Abortion

[Bronzeage]

There's really nothing reasonable about killing something which given time will be a person, and claiming you have not killed the person it would eventually be.

Why have you lumped justifiable homicide for self defense, assisted suicide, and abortion in the same category? What do they have in common?

A zygote, embryo or first-trimester fetus are indeed potential persons. A potential person is not a person.

I have not lumped homicide for self defense, assisted suicice, and abortion in the same category. Just the opposite. Self-defense homicides and assisted sucide are examples of killing someone, i.e., a person. My point is that abortion is not taking the life of someone, i.e., a person, so manifestly I have not lumped abortion in the same category as the other two.

There is no such thing as causing harm to a potential person (via abortion, in this case). You can’t harm a nonexistent person.

It is you who has created the category of potential person and promptly removed them from the protected species category. It's a convenient bit of sophistry which relieves you advocating unjustifiable homicide.

The common element our midnight attacker, elderly friend, and not yet a person share, is if they make enough trouble, the normal protection for sacred life is forfeit. There is no need for the fiction they are not a life, which might one day have blue eyes, smoke cigars and have this conversation.

As for the billions of half-not yet a persons lost down the drain everyday, if you opened your pantry to see the flour missing, you would not say, "What happened to my cake?" anymore than finding the oven open and empty would elicit, "What happened to my batter?"

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok Tom, so, let's extend your logic to see if it can withstand a good solid whack, or if it all falls apart like a gumdrop tower...

Lets imagine some rich fuck Pete opens a chemical plant and violates a regulation. Let's suppose for a moment that he is the only person responsible for and empowered to and aware of this regulation being violated, and as a result of it, has poisoned the community downriver, and one of the folks there are now dying of kidney failure, and he knew this was a side effect, kidney failure, of his activities of illegal dumping or whatever.

Let's imagine that he is the one possible donor for the dude downriver dying

He is not a match for this person, but James, the kidney stabbing bandit is, and the rich fuck is a match for one of James' victims.

Can James and Pete trade kidney donations as a function of this justice?

And note, if you answer yes, I already know the logic that allows this to be the nominal justification for forced organ harvesting from suspect populations.

 

[pood]

There's really nothing reasonable about killing something which given time will be a person, and claiming you have not killed the person it would eventually be.

Why have you lumped justifiable homicide for self defense, assisted suicide, and abortion in the same category? What do they have in common?

A zygote, embryo or first-trimester fetus are indeed potential persons. A potential person is not a person.

I have not lumped homicide for self defense, assisted suicice, and abortion in the same category. Just the opposite. Self-defense homicides and assisted sucide are examples of killing someone, i.e., a person. My point is that abortion is not taking the life of someone, i.e., a person, so manifestly I have not lumped abortion in the same category as the other two.

There is no such thing as causing harm to a potential person (via abortion, in this case). You can’t harm a nonexistent person.

It is you who has created the category of potential person and promptly removed them from the protected species category. It's a convenient bit of sophistry which relieves you advocating unjustifiable homicide.

The common element our midnight attacker, elderly friend, and not yet a person share, is if they make enough trouble, the normal protection for sacred life is forfeit. There is no need for the fiction they are not a life, which might one day have blue eyes, smoke cigars and have this conversation.

As for the billions of half-not yet a persons lost down the drain everyday, if you opened your pantry to see the flour missing, you would not say, "What happened to my cake?" anymore than finding the oven open and empty would elicit, "What happened to my batter?"

Let’s back up a bit.

It was you who posed the question, “when is it OK to kill someone?” Now just lay your cards on the table: According to you, is a zygote someone? An embryo? A first-trimester fetus? Are they also “someones?” If you think so, prove it.

A “someone” is a person.

I said it’s OK to kill in self-defense and maybe assisted suicide, depending on the circumstances. However, since I do not believe that a zygote, embryo or first-trimester fetus is a someone, I obviously do not thinking that abortion is taking the life of someone.

But now, according to you, abortion is not just killing someone, it’s unjustifiable homicide, no less! Homicide, unjustifiable or not, can only be committed against a person. So you think zygotes, embryos and first-trimester fetuses are persons? What about spermatozoa, are they people too? Is masturbation or using a rubber during sex examples of mass unjustifiable homicide? If not, why not, under the terms that you yourself have set up?

Please refrain from slurring those of us who don’t share your religious hallucinations that in advocating the right of a woman to have an abortion we are condoning or supporting “unjustifiable homicide.” That delusion is entirely your own.

I also love how the pro-forced birth crowed loves to bombinate about Life, O Sacred Life! — yet the vast majority of themn don’t give a shit about the life of the woman whom they would force to bear a child, nor do they give a shit about the life of the child that they would force her to bear.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tom has endorsed it also.

