Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Two things in reply to all the other mail:
1: Personhood has not been categorised as belonging to a single characteristic or stage and never will be. This supports my assertion that personhood is a thing recognised with good judgment. It takes good judgment to recognise that memories and perception are important functionings of people. It takes good judgment to recognise that independence is a good thing in people. It takes good judgment to define what is acceptable when it comes to medical procedures and what is not based on the lives of people. There will never be a scientific test for what is a person. There will never be a set of data that can deny the right to life. There will never be a lab experiment that can detect self awareness or weigh the value of a human life. We have moved beyond what science can tell us explicitly into an arena where we have to decide based on good judgment.
2: Because we cannot rely on data to determine the value of a human life we are rationally and morally bound to err on the side of caution. We are rationally bound because all the data sets we might apply can be applied to a baby at conception. If we say that an adult has a beating heart then we can say a baby has a stem cell that can build himself a body. The ability to test for things must be applied in all cases if it is going to be used rationally. We are morally bound because if we are to say that murder is wrong at a certain stage in a person's life then we must say that it is wrong at every stage of a person's life. If we do not know if a person is present then we are morally bound to act in caution with a baby just as we are with an adult.
This standard seems to be unpopular because women demand the right to do with their bodies as they see fit. But this right is limited by the presence of another person. The right to choose a kidney is a right that definitely does not involve another person. The right to abort always involves another person.
I see no flaws in these simple truths. I realise they are difficult for people to accept and impossible to accept for those who have had an abortion, but I will not compromise what I believe to be true. If I am correct then from here the discussion will move onto a woman's role as a mother. For it is she that will be most inconvenienced by any law that functioned according to the truth of the matter.
In the meantime I am prepared to defend my assertion that personhood begins at conception based on the fact that his humanity and life is undisputed.
Choose well.
:) -
Mark. Debating an issue with someone unwilling to accept that there are concepts such as judgment, right & wrong and proper definitions is like trying to wrestle a large amount of jelly. You're impossible to pin down on anything. You are wrong and according to you Ia m justified in believing that. You however cannot rationally claim that I am wrong because that would contradict your assertion that there is no right and wrong.
-
I don't believe i have supported someone committing murder, as you said Grant
Well, like you say, "justification is relative". What you think has no bearing on what I think. Nor would what you think have any bearing on what the law says if you were to be charged for your crime.
If you reread, you'll find I never said i supported someone commiting murder, You should keep your reading glasses on at all times, and really make an effort to stop putting words in my mouth, when possible.
I agree, and I wear my glasses all day so I put no words in your mouth. It was me that said you supported a murder based on your own definitions and terminology. Perhaps if you do not wish people to accuse you of things you do not like then you should use words that do not contradict your standards. Or are you an idealist?
"You said you believe it is murder. " I see it as killing a fetus, a stage of personhood as you like to put it. Though i stressed I don't really like to put it in any such keyhole
But you did. The whole reason I said you supported a murder is because you said that the detection of a pregnancy is a determination for personhood.
You believe my justification is not acceptable, but i feel I am justified in supporting someones' right do as they want with their body. Under better circumstances, that's where you step away from the computer, woken to the relativity of justification.
I do not accept your justification for your actions just as every other person on Earth has standards by which they will not accept every action by other people. I do not accept your idea that justification is relative. That's the most easily dismissed assertion in the history of bad assertions. Let me clue you in - when your worldview can be dismantled in three words it is a good clue that perhaps you need to rethink what you believe...
Yeah well OK Grant. What is the law with regards to abortion? your arguing about relative perceptions, it's a dead end street
The law about abortion is bad. Almost everyone here agrees with that. What was your point again?
I disagree with this generalization on the grounds that i haven't heard the specifics. Is the killing by the soldier justified to this allies and enemies alike?
OF COURSE! If the situation is specified then judgement can be better rendered. If we find out that a murder accused acted to protect his family from an axe wielding maniac then we do not prosecute him as a murderer, we release him as a hero!
If we find a soldier is leaving camp at night to visit the local village and strangle people then we court martial and execute him and strip him of any awards he may have.
Your demand for specifics only makes more clear my point! We thrive on the ability to judge rightly! Justification is entirely not relative .. You only want it to be so because otherwise you would not have any (relative or not).
dictionaries are maps Grant, to some people dictionaries are the gospel, to others, dictionaries are old dogs that refuse to keep up. To people that can read, dictionaries are very convenient things, and to people who can feel the language, dictionaries are well trained butlers.
I think you believe that butler analogy too much. I think you've applied it to all the conversations you've had and given the lack of a solid rebuttal (hehehehe) have simply been encouraged to build a house without a foundation. Think about it, Mark! How much more satisfying if you actually had the ability to say I was wrong rather than only being able to whinge that I do not agree with you.
:)
-
An involved and polite response, Linger. Thanks. I'm just going to assume it was aimed in my general direction :)
You cannot accept a label of baby based on general usage. I can understand that, but the idea that my usage of that term (correctly or incorrectly) has any impact on the facts is nonsense. I am grateful we can move on. Again, thank you.
