. [This post was last updated on April 22, 2012, 8:28AM by ImAWhat.] | |||||
|
Unless of course you'd like to discuss the history of whom decides what related to the argument over the ethics of abortion. | |||||
|
On April 21, 2012, 9:56PM, ImAWhat said: There's nothing to say that that chain of events would happen. We already have abortion and it is already based upon the idea that they're not a person, as in they're not protected by the laws as a person or as a citizen of the united states. We don't have laws which make abortion a specific legal right. Where allowed, there are simply an absence of laws which make it illegal. Or laws which limit the practice, for example, in the partial-birth ban act. Other than that, you only have a series of court rulings which try to define what is acceptable. For example, in Roe v. Wade, it was ruled that states can ban abortion in the third trimester for precisely the reasons I've outlined. Zak wants to introduce a law which makes abortion a specific legal right, and, I assume, without limitation so long as the child has not exited the womb. A major justification given by the proposed law is that no one will miss an unborn child. If you introduce such a law, you've established the precedent that whether or not someone would be missed should have something to do with whether or not they should be allowed to live. And I'm just saying, that's a dangerous precedent. No, I'm not saying that other laws would necessarily be introduced which extend the principle further. I cannot predict the future. However, I am saying that you've opened the door to such things and that opening such doors is risky business in the legal world. Because yes, in legal matters, precedent does actually count for a lot. I call this a slippery slope. Just my calling it a slippery slope does not confer upon it the informal fallacy. This dangerous legal precedent already exists. No, it does not. Again, my position is different from Zak's. In attacking the "slippery slope," you are specifically arguing Zak's case, since that comment was in reference to things that he said, not things that you said. However, people are put to death if they are seen to be not worth whatever boon they may offer to society. Once again, I point to the death penalty. The major reasoning here is one of public safety and deterrence, not one of removing unnecessary people from the world because no one will miss them. In other words, if you're saying it's okay to kill someone because they killed someone else, there isn't much danger of extending that to any other people unless those people have also killed. But if you say it's okay to kill someone because they won't be missed? Personhood is entirely relevant. It is what decides whether or not a pregnancy should be allowed to be terminated. What else would you have decide it? Physiological development? Relevant to ethics, how? Ethically, we cannot decide personhood. It's too vaporous a concept, particularly if it's going to relate to matters of life and death. However, we can decide humanity. I can argue that it is not ethical for you to kill other living, breathing members of your own species who have posed no threat to you. Again if you can't make an argument, an ethical argument, for what constitutes a person and whether or not fetuses should or should not be protected from abortions then you have no right to force women to carry to term a pregnancy which you cannot justify. Yeah, the ethical argument is that at a certain point, you're carrying a living human being who, without any further help from you, would be able to live on their own. Since we cannot decide the personhood of this human being, we must decide in favor of simply defending their basic human rights. If a woman doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, no one is saying she has to. She can have a c-section and put the child up for adoption. But no, it's not okay for her to cut the child up into little bits and throw it away in a dumpster. That's not what we do to fellow human beings, because it is not ethical to do so. I am not concerned with the laws, only their effects:coat-hanger abortions by the poor, the rich flying to Mexico and having them done by a (hopefully well-trained and sanitary) doctor. That sort of thing. I'm thinking that allowing abortions in the first five months would provide most people with the opportunity to have it done safely and legally. Of course, no law is perfect and there are always unintended consequences. ----- DS Bureaucracyâ¢: Our research has shown *conclusively that modfaggotry is a myth. | |||||
|
They give you a picture of the baby now before making you decide. | |||||
|
He made me watch.... |
