Hard News: Medical Matters
588 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 24 Newer→ Last
-
Grant, I didn't say I support murder.
-
Mark. I know you didn't. I said you did based on what you defined as a person. I assumed that you just didn't have a clue what you were saying. I think I was right.
-
Linger. Do you agree that personhood can not be defined by any set of empirical means?
-
I am amazed at the way a stalwart religious person attempts to tie definitions down to his own constrictions & constructions while steadfastly ignoring all scientific, rational & truely logical inputs- but what an incredible waste of time & effort!
Shakes head. Goes, has a whisky. Determines that never again shall I be involved in such a futile exercise (*tho'- many thanks to all the patient scientific folk who improved my knowledge on this thread, and the other women & men who shared their deep information. Kia te hauora!)
-
Indeed Islander, but remember many people read but few comment. There may be juice left in this thread yet. The discussion could go any direction, it could even go offline if soapbox is not your style.....fruitful thought and discussion could be happening right now in people's homes all over the country for all we know ;-)
How about this list of beautiful things:
Children created deliberately and loved
Children that are happy accidents
Children bought into being in novel ways (and into non-traditional family structures) because the desire to care for and love them is so strong
Woman who choose to bring children into the world in the circumstances listed above.
Woman in NZ now have a choice to only bring life into the world when they can and want to make the sacrifices necessary to raise a child.
In a non-technical sense a fetus is a potential human life and as such is an awesome thing not to be taken lightly. However care for the human life that already exists (women, existing children and men) defines my morality and I am deeply grateful to be living in the 1st world in the 21st century where I am not a complete slave to circumstance, biology and (deep breaths now) patriarchy.
If your religious views compel you to reject abortion for yourself I can and do respect that. However it is unreasonable to have access to all the historical knowledge that we have about what happens when you restrict women's access to abortion and still support the rolling back of what was fought for by previous generations. My body, my choice.
-
Um Kowhai- I have no religious viewpoint (I am an atheist) and
"women in NZ now have a choice to only bring life into the world when they can and want to make the sacrifices necessary to raise a child"
- I am SO in agreement with this! As are my 2 midwife sisters!
I was actually referring to Grant Dexter....
-
Of course you were ;-)
Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was addressing the general "reading but not commenting" types at that point.
-
Grant: mu.
I would accept that we do not currently have any single empirical test with a result that would be agreed upon by all observers in all cases. But that doesn't mean that an empirical definition is impossible in principle for all purposes, or that we should ignore empirical evidence in cases where the result is clear. As I've already said, I do not want to give anyone else the power to decide whether I am a person based solely on their own judgement. (How would you feel about that?) -
Kowhai
(blushes- I * did* have that whisky and wasnt reading with total insight-) -
Fortunately I do have a high tolerance for conversations about personhood and whatnot (otherwise I wouldn't still be reading would I) but there are other strands to this conversation that are worth pursuing.
It would be good to open a wider conversation and the fact that women are the ones that all of the wonderful potential personhood forming occurs within is not entirely irrelevant.
Not saying that the mens should shut up, just pointing out that owning potential person growing equiptment effects my daily life.
-
Corollary: the fact that the rest of us are necessarily somewhat distanced from the issue makes it that much more likely we're talking bollocks? I entirely agree. I'm quite grateful for Danielle's reality check upthread pointing out that instead of getting to the bigger picture, I'd got stuck in the frame.
-
Mark. I know you didn't. I said you did based on what you defined as a person. I assumed that you just didn't have a clue what you were saying. I think I was right.
but not all killing of people is murder,
i didn't say i support murder.
-
Grant: mu.
What's an mu?
I would accept that we do not currently have any single empirical test with a result that would be agreed upon by all observers in all cases. But that doesn't mean that an empirical definition is impossible in principle for all purposes, or that we should ignore empirical evidence in cases where the result is clear
You believe perhaps it is possible that there will be discovered a test by which we might measure personhood? Do you really think a set of data or a scan of something will be able to determine person from not person? I find that utterly irrational given that personhood is a purely abstract concept. Something we recognise, not something we have discovered by scientific means.
I find the notion that we might find a test for personhood akin to the idea that we might one day find a test for people who don't like "Dances With Wolves". :)
I think the current situation, that you recognise, supports my stance. I think the fact that we do not have a test for personhood, not even a consensus on what it is, is clear evidence for the idea that personhood is something that must be recognised by the application of good judgement.
I agree that certain traits and attributes can tell us that a person is a person. But I am distinctly of the opinion that who is a person should be perfectly obvious. It's a tragedy that it is not.
As I've already said, I do not want to give anyone else the power to decide whether I am a person based solely on their own judgement. (How would you feel about that?)
I don't think you understand the way the world works. Anyone has the capacity to believe anything they like. Everyone is capable of denying another's personhood. You are in discussions here because you deny babies at conception personhood. What you do not want to happen is irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth. The truth is that people are all created equal. The truth is that people are created at conception.
This is what I judge to be true and I think there are several good observations that support that judgment.
Do you see how what I say is reasonable?
-
Kowhai.
If you're prepared to ignore the issue of personhood then you must deem the idea that 'babies at conception are people' is irrelevant. On what basis do you advocate the right to kill people for reasons such as convenience, state of mind, medical complication, rape, financial concerns or relationship status?
On what basis do you deem it OK to kill people (babies prior to 24 weeks) for any of these reasons when I can only hope you condemn murder even with any of those excuses at any time afterward?
-
murder?
-
Grant,
Not ignoring the issue at all, I am largely with Deborah as far as that goes but arguing it with you would be pointless because your view is set and not open to scientific reasoning. I am willing to engage on other aspects of this issue and with other voices.....
-
Grant, why did you take a job somewhere that has a higher abortion rate than New Zealand? Isn't it grating to work amongst a larger proportion of murder supporters? How do you reconcile actively enhancing the instance of murder supporters under the wing of teh gentlemens' sport's officiating body?
-
Grant, dude, if you're living where you are and you don't know mu, then you need to get out more and talk to those around you.
Oooh. Suddenly I have a flash of insight as to why this discussion exists. Or maybe I'm just projecting :-/ -
I'm still terribly interested in why Grant's fundamentalist moral code allows for this huge exception: no murder-length jail sentences for women who have abortions. But he doesn't seem to want to answer that question...
-
you deny babies at conception personhood
Read more carefully. I deny nothing, other than that those terms are loaded, and that there are other possible ways of seeing the issue. As far as I see it, I do not have any right to any final opinion on that question. I don't get to judge. Who are you to judge?
-
that should be "...deny nothing, and assert nothing, other than that..."
-
Deborah has repeated her confused position on infantacide on her blog here:
http://inastrangeland.wordpress.com/Deborah, to defend abortion by 'justifying' infantacide, through your argument of "full human being" is simply wrong IMHO.
Your stance of 'full human being' has been used to 'justify' T4, the Shoah, 'modern slavery' (USA etc) & Apartheid....
To defend abortion is one thing, to take this stance is quite another.
What puzzels me is that you acknowledge this and still persit, rather than reassess your position.
-
Actually, Shep, I explicitly reject infanticide in my argument.
-
This is the key to your confusion.
You state your justification for abortion, would also 'justify' infanticide. You go on to say that you reject infantacide for other reasons.
This still leads to the 'justification' of infantacide.
You need to form an argument to do one, but not the other, which you have failed to do, & fail to see as a problem with in your thesis.
-
No I don't, Shep. I reject infanticide using precisely the same criteria that I use to show that abortion is morally permissible.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.