He says that if you cause someone to need a kidney, he supports you being forced to donate one of yours. And of course organ donation always comes with risks and so, even if it means you die, Tom thinks the government should tie you down and take your kidney. Or your liver. Een forced blood donations. Tom said he was for that. Tying people down and taking their organs if Tom says it’s justified.

Well, for once you at least remembered half of my hypothetical.

Here's the other half.
Again...

If you are the sole possible donor.

Without both of those circumstances simultaneously you don't have a situation morally comparable to pregnancy.

In fact both are so rare that I doubt it's ever even been a question, unlike pregnancy. Bringing up organ donation is a smoke screen, emotional but irrelevant.
Tom

Except when the damage to organ(s) is permanent. That isn't emotional, it is science.

 

[TomC]

Tom has endorsed it also.

He says that if you cause someone to need a kidney, he supports you being forced to donate one of yours. And of course organ donation always comes with risks and so, even if it means you die, Tom thinks the government should tie you down and take your kidney. Or your liver. Een forced blood donations. Tom said he was for that. Tying people down and taking their organs if Tom says it’s justified.

Well, for once you at least remembered half of my hypothetical.

Here's the other half.
Again...

If you are the sole possible donor.

Without both of those circumstances simultaneously you don't have a situation morally comparable to pregnancy.

In fact both are so rare that I doubt it's ever even been a question, unlike pregnancy. Bringing up organ donation is a smoke screen, emotional but irrelevant.
Tom

Except when the damage to organ(s) is permanent. That isn't emotional, it is science.

Could you explain how this is relevant to anything Rhea or I said?
I'm not a mind reader.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Ok Tom, so, let's extend your logic to see if it can withstand a good solid whack, or if it all falls apart like a gumdrop tower...
... Can James and Pete trade kidney donations as a function of this justice? ...

Excellent! This is how ethical theories are made falsifiable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tom has endorsed it also.

He says that if you cause someone to need a kidney, he supports you being forced to donate one of yours. And of course organ donation always comes with risks and so, even if it means you die, Tom thinks the government should tie you down and take your kidney. Or your liver. Een forced blood donations. Tom said he was for that. Tying people down and taking their organs if Tom says it’s justified.

Well, for once you at least remembered half of my hypothetical.

Here's the other half.
Again...

If you are the sole possible donor.

Without both of those circumstances simultaneously you don't have a situation morally comparable to pregnancy.

In fact both are so rare that I doubt it's ever even been a question, unlike pregnancy. Bringing up organ donation is a smoke screen, emotional but irrelevant.
Tom

Except when the damage to organ(s) is permanent. That isn't emotional, it is science.

Could you explain how this is relevant to anything Rhea or I said?
I'm not a mind reader.
Tom

There have been multiple organ donation references, one regarding kidneys from one person to another, the other being a timeshare rental by the fetus. My comment was regarding the long-term issue with the later, which apparently wasn't along side the discussion of the donation as per Loren's post. That'd be my bad.

 

[TomC]

Tom has endorsed it also.

He says that if you cause someone to need a kidney, he supports you being forced to donate one of yours. And of course organ donation always comes with risks and so, even if it means you die, Tom thinks the government should tie you down and take your kidney. Or your liver. Een forced blood donations. Tom said he was for that. Tying people down and taking their organs if Tom says it’s justified.

Well, for once you at least remembered half of my hypothetical.

Here's the other half.
Again...

If you are the sole possible donor.

Without both of those circumstances simultaneously you don't have a situation morally comparable to pregnancy.

In fact both are so rare that I doubt it's ever even been a question, unlike pregnancy. Bringing up organ donation is a smoke screen, emotional but irrelevant.
Tom

Except when the damage to organ(s) is permanent. That isn't emotional, it is science.

Could you explain how this is relevant to anything Rhea or I said?
I'm not a mind reader.
Tom

There have been multiple organ donation references, one regarding kidneys from one person to another, the other being a timeshare rental by the fetus. My comment was regarding the long-term issue with the later, which apparently wasn't along side the discussion of the donation as per Loren's post. That'd be my bad.

Could you explain how your post is relevant?
If Joe has no connection to the organ failure and isn't the sole possible donor then he's got no moral obligation to donate as far as I can see.

Feel free to explain your post.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Tom has endorsed it also.

He says that if you cause someone to need a kidney, he supports you being forced to donate one of yours. And of course organ donation always comes with risks and so, even if it means you die, Tom thinks the government should tie you down and take your kidney. Or your liver. Een forced blood donations. Tom said he was for that. Tying people down and taking their organs if Tom says it’s justified.

Well, for once you at least remembered half of my hypothetical.

Here's the other half.
Again...

If you are the sole possible donor.

Without both of those circumstances simultaneously you don't have a situation morally comparable to pregnancy.

