|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 24, 2021 19:04:04 GMT
Thanks for the hot tip. lol
I generally do not consider infanticide an option. Standard practice I'm aware of is once it's born, you (hospital staff) do all that's possible to save the baby. I gotta say it's a pretty hot take though. You gotta take it up with them more.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 21:05:05 GMT
A concept of self, of time, with expectations for the future and the ability to make choices. That's more or less the definition I read in a book by Peter Singer. It makes sense. jammer81386 : That's why fetuses and babies aren't persons in the philosophical sense. How do you prove anyone has this sufficiently over a fetus? Would you choose to live absent the communication skills to convey it? Also...do the mentally incapacitated not qualify as persons? 30 years ago, I believe it was scientific consensus among neurology and psychology that on average, the age when the brain and central nervous system has developed enough within human beings to obtain personhood is on average 18 months. Some babies may develop faster, others slower. The law has determined that infanticide is a crime, but killing fetuses isn't.
I haven't kept up much with scientific progress in neurology in the past 30 years, but if there had been a breaking discovery that newborns are persons after all, I'm sure I would have heard about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 21:06:27 GMT
It is wrong because being pro-choice means the choice taken could be to not have the abortion. It's not pro-choice if only one option is the only option; women have every right to choose not to have an abortion too, but at least that choice would be theirs. Not getting pregnant is a choice no government is taking away. That should be enough choice and more than enough to oppose murder. Abortion is not murder. The law says so.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkramk on Jun 24, 2021 21:08:36 GMT
Not getting pregnant is a choice no government is taking away. That should be enough choice and more than enough to oppose murder. Abortion is not murder. The law says so. Laws get corrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 21:10:05 GMT
So infanticide should not be a crime? Yes, he thinks that. He admitted as much on the RFS board a couple years back when he claimed babies (already born) were not persons and shouldn't have legal rights. Should I blame your misrepresentation of my opinion on lack of reading comprehension, spite, or just plain stupidity? I never said babies shouldn't have legal rights. I said they have no inherent right to life.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkramk on Jun 24, 2021 21:10:21 GMT
How do you prove anyone has this sufficiently over a fetus? Would you choose to live absent the communication skills to convey it? Also...do the mentally incapacitated not qualify as persons? 30 years ago, I believe it was scientific consensus among neurology and psychology that on average, the age when the brain and central nervous system has developed enough within human beings to obtain personhood is on average 18 months. Some babies may develop faster, others slower. The law has determined that infanticide is a crime, but killing fetuses isn't.
I haven't kept up much with scientific progress in neurology in the past 30 years, but if there had been a breaking discovery that newborns are persons after all, I'm sure I would have heard about it.
Can you show the definition of personhood they were calibrating the brain in accordance with?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 21:12:31 GMT
30 years ago, I believe it was scientific consensus among neurology and psychology that on average, the age when the brain and central nervous system has developed enough within human beings to obtain personhood is on average 18 months. Some babies may develop faster, others slower. The law has determined that infanticide is a crime, but killing fetuses isn't. I haven't kept up much with scientific progress in neurology in the past 30 years, but if there had been a breaking discovery that newborns are persons after all, I'm sure I would have heard about it.
Can you show the definition of personhood they were calibrating the brain in accordance with? Is this English?
|
|
|
|
Post by darkramk on Jun 24, 2021 21:15:37 GMT
Can you show the definition of personhood they were calibrating the brain in accordance with? Is this English? Yes. In simpler terms, what specific itemized brain functions did they decide was the threshold between personhood and non-personhood? And why should that be their decision 30 years ago to hold for all time when it's clear that science changes over time(...within months apparently for Covid-19)?
|
|
Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on Jun 24, 2021 21:20:26 GMT
Yes, he thinks that. He admitted as much on the RFS board a couple years back when he claimed babies (already born) were not persons and shouldn't have legal rights. Should I blame your misrepresentation of my opinion on lack of reading comprehension, spite, or just plain stupidity? I never said babies shouldn't have legal rights. I said they have no inherent right to life. They're the same thing. Also, what makes you think you're the right person to deliver an impartial opinion on this? As you disclosed on a previous thread you don't have any children and can't or any spouses. You're not exactly the parenting type. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 21:20:50 GMT
Yes. In simpler terms, what specific itemized brain functions did they decide was the threshold between personhood and non-personhood? And why should that be their decision 30 years ago to hold for all time when it's clear that science changes over time(...within months apparently for Covid-19)?
