Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. #31  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Right...

    This is where you lose me. People are confusing the simple sense of being aware of oneself and one's surroundings with being able to read or write.

    The basics of Personhood according to this argument are basic abilities that humans have that animals do not, such as self-consciousness, some degree of reason, language, etc. It is true that a a newborn infant doesn't have these, but even a 2 year old does.
    So, it's okay to kill a child up until she's two? At what point do the authors concede that someone "deserves" to live in their Utopia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Also, I disagree with the idea that it is in any way justifiable to kill newborns. The article is glossing over a major part of the pro-choice argument, and doing it so blatantly that it makes me wonder if it's just a parody.
    You really don't know the history of your own political affiliations, do you? The Eugenics movement of the last century (which, BTW, was brought to us by the Progressives) espoused "humane" elimination of anyone that it considered unfit. This included the "feeble-minded", the morally inferior, the racially undesirable (Margaret Sanger's "Negro Project" was a deliberate attempt to eliminate blacks) and, eventually, Jews. The presumption that mankind can be "improved" through scientific means is one of the conceits of the left. A bit of history for your edification:

    Eugenics was wholly compatible with the progressive era's faith in science, the future, the regulatory potential of the state, and human perfectibility. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution helped bankroll organizations that sought to advance eugenics. Among the more notable progressives to embrace the practice were the anarco-communist Emma Goldman, NAACP founder W.E.B. Dubois, author H.G. Wells, political scientist Harold Laski, socialist reformers Sidney and Beatrice Webb, biology instructor/atheist Edward Aveling, economist John Maynard Keynes, playwright George Bernard Shaw, World Wildlife Fund founder Julian Huxley, sex theorist Havelock Ellis, and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Sanger, taking issue with the Church's view that eugenics was immoral because the souls of all people were equally valuable in the eyes of God, said:

    “My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against the social welfare and race improvement. Assuming that God does want an increasing number of worshipers of the Catholic faith, does he also wantan increasing number of feeble-minded, insane, criminal, and diseased worshipers?”
    In 1913, Brown University's progressive sociologist Lester Ward endorsed eugenics as a means of fighting “that modern scientific fatalism known as laissez-faire,” and of facilitating “the betterment of the human race.” “The end and the aim of the eugenicists cannot be reproached,” he expanded. “The race is far from perfect. Its condition is deplorable. Its improvement is entirely feasible, and in the highest degree desirable.”

    Speaking on a related theme, the playwright George Bernard Shaw advocated the creation of a panel tasked with the duty of deciding who was, and who was not, worthy of being allowed to continue living. Said Shaw:

    "You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."
    Sounds an awful like like that article, doesn't it? Sadly, Shaw wasn't indulging in parody, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The difference is that a fetus is inside of a woman's body, and she has the right to dictate what goes on with her body. A newborn baby is not inside of her body, and her own personal rights still allow her to do whatever she pleases with her own body. Conservatives shit their pants if someone tells them they should eat more healthy food as if it's some atrocious violation of liberty, but they recognize no right for a woman to dictate what goes on with her body.
    The fetus is partially inside her body in the case of Partial Birth Abortion. Should it be acceptable to only maim it, since it's partially outside of her body? BTW, we don't have a problem with people telling us that we ought to eat healthier food, but we do have a problem with people dictating what we should eat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Now you will say, "but what about the fetus, doesn't the fetus have rights too?", to which I say, "yes, the fetus does have rights, but because the fetus doesn't meet the criteria of Personhood in the full moral sense of the word, it's rights must be superceded by the rights of a full fledged Person."

    Otherwise, you are saying that a full fledged Person, a woman, has less rights than a potential Person. It robs her of her own rights as a Person to deny her the ability to decide.
    To decide what, exactly? Let's not descend into euphemisms. Be blunt. You are saying that she has the right to murder someone that doesn't meet your criteria of personhood (which, BTW, doesn't warrant capitalization).

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Then you will say "well if she has unprotected sex she loses her rights to her body". However this argument doesn't hold up in any other situation. Is it fair to say you lose your rights to your home and property if you don't lock your door? Is leaving your door unlocked justification for someone to steal from you? If you invite a group of strangers into your home for whatever reason, and after they leave you discover some prized possession has been stolen, do you lose your rights to that item just because you let the people in your home? Consenting to an activity that may result in a violation of your rights does not relinquish those rights.This doesn't even touch on the fact that sometimes women use contraceptives which fail, and sometimes women are raped.
    Once again, you've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of property rights and contracts. The act of sex is an act of procreation. We can resist that, and try to pretend otherwise, but sex results in babies, and even if you take steps to mitigate that risk, the fact remains that it is an outcome that is not simply possible, but likely. Remember your little thought experiment with the storm? The real analogy is that you have invited someone into your home and contracted to permit them to stay, but then you have second thoughts. Their presence is inconvenient. You can't have as much fun as you'd like, and they cramp your style. It is at that point that a hurricane comes up, and you demand that the person, who has not done anything that they should not have done in your home, go out into the storm, without protection, where they will almost certainly die. Do you have the right to endanger their life on a whim?