In fact both are so rare that I doubt it's ever even been a question, unlike pregnancy. Bringing up organ donation is a smoke screen, emotional but irrelevant.
Tom

Except when the damage to organ(s) is permanent. That isn't emotional, it is science.

Could you explain how this is relevant to anything Rhea or I said?
I'm not a mind reader.
Tom

There have been multiple organ donation references, one regarding kidneys from one person to another, the other being a timeshare rental by the fetus. My comment was regarding the long-term issue with the later, which apparently wasn't along side the discussion of the donation as per Loren's post. That'd be my bad.

Could you explain how your post is relevant?
If Joe has no connection to the organ failure and isn't the sole possible donor then he's got no moral obligation to donate as far as I can see.

Feel free to explain your post.
Tom

Maybe you can discuss whether James and Pete can swap their "sole possible donor" status between them with respect to their victims?

Is that an available function of this justice?

 

[TomC]

Maybe you can discuss whether James and Pete can swap their "sole possible donor" status between them with respect to their victims?

Is that an available function of this justice?

I considered getting involved with your bizarrely convoluted hypothetical.

I decided against doing so. There were lots of reasons for that. One big reason was your demand for a simple, yes or no, answer.

So the answer to your post is:
Bless Your Heart!
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except when the damage to organ(s) is permanent. That isn't emotional, it is science.

Could you explain how this is relevant to anything Rhea or I said?
I'm not a mind reader.
Tom

There have been multiple organ donation references, one regarding kidneys from one person to another, the other being a timeshare rental by the fetus. My comment was regarding the long-term issue with the later, which apparently wasn't along side the discussion of the donation as per Loren's post. That'd be my bad.

Could you explain how your post is relevant?

I already said it wasn't, but you seem to want to just make everything about you even if someone else admits error.

 

[ramoss]

Let’s back up a bit.

It was you who posed the question, “when is it OK to kill someone?” Now just lay your cards on the table: According to you, is a zygote someone? An embryo? A first-trimester fetus? Are they also “someones?” If you think so, prove it.

A “someone” is a person.

I said it’s OK to kill in self-defense and maybe assisted suicide, depending on the circumstances. However, since I do not believe that a zygote, embryo or first-trimester fetus is a someone, I obviously do not thinking that abortion is taking the life of someone.

But now, according to you, abortion is not just killing someone, it’s unjustifiable homicide, no less! Homicide, unjustifiable or not, can only be committed against a person. So you think zygotes, embryos and first-trimester fetuses are persons? What about spermatozoa, are they people too? Is masturbation or using a rubber during sex examples of mass unjustifiable homicide? If not, why not, under the terms that you yourself have set up?

Please refrain from slurring those of us who don’t share your religious hallucinations that in advocating the right of a woman to have an abortion we are condoning or supporting “unjustifiable homicide.” That delusion is entirely your own.

I also love how the pro-forced birth crowed loves to bombinate about Life, O Sacred Life! — yet the vast majority of themn don’t give a shit about the life of the woman whom they would force to bear a child, nor do they give a shit about the life of the child that they would force her to bear.

It seems to me that what is a 'someone' or a person is a matter of philosophy. How can you 'prove' philosophy and ethics? It seems to me a lot of that is assumptions based on emotions, not reasoned.

 

[TomC]

Except when the damage to organ(s) is permanent. That isn't emotional, it is science.

Could you explain how this is relevant to anything Rhea or I said?
I'm not a mind reader.
Tom

There have been multiple organ donation references, one regarding kidneys from one person to another, the other being a timeshare rental by the fetus. My comment was regarding the long-term issue with the later, which apparently wasn't along side the discussion of the donation as per Loren's post. That'd be my bad.

Could you explain how your post is relevant?

I already said it wasn't, but you seem to want to just make everything about you even if someone else admits error.

Bless Your Heart!

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe you can discuss whether James and Pete can swap their "sole possible donor" status between them with respect to their victims?

Is that an available function of this justice?

I considered getting involved with your bizarrely convoluted hypothetical.

I decided against doing so. There were lots of reasons for that. One big reason was your demand for a simple, yes or no, answer.

So the answer to your post is:
Bless Your Heart!
Tom

So, you refuse to engage with the extension of your logic! Fantastic.

If you won't engage with the concepts that might speak to why your logic is flawed, maybe I'll answer for all the other folks so that they can see where your failure of logic leads:

In the case of "no, not fungible" you would have to provide a reason outside of special pleading why they are not. You won't do that because we both know that such a reason does not exist: if James and Pete both victimized the perfect match and we're the only possible donor for each of their own victims, the same ethical setup remains in the cross-victim scenario.

In the case of "yes", the exclusivity "only perfect match of victims" then goes right out the window as a ridiculous restriction on the logic, as special pleading!

The problem of special pleading breaks down all the walls at this point. Why this victim immediately, and why not any other person?