I believe they checked how the synapses were connected, and what areas of the brain are responsible for features like self-awareness. A newborn doesn't really have a neuronal network. Just an almost empty brain. Breakthroughs in science are broadcast on the news. Covid-19 has shown this.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 21:23:16 GMT
Should I blame your misrepresentation of my opinion on lack of reading comprehension, spite, or just plain stupidity? I never said babies shouldn't have legal rights. I said they have no inherent right to life. They're the same thing. No they're not. Dogs can be euthanized, but it's a crime to torture them. Therefore, they have legal rights, but not an inherent right to life. Also, what makes you think you're the right person to deliver an impartial opinion on this? As you disclosed on a previous thread you don't have any children and can't or any spouses. You're not exactly the parenting type. So what? By that logic, nobody can be impartial.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jun 24, 2021 21:25:09 GMT
Not getting pregnant is a choice no government is taking away. That should be enough choice and more than enough to oppose murder. Bad birth control or non consensual sex can take that choice away. I'd bet you a trillion dollars of Jefferson Cody's money that if men were threatened with castration for unwanted sex that resulted in an abortion...unwanted pregnancy would still happen because some things just won't go away.
 Why my money Cat? I am firmly pro-choice. And I am a Christian.
|
|
Downey
Junior Member
@hunter
Posts: 2,329
Likes: 497
|
Post by Downey on Jun 24, 2021 21:31:16 GMT
No they're not. Dogs can be euthanized, but it's a crime to torture them. Therefore, they have legal rights, but not an inherent right to life. Also, what makes you think you're the right person to deliver an impartial opinion on this? As you disclosed on a previous thread you don't have any children and can't or any spouses. You're not exactly the parenting type. So what? By that logic, nobody can be impartial. Most of the passionate abortion supporters on this forum can't or won't be having children as I learned from that thread about users romantic lives which was the most insightful thread ever made on here. Your opinions on this thread is predictable and bionic, yes you have a right to air these views, but it's still predictable you're not maternal or paternal in any way. I'm neutral on abortions not against them not radically for them either. |
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 24, 2021 21:46:54 GMT
Bad birth control or non consensual sex can take that choice away. I'd bet you a trillion dollars of Jefferson Cody's money that if men were threatened with castration for unwanted sex that resulted in an abortion...unwanted pregnancy would still happen because some things just won't go away.
Why my money Cat? I am firmly pro-choice. And I am a Christian. I know. I just figured you might be rich.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jun 24, 2021 21:48:55 GMT
Why my money Cat? I am firmly pro-choice. And I am a Christian. I know. I just figured you might be rich. LOL. Not that rich.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkramk on Jun 24, 2021 21:51:23 GMT
Yes. In simpler terms, what specific itemized brain functions did they decide was the threshold between personhood and non-personhood? And why should that be their decision 30 years ago to hold for all time when it's clear that science changes over time(...within months apparently for Covid-19)?
I believe they checked how the synapses were connected, and what areas of the brain are responsible for features like self-awareness. A newborn doesn't really have a neuronal network. Just an almost empty brain. Breakthroughs in science are broadcast on the news. Covid-19 has shown this. Oh hell, a motorized car with a photo-sensor exhibits signs of self-awareness when it finds itself in front of a mirror. Anyone studying AI technology knows that.
Synapses and neurons are present in your skull before birth. The areas of the brain responsible for self awareness are also there before birth. You cannot grow new brain cells, you have as many as you will ever have at some point in your pre-natal development. A fetus in the 3rd trimester has about a hundred billion neurons...probably more than you and I do because all humans naturally lose them over their lifetimes.
Making them more worthy of life than we are, by your argument. Also, your capacity for self-awareness is never a constant. Everything from diet, hydration, sleep habits and drug use disables these regions and all are deactivated during REM sleep. So if you are in REM sleep...can someone kill you with impunity on account of you not being a person for that time?