I believe personhood is an abstract term. I.e. I do not hold any definitions or requirements other than the good judgement of those capable of expressing good judgement. You seem to have a more scientific scheme for determining who is and who is not a person. Allow me to use this difference between our approaches as the basis for exploring further. Feel free to point out if I have judged your position incorrectly :)
On your requirements for personhood:
(a) cell differentiation into many specialised types of tissue
Is it your opinion that personhood a gradual process? For example a baby at conception is not a person. After a time and cell divisions they are a little bit a person. After a few weeks they are half a person and then at some stage they are a full person? If this is how you see it then you might be interested to know that women would not be considered 100% human until they have become pregnant as it is the arrival of a new person that sets off a unique and the final event of cell differentiation in women.I know you do not believe that women who have never been pregnant are lesser persons, but if you are going to use cell differentiation as a determination for personhood then it is a perfectly rational conclusion to arrive at.
Are you willing to agree that cell differentiation is evidence that we have a person, but is not a determining factor?
I agree that appearance should not be used as a defining criterion. :)
You also seem to discount viability as a determining factor which I agree with as well. I see no difference between a baby being dependent on mother for nutrition, air and a comfortable environment inside the womb or outside. Neglect or abuse of a baby will result in his death regardless of location.
(b) a nervous system of some critical size (in terms of number of pathways), that allows it to (i) perceive its environment, and (ii) remember those perceptions.
I do not consider the ability to perceive or remember defining in terms of who is and is not a person. As I explained earlier I believe personhood can only be recognised by good judgement. I do agree that the ability to perceive and remember should give us ample evidence that we have a person.
I wonder if you might consider what a baby at conception must turn his energy to. At conception there is a single cell. This cell contains all the information required for that one cell to build a body for himself. I wonder if you would be willing to compare the wonders of a newborn's ability to perceive with a newlyconceiveds (to coin a term :) ability to build himself. I'm sure you will agree that the two capacities are at least equally magnificent. I would say the ability to build oneself is far more magnificent!
Of course this ignores your suggestion that memory or perception might define a person. In addition to the reservations you shared on the matter (that babies may be able to remember and perceive well before we are able to detect their ability) you might also consider a similar argument against it found in my response to your ideas on cell differentiation. I.e. is personhood a gradually acquired trait? Does the ability to perceive make one more of a person?
Again, I am sure you do not believe this, but it is a rational conclusion to make from what you suggest.
I agree with a lot of what you have said and feel that if the law were to reflect your ideas then abortion would well be defined as murder from a very early stage. Unfortunately this is not good enough for me. I believe that personhood is a trait conferred at conception and that termination of that living human is unjustified and murder. I believe I have presented a perfectly rational set of reasons why I believe as I do. I know many do not agree and I appreciate your attempts to discourse in a friendly manner.
Thanks.
-
Grant said: the same old tired medieval beliefs over and over and over like a deeply boring stuck record that nobody is listening to and nobody accepts. Yet still it goes around and around and around, signifying and dignifying nothing.
It is a modern day belief that a baby at conception is alive. It is a modern day belief that a baby at conception is human. If you have evidence that at conception the baby is dead or not human I'd happily respond to your post with a 'roffle'.
:)
-
I hear ya Peter, I just want to see if this ball of twine unravels.
We'll see. We'll see....
Grant, I don't believe I am taking lives, in fact I'm not.
You believe you have supported someone committing murder. You declared that the detection of a baby was evidence enough to declare the presence of a person. You said that justification for killing that person could be anything from convenience to medical emergency. When I call that murder it is because I believe your justification is not acceptable.
Do you similarly dismiss every judgement that condemns your actions as irrelevant or are you also an idealist?
and if i were taking lives, i'd most likely feel i was justified, because most actions we take are justifiable to the self.
I have no argument that you could justify them. But then we are not living in a society that bases its legal system on what you think is OK.
And that's a simple fact, there are murderers sitting in jail, soldiers sleeping in trenches, euthanasiaists making tea who will still justify what they did, and by justifying themselves, they are duly justified.
Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. Justification is based on an acceptance that one's actions are right. A murderer clearly is not justified. A soldier clearly is. I think you need to use a dictionary before you use any more words.
And furthermore one of the the exact justifications they will use to justify themselves is that It was necessary to kill. That's a justified killing.
Killing is not necessarily murder. Murder is the unjustified killing of a person. Again, dictionary.
you feel it's not justified, but that's because you're an idealist.
Are you an idealist?
Wait! Look up idealist in the dictionary before you answer that one :)
-
I understand the world is not perfect. That''s the very reason I suggest it could be better!
What was your comment about control in aid of?
-
Mark - do you really believe that you are justified in taking lives because you find it convenient or you feel obliged to?
Let me clue you in - it is never necessary to commit murder.
-
Peter. A baby at conception is alive. A baby at conception is human. I know you do not like that I use the word baby, but what you do not like does not change the facts.
Conception Fact 1: Life.
Conception Fact 2: Human.Forehand volley.
-
I don't argue that nobody has the capacity to take another person's life without justification. I only argue that it is wrong to take a life without justification.
So I agree with the fact that we can abort babies, but what I'm asking you here is, "Why?"