Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
This will apparently shock you, but the pro-choice crowd does not believe “every abortion involves a death”; in fact quite the opposite.
CRD is far more unique in the claim that every abortion involves a death but those deaths are actually fine. Thats not a mainstream view from either side.
So silly.
Are single celled organisms alive?
Not following this discussion so maybe that's been covered.
Are little joeys the size of penny that live in their mother's pouches alive? So many arguments break down to bias towards placental mammals.
Don’t start with your kangaroo bullshit again, Dustin.
Of course a human embryo / fetus in the womb is alive (unless it has already died). That alone doesn't make it morally wrong to remove and cause its death. Cancer is alive as well.
I’ll tell you where you’ll go next then
As humorous as calling babies an STD can be comparing pregnancy to cancer is probably not an effective argument
Well its official, Luciom is permanently banned. We were discussing a containment solution and the owner came flying in off the top rope last night
Feel free to express your feelings in a constructive manner
What did he say or what was the final straw? Is the post still up
Probably best for him anyways. He posted too much. This place ain't that good
Yes, but that would be begging the question. I agree that if every death led to a funeral or burial or cremation, then not having a funeral for every miscarriage would mean that it’s false that miscarriages result in death. But that’s precisely what’s not the case.For instance, someone that is unidentified (Jane Doe/John Doe) doesn’t normally get a funeral. They are no less dea
This isn't that complicated
Do you go to a strangers funeral? Would you speak at it?
Just because you never met someone doesn’t mean they weren't alive
If he was just tossing this out there, fine. If it was meant to be a clever gotcha that he had thought through, lol
It wasn’t problems with posters like Luciom that brought you on; it was problems with posters who made the mod thread a living hell anytime a mod tried to do something about posters like Luciom. They are the same people now posting #freeluciom in this thread. The ****ing whiners and contrarians are the biggest problem with this forum. They cause the most headaches and require t
I hope you have the self awareness to realize that as a leftist, the biggest problem here is people on the right. And it's because they're on the right is why they are a problem
Theres never been a mod on the right but I hope you'd realize they'd have the exact same feelings except towards posters you are perfectly comfortable with
Correct, the dictionary definition of murder is defined as the premeditated killing of one human being by another. So yes I thought that and still do if we’re using English words according to their definitions.
Here’s a few instance of intentional killing that are not thought of as murder:
death penalty
self defense
euthanasia
war
removing someone from life support
triage in an environment of limited resources
And of course abortion, but you don’t believe that.
But fine, under your incredibly nonstandard semantic of murder, sometimes murder is justified?
FWIW when I look up murder on google (non-cherrypicked definition) I don’t see the definition you’re talking about.
Also you’re basically running this pro-life argument on me but I’m just stating a common objection, which is that I don’t think a fetus at all stages of development counts as a moral person. So please stop spreading this view that I think that killing a fetus in the first trimester is “killing a human life” as if I believe that fetuses start off with personhood. There is just no evidence that this is true, and it’s only a bias towards framing things in terms of souls that would lead someone to believe otherwise. On a natutalist account of personhood, this can only be attributed to beings with a sufficient substrate for personhood, in particular a functional brain with enough supporting organs/nerves/machine help to allow the brain to have neurological activity.
Here is a SEP entry on this that shows that my view is a common objection to the right to life argument, not something that I invented myself.
1. The argument from a right to life
Let’s start by considering the following argument:
1.
The fetus is a person.
2.
All persons have a right to life.
3.
Therefore, the fetus has a right to life.
4.
It is morally wrong to kill something that has a right to life.
5.
Abortion kills the fetus.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
This argument has some real intuitive appeal. Abortion is the killing of a human being, so it does seem to be the killing of a person. In general, it is wrong to kill persons; it does seem that all persons have a right to life.
We’ll consider five lines of objection to this argument.
1.1 The equivocation objection
We might object to the argument from a right to life by arguing that the argument equivocates. The word “person” could have two different meanings for the purposes of the argument. Suppose that “person” means any animal that is a human being; on this reading, saying a being is a person tells us what species the being is. It is on this reading that claim 1 is obviously true: it says that the fetus is human. But suppose that “person” means “moral person” or something with full moral status – something that counts fully for moral purposes, the way that an ordinary adult human being counts. It is on this reading that claim 2 is obviously true: it says that all moral persons have a right to life. The objection is that the argument is only plausible if claim 1 is interpreted with one meaning of “person” and claim 2 is interpreted with another meaning of “person”.
What this objection shows is that the argument from a right to life, as we have presented it, has two different versions. One version of the argument uses “person” to mean “human being” throughout. For this version of the argument, premise 2 is a controversial assumption: it says that all human beings, even early human fetuses, have a right to life. Another version of the argument uses “person” to mean “moral person” or “being with full moral status.” For this version of the argument, premise 1 is a controversial assumption: it says that all fetuses, even the early human fetuses that die in first-trimester abortions, have full moral status.
This objection shows that the argument from a right to life has (at least) one controversial assumption: either premise 1 or premise 2 is controversial.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abort...
