Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Philosophy Of Infanticide

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

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    A) The plural of fetus is FETUSES, not fetus's. Fetus's indicates possession, not plural.
    Nothing of substance here!

    2) It's absolutely idiotic to assume from anything that I said that I would be OK aborting a homosexual fetus if there were such a thing.
    The point was, dummy, that homosexuality has nothing to do with abortions. It's merely your sad attempt to discredit Mohler in my eyes (knowing I support homosexual rights) under the pretend assumption that my argument is about Mohler. It's not. He was just one voice among many. The argument is about the likes of Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell, who opportunistically turned ‘abortions’ into the political issue it has become today. In short, 'abortion' for the SBC began primarily as a political movement less than 40 years ago, not a moral issue,

    Tassy - you seem particularly off the rails tonight -- you OK?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Nothing of substance here!
      I know, you hate being corrected. Poor fella.

      The point was, dummy,
      You're coming unhinged again. (At least I know the plural of fetus)

      that homosexuality has nothing to do with abortions.
      I never claimed it did - you pulled that out of your own butt.

      It's merely your sad attempt to discredit Mohler in my eyes (knowing I support homosexual rights) under the pretend assumption that my argument is about Mohler.
      Tassy, honey, you idolize Mohler as THE GRAND SPOKESPERSON for Southern Baptists.... Yet you would demonize him on his stance on homosexuality.

      It's not. He was just one voice among many.
      Yeah, keep trying.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

        You're coming unhinged again.
        "Unhinged". Like you claimed Mohler to be?

        I never claimed it did - you pulled that out of your own butt.
        No, it was you who pulled “homosexuality” out of Mohler’s butt.

        Tassy, honey, you idolize Mohler as THE GRAND SPOKESPERSON for Southern Baptists....
        No sweetness, I’ve never indicated anything of the sort. Mohler was but one of several bone fide Evangelical leaders I cited, who acknowledged that abortion opposition is a recent phenomenon for the SBC, one that was not a factor throughout most of its history.

        Yet you would demonize him on his stance on homosexuality.
        “Homosexuality” was your red herring; the topic is abortion, not homosexuality.

        Yeah, keep trying.
        The argument is about the likes of Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell, who opportunistically turned ‘abortions’ into the political issue it has become today.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          The argument is about the likes of Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell, who opportunistically turned ‘abortions’ into the political issue it has become today.
          Just repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make them true, Tassy. Bless your heart.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Just repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make them true, Tassy. Bless your heart.
            ...and mere denial doesn't make them untrue, big mamma.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              ...and mere denial doesn't make them untrue, big mamma.
              That is a TOP SECRET codename that only...
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                That is a TOP SECRET codename that only...
                Apologies big mamma.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post

                  No, I don't define "personhood" at all, that is the problem. Conception is the beginning of human life, period.
                  Even within Christian thought and it's Aristotelian underpinnings, there is a history of delayed hominisation/ensoulment. So, merely saying "conception is the beginning of human life" doesn't necessarily entail conception is the beginning of personhood, even under Christian metaphysics.

                  So by their definition of personhood infanticide is justified. So I'm asking people like you Tass - why is their definition of personhood wrong?
                  Their definition of personhood of "We take person to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." represents a dynamic definition dependent on function. If we were to accept that "all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons." we'd have the situation were sleeping, going under anaesthesia, or being in a coma creates the condition of being non-persons. You'd also have the issue of the elderly in certain circumstances having questionable personhood status. Characterising personhood in terms of neurological correlates to mental states is static.
                  “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

                  -Ghandi (Disputed)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                    Even within Christian thought and it's Aristotelian underpinnings, there is a history of delayed hominisation/ensoulment. So, merely saying "conception is the beginning of human life" doesn't necessarily entail conception is the beginning of personhood, even under Christian metaphysics.
                    That is why I don't define human life as it relates to personhood - too vague.And neither is ensoulment useful.

                    Their definition of personhood of "We take person to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her." represents a dynamic definition dependent on function. If we were to accept that "all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons." we'd have the situation were sleeping, going under anaesthesia, or being in a coma creates the condition of being non-persons. You'd also have the issue of the elderly in certain circumstances having questionable personhood status. Characterising personhood in terms of neurological correlates to mental states is static.
                    Correct...

                    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


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post

                      That is why I don't define human life as it relates to personhood - too vague.
                      Human life isn't defined as it relates to personhood. The quality of being human, alive, and a person are all separate.

                      And neither is ensoulment useful.
                      Ensoulment is the non-natural basis for personhood, but I agree that ensoulment is not useful as I view as unnecessary ontological complexity.

                      Correct...
                      If you agree to "Characterising personhood in terms of neurological correlates to mental states is static.", would you agree that neurological correlates to mental states is a more useful basis for ascribing personhood? If so, this is my basis for accepting 1st Trimester abortions?
                      “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

                      -Ghandi (Disputed)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                        If you agree to "Characterising personhood in terms of neurological correlates to mental states is static.", would you agree that neurological correlates to mental states is a more useful basis for ascribing personhood? If so, this is my basis for accepting 1st Trimester abortions?
                        Personhood, again, does not enter the picture for me, it is too vague or subjective to be of any use.
                        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

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by Diogenes, 03-12-2021, 04:02 PM
                        21 responses
                        187 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Diogenes  
                        Started by Machinist, 01-30-2021, 10:14 AM
                        130 responses
                        830 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Machinist  
                        Working...
                        X