    Oh, and we've addressed the rape issue. Less than 1% of abortions in the US are the result of rape or incest, and the majority of rape victims actually choose to carry their pregnancies to term. But, in the interest of not offending your tender sensibilities, I will again concede that a woman who has been raped did not give consent and should not be obligated to carry the rapist's offspring to term. Happy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Now you are arguing about the morality of the issue, as opposed to the legality. It's been well established in our system that morality and legality are not the same. When the two conflict, you generally have the legal right to do immoral things, so long as you do not violate the rights of another Person.
    This is an interesting argument. Since the law may permit immoral acts, we should not attempt to base the laws on morality? But, if that is the case, then what should laws be based on? After all, the basic laws against murder and theft are based on the ideas that murder and theft are morally wrong. If we abandon morality as the basis for law, then law becomes a strictly utilitarian doctrine, in which the only criteria is power. Law becomes an instrument of will, rather than justice, and no person (or "Person") has any rights, just areas where the state, which has the preponderance of power, chooses to allow them. That is tyranny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Morally, I agree that abortion is horrible, atrocious, sad, and I'd hope we could decrease the number of abortions as much as possible.
    Why? If the fetus isn't a person, then what does it matter? Abortion is only horrible, atrocious and sad if it is wrong. Otherwise what's the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    However, elevating the rights of a non-Person above those of a Woman in the realm of Law is extremely degrading.
    But defining someone as a non-person is just as degrading, and far more dangerous. Just ask any of my relatives who didn't get out of Russia before the Nazis showed up. And personhood is an extremely difficult thing to define. Certainly you can't, or you would provide a definition. In fact, before this goes any further, I'd like you to do just that. Define "personhood". At what point does someone become a person?
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,155
    People like wee wee are amazing. Just listen to him advocate for the slaughter of innocent unborn children all in the name of convenience. However, people like him will line up from here to Kukumonga telling us how it's wrong to execute convicted murderers. The klaxon from those opposed is that there's a chance an innocent person could be executed. However, blind to them is that 100% of aborted babies are innocent as well.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Senior Member Eupher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mizz-uhr-ah
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    The issue of Personhood isn't the same as the issue of Maturity. A 4 year old child is in no way mature, but they are reflectively conscious, they have a sense of "I", they are able to communicate, they are able to think, they are able to feel emotions more complex than simple hunger or pain.
    You're looking at this rather clinically, Wei. Are you sure you aren't a Nazi? Dr. Mengele thought along the same lines as you're describing, with perhaps a little more interest in how his "patients" reacted to given stimuli.

    I'm simply stunned that you or anybody else is even running down this line of thought. But I guess the eugenics crowd just happens to think this way and it's okay.....

    The FACT that a newborn infant is generally helpless and wholly dependent on more mature humans for its basic survival DEMANDS that that infant be protected, nurtured, and cared for.

    I really don't give a damn about the infant's supposed maturity level. Where's that damned "sarcasm" smiley when I need it.....
    U.S. Army, Retired
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Eupher View Post
    You're looking at this rather clinically, Wei. Are you sure you aren't a Nazi? Dr. Mengele thought along the same lines as you're describing, with perhaps a little more interest in how his "patients" reacted to given stimuli.

    I'm simply stunned that you or anybody else is even running down this line of thought. But I guess the eugenics crowd just happens to think this way and it's okay.....
    As I said above, the Progressives were all about eugenics, and the further left you were, the more in favor of it you tended to be. The National Socialists were simply acting on the logic of their Progressive convictions. Wei doesn't like to admit that the Nazis were socialists, because it makes it awkward for him to argue in favor of socialism, but they were, whether he admits it or not, so he might as well admit it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eupher View Post
    The FACT that a newborn infant is generally helpless and wholly dependent on more mature humans for its basic survival DEMANDS that that infant be protected, nurtured, and cared for.

    I really don't give a damn about the infant's supposed maturity level. Where's that damned "sarcasm" smiley when I need it.....
    To you and me, the moral imperative of protecting the weakest and most helpless is self-evident, but to the left, which sees itself as above such mundane moral considerations, and enjoys shocking us, such things irrelevant. To them, if protecting, nurturing and caring for that infant interferes with the mom's college schedule or parties, then it's okay to toss it in a dumpster.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •