Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

"It’s dehumanizing"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    There is nothing "natural" about patriarchy however much you may wish it was so.
    Actually, there is. Men are (statistically) physically stronger and more aggressive. IT is their nature to take control. Women are also (statistically) the more nurturing as is required being the one bearing the child, and typically less aggressive (excepting wrt danger to those same children). These are distinctions that have evolved - and every mammal (and most animals) have them. Male and Female are almost always different and they almost always take on different but complementary roles wrt the survival of their offspring and hence their species. Not all animals have evolved a partiarchy or course, but that is the human, primate, pattern.

    https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/beha...m%20predators.

    Source: above

    Behavioral differentiation of male and female primates involves more than just mating behavior. Males are usually larger and physically dominant over females.

    © Copyright Original Source



    (NOTE: There are many different sorts of social structures across primates and between male and female primates, The above is a summary - the average way it works out)

    But we also evolved intelligence, and that allows us a certain amount of freedom to go beyond what we are as animals.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-03-2021, 12:08 PM.
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      How interesting that most of the responses so far have been from those who will never find themselves pregnant.
      Non-sequitur.

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      The view that banning abortion entirely will also "make it go away" is another ludicrously naive belief.
      I see, so we should make laws against an act only if said law will "make it go away"? I can't think of too many existing laws that would survive such a test.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by seer View Post

        A just born baby can not survive either...
        It can if it is cared for by someone. Before viability, it will die if is does not remain in the mother's uterus.

        Just making the point the two are not the same - and that it is a difference that is important wrt this debate.
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-03-2021, 12:15 PM.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

          Yes. But so are the Cicadas droning on all over MD.
          Cicadas aren't human.


          And even more so, it is human life -
          ding! ding!

          but then again so are the cells in my fingertips and the stem cells in my bone marrow.
          killing a few cells in that case is not killing the entire organism (you) - but when you kill a zygote, you are snuffing out an entire human life.

          The issue is not 'is it alive' or 'is it human life', the issue (scientifically/legally) is 'is it a human person', more specifically, when does the developing fetus transition from human life like the stem cells in my bone marrow, to a sufficiently functioning human being that can have legal rights as a person. That is itself at least partially subjective in that it's not likely to be resolvable to a specific instant in time. But as I have proposed in other posts, it is something that can be determined by the same sorts of objective criteria we use to determine End of life. Once all those criteria exist, the transition has occurred. And that is usually going to involve at the very least some objective assessment of heartbeat/blood flow and brain activity.
          No the "issue" is that by killing a zygote or fetus you are destroying an actual human life and destroying all potential that life has to come, growing up, loving someone, having children, making a mark in the world for good or bad, all gone. Same as if you killed a 1 day old infant.


          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            No it is a potential human being. How many embryos get washed out with the menses? Or are spontaneously terminated?
            No it is an actual human organism. It is a potential human adult. And if we could prevent miscarriages we should. But we aren't responsible for miscarriages like we are abortions, any more than we are responsible for someone who dies of other natural causes but we are if we murder them.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Cicadas aren't human.



              ding! ding!


              killing a few cells in that case is not killing the entire organism (you) - but when you kill a zygote, you are snuffing out an entire human life.
              That is actually what is being debated, so your argument becomes a bit circular. It is the entirety of the developing fetus - yes. But has that fetus become viable wrt being a human being, a person.

              No the "issue" is that by killing a zygote or fetus you are destroying an actual human life and destroying all potential that life has to come, growing up, loving someone, having children, making a mark in the world for good or bad, all gone. Same as if you killed a 1 day old infant.

              The same consequences, but not the same state at the time the life is ended. Contraception does the very same thing, in that it ends potential where potential exists. If two people have sex using contraception, there will come an event where a person that would have grown up, loved someone, had children and made a mark on the world for good or bad was not allowed to become those things.

              So if the argument is that it is wrong to prevent potential from being realized, then we must not use contraception either.

              So I think the argument has to be it is wrong to kill a person. And that takes us back to what defines a person, and when in pregnancy does the fetus become a person.