Why not any criminal accused of any thing as grievous as an organ failure?

Why not temporary "nonlethal tetherings"?

Why not blood?

Why not part out the whole body on the death penalty following a murder trial?

The fungibility problem of that special case causes the whole thing to fall apart in a shower of smelly, opaque, brown "gumdrops"; hard, sharp "toothpicks"; and failure.

 

[TomC]

So, you refuse to engage with the extension of your logic! Fantastic

I'm ignoring your nonsensical attacks.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe you can discuss whether James and Pete can swap their "sole possible donor" status between them with respect to their victims?

Is that an available function of this justice?

I considered getting involved with your bizarrely convoluted hypothetical.

I decided against doing so. There were lots of reasons for that. One big reason was your demand for a simple, yes or no, answer.

So the answer to your post is:
Bless Your Heart!
Tom

So, you refuse to engage with the extension of your logic! Fantastic.

If you won't engage with the concepts that might speak to why your logic is flawed, maybe I'll answer for all the other folks so that they can see where your failure of logic leads:

In the case of "no, not fungible" you would have to provide a reason outside of special pleading why they are not. You won't do that because we both know that such a reason does not exist: if James and Pete both victimized the perfect match and we're the only possible donor for each of their own victims, the same ethical setup remains in the cross-victim scenario.

In the case of "yes", the exclusivity "only perfect match of victims" then goes right out the window as a ridiculous restriction on the logic, as special pleading!

The problem of special pleading breaks down all the walls at this point. Why this victim immediately, and why not any other person?

Why not any criminal accused of any thing as grievous as an organ failure?

Why not temporary "nonlethal tetherings"?

Why not blood?

Why not part out the whole body on the death penalty following a murder trial?

The fungibility problem of that special case causes the whole thing to fall apart in a shower of smelly, opaque, brown "gumdrops"; hard, sharp "toothpicks"; and failure.

Is it really that important? Ultimately it boils down to when does society have the right to intervene in the internal goings on in a woman. Parallels and analogies are distractions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, you refuse to engage with the extension of your logic! Fantastic

I'm ignoring your nonsensical attacks.

And most of the rest of the thread too.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe you can discuss whether James and Pete can swap their "sole possible donor" status between them with respect to their victims?

Is that an available function of this justice?

I considered getting involved with your bizarrely convoluted hypothetical.

I decided against doing so. There were lots of reasons for that. One big reason was your demand for a simple, yes or no, answer.

So the answer to your post is:
Bless Your Heart!
Tom

So, you refuse to engage with the extension of your logic! Fantastic.

If you won't engage with the concepts that might speak to why your logic is flawed, maybe I'll answer for all the other folks so that they can see where your failure of logic leads:

In the case of "no, not fungible" you would have to provide a reason outside of special pleading why they are not. You won't do that because we both know that such a reason does not exist: if James and Pete both victimized the perfect match and we're the only possible donor for each of their own victims, the same ethical setup remains in the cross-victim scenario.

In the case of "yes", the exclusivity "only perfect match of victims" then goes right out the window as a ridiculous restriction on the logic, as special pleading!

The problem of special pleading breaks down all the walls at this point. Why this victim immediately, and why not any other person?

Why not any criminal accused of any thing as grievous as an organ failure?

Why not temporary "nonlethal tetherings"?

Why not blood?

Why not part out the whole body on the death penalty following a murder trial?

The fungibility problem of that special case causes the whole thing to fall apart in a shower of smelly, opaque, brown "gumdrops"; hard, sharp "toothpicks"; and failure.

Is it really that important? Ultimately it boils down to when does society have the right to intervene in the internal goings on in a woman. Parallels and analogies are distractions.

I think the parallels and analogies are rather important given how legal precedent for and around acknowledgements of rights or the absence to them as pertains forced use, transfer, or using-up of organs and bodily function might be applied.

I do not want to open a philosophical can of worms that creates a justification for where the fungibility problem leads.

There must be a private right to withhold use of organs to anyone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think another interesting side of this is that there is virtually no consideration for the woman post conception. There is all the care in the world about the fetus... a moral obligation! But there is no implied interest in the woman, when society is morally forcing her to endure pregnancy and birth and post-birth related issues. Funding, comfort, assistance aren't mentioned at all. If one were forcing a woman to remain pregnant and give birth, it would seem logical that there would be a moral role a moral obligation on society to provide needs to the woman in doing so.

The lack of any "giving a fuck" would seem to imply that this, again, isn't about the fetus... and is more about punishing the woman for having had sex, and for some... having had sex that led to pregnancy. After all, TomC says the woman needs to be responsible for her actions... as if it is payback and she is due what is coming to her.

 

[TomC]

I think another interesting side of this is that there is virtually no consideration for the woman post conception.

Why would you think this?
Tom