The only breakthroughs broadcast on the news are the ones that "sell the soap" and if you don't know that, you should.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 22:03:01 GMT
I believe they checked how the synapses were connected, and what areas of the brain are responsible for features like self-awareness. A newborn doesn't really have a neuronal network. Just an almost empty brain. Breakthroughs in science are broadcast on the news. Covid-19 has shown this. Oh hell, a motorized car with a photo-sensor exhibits signs of self-awareness when it finds itself in front of a mirror. Anyone studying AI technology knows that. Synapses and neurons are present in your skull before birth. The areas of the brain responsible for self awareness are also there before birth. You cannot grow new brain cells, you have as many as you will ever have at some point in your pre-natal development. A fetus in the 3rd trimester has about a hundred billion neurons...probably more than you and I do because all humans naturally lose them over their lifetimes. Take this up with neurologists. I'll take their opinion over yours. Also, your capacity for self-awareness is never a constant. Everything from diet, hydration, sleep habits and drug use disables these regions and all are deactivated during REM sleep. So if you are in REM sleep...can someone kill you with impunity on account of you not being a person for that time?
Is there a place where this is legal? Not that I know of. As far as I know, utilitarian philosophers make the right to life dependent on having at one point being self aware, and having a sense of time and plans for the future at one time. So once you become a person, you stay a person. But since the law has declared infanticide illegal, that's irrelevant anyway. But as you say: Laws can be changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 22:11:55 GMT
No they're not. Dogs can be euthanized, but it's a crime to torture them. Therefore, they have legal rights, but not an inherent right to life. So what? By that logic, nobody can be impartial. Most of the passionate abortion supporters on this forum can't or won't be having children as I learned from that thread about users romantic lives which was the most insightful thread ever made on here. Your opinions on this thread is predictable and bionic, yes you have a right to air these views, but it's still predictable you're not maternal or paternal in any way. I'm neutral on abortions not against them not radically for them either. Guess what? Neither am I. But I am strongly in favor of the right for a woman to choose whether she has an abortion or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkramk on Jun 24, 2021 22:17:09 GMT
Oh hell, a motorized car with a photo-sensor exhibits signs of self-awareness when it finds itself in front of a mirror. Anyone studying AI technology knows that. Synapses and neurons are present in your skull before birth. The areas of the brain responsible for self awareness are also there before birth. You cannot grow new brain cells, you have as many as you will ever have at some point in your pre-natal development. A fetus in the 3rd trimester has about a hundred billion neurons...probably more than you and I do because all humans naturally lose them over their lifetimes. Take this up with neurologists. I'll take their opinion over yours. Also, your capacity for self-awareness is never a constant. Everything from diet, hydration, sleep habits and drug use disables these regions and all are deactivated during REM sleep. So if you are in REM sleep...can someone kill you with impunity on account of you not being a person for that time?
Is there a place where this is legal? Not that I know of. As far as I know, utilitarian philosophers make the right to life dependent on having at one point being self aware, and having a sense of time and plans for the future at one time. So once you become a person, you stay a person. But since the law has declared infanticide illegal, that's irrelevant anyway. But as you say: Laws can be changed. You are misrepresenting them. So you can justify killing people. I have no doubt that they know neurology better than I do...nor do I have any doubt that I know neurology better than you do. And that's how I know you are manipulating what they say to suit you, and standing by it as if it's what they actually say. Which makes it your opinion, not theirs.
I'm not aware of a place where that's legal either...but according to your claims, it should be. Who exactly put utilitarian philosophers in charge, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 24, 2021 22:26:53 GMT
Take this up with neurologists. I'll take their opinion over yours. Is there a place where this is legal? Not that I know of. As far as I know, utilitarian philosophers make the right to life dependent on having at one point being self aware, and having a sense of time and plans for the future at one time. So once you become a person, you stay a person. But since the law has declared infanticide illegal, that's irrelevant anyway. But as you say: Laws can be changed. You are misrepresenting them. So you can justify killing people. I have no doubt that they know neurology better than I do...nor do I have any doubt that I know neurology better than you do. And that's how I know you are manipulating what they say to suit you, and standing by it as if it's what they actually say. Which makes it your opinion, not theirs. I'm not aware of a place where that's legal either...but according to your claims, it should be. Who exactly put utilitarian philosophers in charge, eh?
So much irony in one post... First: "You are misrepresenting them." And later: "I'm not aware of a place where that's legal either... but according to your claims, it should be." Talk about misrpresenting my views. I never said this. As for what neurologists believe: They believe that consciousness is a function of the brain. And that it develops over time. And I never contradicted that. The limit of 18 months may be the state of science 30 years ago, when I heard about that for the first time; it's possible that it happens sooner or later.
|
|