              You may be able to ague that from a zygote it is a person. But I think that unlikely scientifically/legally - which is how the argument has to be made to conform to our constitution's distinction that we can't make laws that impose a specific religious belief on the population. And to illustrate how that applies, to adopt human at conception outside a scientific justification is to impose what many Christians believe about when life begins on those hold a different position - Christians or otherwise. And specifically those that believe that opposite - that life begins with the first breath. But if we define the beginning of life as a person based on the same sorts of criteria - physical criteria - that we use to define End of life as a person, then we are rational, uniform, and not imposing specific religious beliefs on the general population.
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                I don't think recognizing the woman pregnant by rape or incest is a victim and deserves the capacity to chose whether or not she will carry to term one of the consequences of the crime against her is properly characterized as a 'cudgel'. I would say recognizing that fact is simply humane. And dismissing it as irrelevant inhumane.
                When I see you argue like this, it's no wonder to me why you changed your faith designation. Awfully hard to claim to be a Christian when you fiercely advocate for the murder of unborn children.

                To put this very simply, the evil of rape and incest do not justify the evil of abortion. Apparently this needs to be explained to you.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                  Yes. But so are the Cicadas droning on all over MD. And even more so, it is human life - but then again so are the cells in my fingertips and the stem cells in my bone marrow.

                  The issue is not 'is it alive' or 'is it human life', the issue (scientifically/legally) is 'is it a human person', more specifically, when does the developing fetus transition from human life like the stem cells in my bone marrow, to a sufficiently functioning human being that can have legal rights as a person. That is itself at least partially subjective in that it's not likely to be resolvable to a specific instant in time. But as I have proposed in other posts, it is something that can be determined by the same sorts of objective criteria we use to determine End of life. Once all those criteria exist, the transition has occurred. And that is usually going to involve at the very least some objective assessment of heartbeat/blood flow and brain activity.

                  The main reason that criteria is not used however is that both sides are against it. The reality is, any such legitimate criteria will cut off almost all abortions after viability of the fetus outside the womb, and likely before. But it will even in its most restricive form leave open for the most part first trimester, maybe a little less, abortions. Meaning a rational compromise to his debate is always stillborn.
                  Historically and even today human life is defined by either a heartbeat or brainwave activity. Both of those can usually be detected starting at 6 weeks.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                    That is actually what is being debated, so your argument becomes a bit circular. It is the entirety of the developing fetus - yes. But has that fetus become viable wrt being a human being, a person.
                    No you are using a circular argument. You believe it isn't a human being and so you are rejecting my argument that it is a human being already. It is a human being at a specific stage of life. We have all passed through various stages of life and development and yet it is all 'our life' - from zygote, to fetus, to infant, to toddler, to child, teenager, adult, and eventually old age. It is our life from beginning to end. We are that human life. Someone ending it at any point ends us. fini.

                    "viable" isn't a valid counter argument. At any point in our life we are "viable" unless something occurs to end that viability, whether accident, disease, or purposeful action. It is preventing the purposeful action of making a human life 'unviable' that we are discussing.




                    The same consequences, but not the same state at the time the life is ended. Contraception does the very same thing, in that it ends potential where potential exists. If two people have sex using contraception, there will come an event where a person that would have grown up, loved someone, had children and made a mark on the world for good or bad was not allowed to become those things.
                    Contraception stops a potential life from becoming. Same as abstinence. But once a life EXISTS, it is immoral to destroy it for no better reason than it is inconvenient or might cause the mother stress.


                    So if the argument is that it is wrong to prevent potential from being realized, then we must not use contraception either.
                    nobody has made that argument.



                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                      No it is an actual human organism. It is a potential human adult. And if we could prevent miscarriages we should. But we aren't responsible for miscarriages like we are abortions, any more than we are responsible for someone who dies of other natural causes but we are if we murder them.
                      I grant it is incorrect to equate 'acts of God' as it were with willed human activity. That stands legally as well. The issue here is the willed, purposed ending of a life. If that life is a human person and not a threat to the mother, then it is murder. So it is critical we understand when the developing fetus becomes a human person. That is the key element. Indeed, it would be quite the accomplishment if we could get both sides to agree that is the key element.