(and yes I know I said I would stop responding but it seems my view is going to be discussed I may as well make it clear what the view actually is)
My guy, you are the one in here claiming that embryos experience death. This whole thing started because you claimed that miscarriages are deaths. You’ve described abortion as intentional killing.
If this entire time you don’t believe embryos are persons, then what the **** are you wasting everyone’s time for with talk of funerals and murder? Why would anyone hold a funeral for a non-person?
I’m convinced you argue just to argue, you have nothing ever of value to add, your entire existence seems solely dedicated to convoluting debates with irrelevant points.
My guy, you are the one in here claiming that embryos experience death. This whole thing started because you claimed that miscarriages are deaths. You’ve described abortion as intentional killing.If this entire time you don’t believe embryos are persons, then what the **** are you wasting everyone’s time for with talk of funerals and murder? Why would anyone hold a funeral for
Sure, let me just post the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article showing that the distinctions I’m making are real distinctions, but they must just be utterly useless, right?
The whole point of drawing the distinction between a human life and a human person is to understand what we mean by “a right to life”. And all of this started with you all using a fallacious argument that can be ripped to shreds because you’re not making the proper distinctions.
That being said, we also clearly have very different views of abortion rights because I think it’s important to understand the concerns around third trimester elective abortions and you don’t. With this distinction above in mind, I think that’s a good guide of understanding what’s going on there.
Previously you have raised the issue of fetal viability. Many people have defended that point as being when they think a fetus has rights. I on the other hand think the right way of thinking about it is fetal sentience.
These are just not the same things and it comes out in the way that we argue for why we think abortion should be permitted.
And look, I have been incredibly charitable to you but you can’t even give me the point that intentional killing is not murder, even though it’s right there in the dictionary and I have reiterated several examples of that being the case. So who actually is arguing just to argue? Who actually is being bad faith here?
If I need your body to live, can I use it against your will because I’m sentient? Don’t I have a right to life?
These are viability 101 arguments, btw. It’s like you’re new here.
You’re right btw, I am totally unconcerned with third trimester abortions. They are 1% of abortions and are always, without exception, due to tragedy of some kind. There is no such thing as “elective” third trimester abortion without a medical reason because medical professionals do not perform them, and women do not ask for them. It’s a boogeyman of the soft-skulled brain-wormed nitwits on the right. Are you a soft-skulled, brain-wormed nitwit?
If I need your body to live, can I use it against your will because I’m sentient? Don’t I have a right to life?
These are viability 101 arguments, btw. It’s like you’re new here.
You specifically? No. I have no moral obligation to you specifically to have myself hooked up to you.
If you were my hypothetical 2 month old child or something and you needed to be hooked up to me for a relatively short period of time, then yes.
Here’s a few instance of intentional killing that are not thought of as murder:
death penalty
self defense
euthanasia
war
removing someone from life support
triage in an environment of limited resources
can we add a maybe on snuffing out Venezuelan fisherman for twitter likes? seems human rights experts arent sure yet.
oh and you can definitely add Palestinian children to that list for any reason.
You specifically? No. I have no moral obligation to you specifically to have myself hooked up to you.
If you were my hypothetical 2 month old child or something and you needed to be hooked up to me for a relatively short period of time, then yes.
You’re actually uniquely talented at circumventing the point of a hypothetical, and I don’t mean in the clever way.
It’s literally impossible to debate philosophical points with you because you’re constantly off on these bizarre illogical tangents. Just answer the ****ing obvious question. Are you ****ing stupid?
Are you undisciplined too? I thought you said you weren’t going to respond.
You’re right btw, I am totally unconcerned with third trimester abortions. They are 1% of abortions and are always, without exception, due to tragedy of some kind. There is no such thing as “elective” third trimester abortion without a medical reason because medical professionals do not perform them, and women do not ask for them. It’s a boogeyman of the soft-skulled brain-worm
What’s your evidence that all third trimester abortions are performed with a medical reason? While I see info saying that a medical reason is the most common reason, I don’t see it as being exclusive reason for abortion.
Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh...
In any case it seems there is a disconnect between the belief that pregnant women have a full right to seek an abortion at any part of pregnancy and the argument that it should be legal to have elective abortions because no one does it anyway.
Also just so this doesn’t seem insanely one-sided on my part, I would rather elective abortions in the third trimester be legal than to make them so prohibitive to get as medical care such that the women who need them for health reasons or reasons of fetal abnormality can’t get them at all. I don’t want you to think I’m just being argumentative when I say that, I just genuinely think medical care for pregnant women is disgustingly lacking in this country.
You’re actually uniquely talented at circumventing the point of a hypothetical, and I don’t mean in the clever way.It’s literally impossible to debate philosophical points with you because you’re constantly off on these bizarre illogical tangents. Just answer the ****ing obvious question. Are you ****ing stupid?Are you undisciplined too? I thought you sa
I answered the hypothetical. I said no.
Ok you got me. I won’t respond anymore. That’s fair enough that I went back on what I said. You seem to not like dialoguing with me anyway.
