- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: All the talk on Roe V. Wade
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:13 am to Ole Messcort
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:13 am to Ole Messcort
quote:
When you get pregnant I will be for you having the choice to have your baby or not too.
Cool, can we kill old people too? They are a hassle to deal with as well. Especially old parents that take up our time.
0
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:19 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You asked questions that had already been answered and got snippy when he gave succinct answers rather than long, repetitive ones.
Prior to ~30 minutes ago he hadn't posted in this thread. Several people, myself included, have given our opinion of when personhood is bestowed, but he still hasn't. Saying that "the question is answered" is meaningless. It has been answered by several different people in several different and contradicting ways. The point of the thread is to discuss this difference of opinion.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:19 am to Pere_bear
It is interesting, perhaps even ironic, that abortion is an issue where the right-wing has become more the party of science. For the reasons you describe and many more regarding development in the womb, the pro-life crowd has gained ammunition in the long-running war over abortion. However, the facts you've marshaled really just confirm the development of something that is undeniably human but not necessarily a "person." At least in terms of cultural responses, we know that we don't treat an early term miscarriage as we do the death of a child. So, as at least a few posters have posited, the real question is when the developing fetus acquires sufficient attributes of personhood to take priority over the woman's freedom to choose whether to carry to term and deliver. Science will continue to inform the inquiry but I doubt it will ever be able to answer it for us. Although far too late now, I just wish the SCOTUS had not manufactured a constitutional right in this area so that our political processes could have dealt with it. My suspicion is that the issue would have been better sorted by now.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:27 am to CptRusty
You are speaking strictly about the scientific term in this one instance. I'm well aware of what you're trying to do, but it won't work. If you want to remove philosophy, common sense, and your emotion from the discussion completely, I'm certainly on board. You will not enjoy that conversation.
You just let me know what you want to do, and ask better questions. I'm available when you're ready.
You just let me know what you want to do, and ask better questions. I'm available when you're ready.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:34 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:I disagree. Thoughtful people on both sides actually AGREE on the science.
It is interesting, perhaps even ironic, that abortion is an issue where the right-wing has become more the party of science.
The difference is a philosophical one. When should rights vest? Science cannot answer that question. Philosophically, one side says “immediately,” and the other says “later.”
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 8:35 am
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:36 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You are speaking strictly about the scientific term in this one instance.
We are discussing a legal standard and I am positing that deviation from a scientific basis for this standard would necessarily be arbitrary.
quote:
ask better question
When, in your opinion, does personhood get bestowed and why?
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:43 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Philosophically, one side says “immediately,” and the other says “later.”
One side is consistent, the other is arbitrary. Ask ten different pro-choice advocates about the definition of "later" and you will very likely get ten different answers.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 8:55 am to CptRusty
quote:Well, both are entirely arbitrary.
One side is consistent, the other is arbitrary. Ask ten different pro-choice advocates about the definition of "later" and you will very likely get ten different answers.
Even among Pro-Lifers, you see a split between “fertilization” and “implantation.” And that is just during a five-day period. Of course you will see a greater split among Pro-Choice folks. They are debating nine months, not five days.
The simple answer is that “science” will never answer this question, and that a philosophical analysis will always yield many “answers” along a spectrum. The only long-term solution is for both sides to understand the foregoing and to pick a date that everyone is willing to accept ... and then leave the issue farking ALONE!
Posted on 7/16/18 at 9:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:
both are entirely arbitrary.
A human being is created when an egg is fertilized. This is not arbitrary, this is science.
The standard put forth is that personhood is bestowed upon all human beings. This, as you've pointed out, is the philosophical bit which is open for debate. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why personhood (and the legal protections that accompany it) is contingent upon anything other than being a human.
quote:
Even among Pro-Lifers, you see a split between “fertilization” and “implantation.” And that is just during a five-day period.
I'd say that someone arguing for "implantation" doesn't understand their position as well as they should.
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 9:04 am
Posted on 7/16/18 at 9:04 am to CptRusty
quote:”No True Pro-Lifesman”
I'd say that someone arguing for "implantation" doesn't understand their position as well as they should.
(aplogies to Scotsmen everywhere)
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 9:14 am
Posted on 7/16/18 at 9:05 am to AggieHank86
quote:
”No True Pro-Lifesman”
weren't you the one with the "1:20" snark earlier in this thread?
Posted on 7/16/18 at 9:09 am to CptRusty
quote:Yes, that is the “science” that I referenced earlier as being a point on which thoughtful people agree.
A human being is created when an egg is fertilized. This is not arbitrary, this is science.
But it does not automatically follow that the vesting of rights MUST follow from that “science.”
Posted on 7/16/18 at 9:15 am to AggieHank86
quote:
But it does not automatically follow that the vesting of rights MUST follow from that “science.”
So then make an argument as to why your chosen line-in-the-sand is correct.
My position, for the 100th time, is that all human beings are vested with personhood by virtue of being human.
You don't agree, so what is your standard for when a human being is/is-not a person? To be clear I am not looking for a temporal answer, I am looking for a definition of person-hood which includes some prerequisite that mine does not.
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 9:16 am
Posted on 7/16/18 at 9:22 am to CptRusty
I think I have answered that question several times as well. In SHORT, that which makes humanity “special” (sentience, self-awareness, choose-a-term) develops in an individual over time. I lack the omniscience to pick a date on which it is fully-developed, but (like Justice Stewart) I “know it when I see it,” and it does not exist at fertilization or in the first or second trimester.
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 9:25 am
Posted on 7/16/18 at 9:28 am to AggieHank86
quote:
hat which makes humanity “special” (sentience, self-awareness, choose-a-term) develops in an individual over time
So a 1 day old infant wouldn't qualify?
quote:
I lack the omniscience to pick a date on which it is fully-developed, but (like Justice Stewart) I “know it when I see it,” and it does not exist at fertilization or in the first or second trimester.
And this is why I object to any standard other than the scientific being used as the rationale for a law which governs life and death. Slippery slopes and whatnot.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 9:41 am to CptRusty
quote:Arguably not. Or a brain-dead adult. Like it or not, the law treats similar actions differently before birth and after it.
So a 1 day old infant wouldn't qualify?
quote:Most issues have a potential “slippery slope.” I can live with that.
And this is why I object to any standard other than the scientific being used as the rationale for a law which governs life and death. Slippery slopes and whatnot.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 9:54 am to AggieHank86
quote:
So a 1 day old infant wouldn't qualify?quote:
Arguably not. Or a brain-dead adult.
Thankfully the law does not agree with you.
I am aware that removing someone from life support does not constitute homicide, depending on who does it, but that is not due to the abdication of personhood from that individual. LINK
I can't waltz into a hospital and start unplugging brain-dead people. I would be charged with some serious crimes.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 11:27 am to CptRusty
It's obvious that most people are not consistent with their views of the standard for life for the unborn. If the pro-choice crowd extended their arguments to those outside the womb, it would be a free-for-all on killing for convenience.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 11:39 am to FooManChoo
quote:
It's obvious that most people are not consistent with their views
It's priceless that you of all people are complaining about consistency.
Posted on 7/16/18 at 11:42 am to Pere_bear
Roe v Wade isn’t going anywhere. No chance. Even if it did abortion would still be legal in like 48 states.
Dems are just trying to fire up their base.
Dems are just trying to fire up their base.
Page 11 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News