                      Most importantly, and supporting your side in this Sparko, is that Pro-choice tends push the argument away from when the fetus becomes a human being, because - except for the jewish religious position - there is no viable scientific definition of when personhood begins during pregnancy that will not limit when one can have an abortion. That is why Pro-choice focusses on the woman's right to control her own body. The minute we start caring about the child forming within her, there is a point in the pregnancy where it is no longer just about her and her righst, but also about her baby and her baby's rights.


                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                        I realise your views but a fifteen week embryo is not a child. It has the potential to be a child but it is still a developing embryo that [as yet] cannot survive ex utero.
                        1. And a newborn is not a grown adult. I'm unsure what point you thought you were making, other than the fact that human beings are constantly developing.

                        2. A newborn cannot survive ex utero either. By your logic killing it woul also be ok.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                          1. And a newborn is not a grown adult. I'm unsure what point you thought you were making, other than the fact that human beings are constantly developing.

                          2. A newborn cannot survive ex utero either. By your logic killing it woul also be ok.
                          We've got a few around here that agree and see no problem with "post-birth abortion"

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                            It can if it is cared for by someone. Before viability, it will die if is does not remain in the mother's uterus.

                            Just making the point the two are not the same - and that it is a difference that is important wrt this debate.
                            No, the point is in both cases the child is completely DEPENDENT.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                              I don't think recognizing the woman pregnant by rape or incest is a victim and deserves the capacity to chose whether or not she will carry to term one of the consequences of the crime against her is properly characterized as a 'cudgel'. I would say recognizing that fact is simply humane. And dismissing it as irrelevant inhumane.
                              It's 100% inhumane for the murdered baby. And dismissing the murdered baby as being a consequence of the crime against the woman is 100% inhumane.


                              Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                No you are using a circular argument. You believe it isn't a human being and so you are rejecting my argument that it is a human being already. It is a human being at a specific stage of life. We have all passed through various stages of life and development and yet it is all 'our life' - from zygote, to fetus, to infant, to toddler, to child, teenager, adult, and eventually old age. It is our life from beginning to end. We are that human life. Someone ending it at any point ends us. fini.
                                I don't believe the zygote can be classed scientifically as a human being. It is not even a partially realized human body yet, and most importantly it has no conscious being in it yet -except as defined by religious belief. There is no mind, not even any nerves yet. Take all but the most basic parts of my brain out and put my body on life support and I am gone. All that is left is a human body devoid of soul and person. But is can live quite some time like that if you don't pull the plug. There is nothing left to save there but human flesh. I am gone.

                                At some point when the child is forming it develops consciousness, awareness - it becomes a person. We can't know exactly when that is - but scientifically it can't be there before there is a brain.

                                "viable" isn't a valid counter argument. At any point in our life we are "viable" unless something occurs to end that viability, whether accident, disease, or purposeful action. It is preventing the purposeful action of making a human life 'unviable' that we are discussing.
                                You are not understanding my use of viability in the argument. It is not an argument for when human life begins.

                                Viability is an endpoint for arguments the fetus is not a human life. After viability there is NO viable argument the fetus is not a human person.



                                Contraception stops a potential life from becoming. Same as abstinence. But once a life EXISTS, it is immoral to destroy it for no better reason than it is inconvenient or might cause the mother stress.
                                I agree that it is immoral to stop a pregnancy for convenience. I do not agree with your comment about stress, because we are talking about rape and incest, and your comment is incredibly degrading wrt that situation. Being faced with raising the child of your rapist or your own father or uncle is not 'stress', It is trauma of the very most extreme sort. Trauma that can induce suicide or self destructive behavior. Trivializing it as many are prone to do to make their case wrt abortion is dehumanizing to the woman facing that life. A position devoid of mercy or grace.



                                nobody has made that argument.

                                Yes you did.

                                Originally posted by sparko
                                by killing a zygote or fetus you are destroying an actual human life and destroying all potential that life has to come, growing up, loving someone, having children, making a mark in the world for good or bad, all gone.
                                That is an argument based on its potential coupled with the assumption of what needs to be proven.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
                                5 responses
                                21 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                422 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Working...
                                X