- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 3,981
- Reaction score
- 385
- Location
- Nun-ya-dang Bidness
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The definition of life has not been established and short of both sides agreeing on that it is possible that cherries and watermelons are being compared while arguing which is a legume?
If you read a little more into it,... I think we are not only breaking a little bit of new ground here,... but we are doing so in a quite productive way.
And if something 'doesn't matter' to you?
Where in the hell does the need to announce it come from?
Because this is a fun game of pete and re-pete :mrgreen:
No new ground, no new waves, no new understanding over any of this - no one's jumping ship on their beliefs.
I don't see why you bother - it looks exhausting.
Please, since it is your idea, start it, it should be interesting.Looks like a fitting topic for a new thread to me.
Please, since it is your idea, start it, it should be interesting.
Subjectively? You can both be correct. Objectively? Clearly one (or both!) of you must be incorrect.I am on topic, as I am speaking not only to the rationale, the reasoning and the moral consequences,... but also to the conclusions drawn as well.
Yourself, Jallman and others arrive at the conclusion that a child's life begins at 'brain activity' and I (and my ilk) for the most part conclude that the child's life begins much earlier (conception.)
I don't see how the case can be made that we are both correct in our conclusions.
So, I'll ask again.... Are we both correct in our conclusions for when a child's life begins or is one of us factually incorrect?
It's false because in this thread (and others), plenty of reasons have been given; none of which matches your version. Seeing as it's our knowledge of our reasons vs your guesses at our reasons, our knowledge wins out.
I am on topic, as I am speaking not only to the rationale, the reasoning and the moral consequences,... but also to the conclusions drawn as well.
Yourself, Jallman and others arrive at the conclusion that a child's life begins at 'brain activity' and I (and my ilk) for the most part conclude that the child's life begins much earlier (conception.)
I don't see how the case can be made that we are both correct in our conclusions.
So, I'll ask again.... Are we both correct in our conclusions for when a child's life begins or is one of us factually incorrect?
Subjectively? You can both be correct. Objectively? Clearly one (or both!) of you must be incorrect.
So... is 'life of a person' subjective, or objective?
We're talking about my reasons for making an argument. I know what my reasons are - after all, they are mine. You don't know what my reasons are; you can only speculate. As such, I'm fully qualified to say when your speculation of my reasons doesn't match up to what my reasons actually are. That's not arrogant, it's simple fact.Wow, that's rather arrogant isn't it? You're side is based on knowledge and mine on, what?
Chuz clearly defined the thread, he asked why is the personhood issue so prevalent in the abortion argument. You can spout some philosophical side reasons more fitting for a turtleneck wearing cocktail party or you can discuss it in the context the thread is concerned with.
In the context of the thread, I feel the personhood issue exists solely to dehumanize a fetus allowing for terminating it with a clear conscience. Disagree with that all you like, but your disagreement doesn't make my opinion false or dishonest.
If you wish to believe that life is objective, then I'll (temporarily; I'm still undecided) treat it as such. In which case - either you, Jallman, or both of you must be wrong about when a person's life begins.Chuz said:As it is (for the most part) indisputable that when it is killed, you have a dead something (in an abortion),.... (whatever you choose to call the thing killed,... you can't deny it was killed...)
It's tangible, it has a body of it's own,... it was alive and now it's dead....
I'm betting "objective."
We're talking about my reasons for making an argument. I know what my reasons are - after all, they are mine. You don't know what my reasons are; you can only speculate. As such, I'm fully qualified to say when your speculation of my reasons doesn't match up to what my reasons actually are. That's not arrogant, it's simple fact.
I don't own any turtlenecks. I'm totally up for cocktails, though.
If you wish to believe that life is objective, then I'll (temporarily; I'm still undecided) treat it as such. In which case - either you, Jallman, or both of you must be wrong about when a person's life begins.
They really don't all point back at justifying abortion. You tried to twist them to do so, and failed. If you feel like another attempt at succeeding, I suggest you have another go in the appropriate thread.I've read your reasons, remember? We've discussed them, and from what I can tell, unless you've left something out, they all point back to justifying abortion. Which is why the issue is so often invoked in abortion arguments.
Knob Creek and cola?
They really don't all point back at justifying abortion. You tried to twist them to do so, and failed. If you feel like another attempt at succeeding, I suggest you have another go in the appropriate thread.
If you wish to believe that life is objective, then I'll (temporarily; I'm still undecided) treat it as such. In which case - either you, Jallman, or both of you must be wrong about when a person's life begins.
Again, in your opinion. And very few of them were related to justifying abortion - one (and possibly a second at a stretch) were.I didn't need to twist anything, the only reasons you listed that weren't directly related to justifying abortion didn't require a definition of personhood to exist anyway.
Not really, because at that point we were still talking about the realm of subjectivity. In fact, we still kinda are; we're using subjective arguments (or at least, subjective weighting of arguments) to try and find an (apparently) objective truth.Isn't that Pretty much what I tried to say several posts ago?
Isn't that Pretty much what I tried to say several posts ago?
Not really, because at that point we were still talking about the realm of subjectivity. In fact, we still kinda are; we're using subjective arguments (or at least, subjective weighting of arguments) to try and find an (apparently) objective truth.
I see,.... well unless you are claiming we are both correct in our conclusions,... I fail to see how you are not making the suggestion I mentioned (that one of us is incorrect).
It wasn't that which was being disagreed with (at least, that's how I read it). It was your earlier inferrence that, because there was a disagreement, Jallman must think that you are irrational/amoral/etc.I am not using subjective arguments for anything. And neither was I speaking of subjective arguments when I said;
It wasn't that which was being disagreed with (at least, that's how I read it). It was your earlier inferrence that, because there was a disagreement, Jallman must think that you are irrational/amoral/etc.
As I said, I may disagree with your reasons (in fact, as long as I still disagrre with your conclusions, it's more of a must), but that doesn't mean that I think you're irrational. You just give different things different importances that I do.
You are right, but of course you left out the important characteristic, being correct and that you are not. How is it possible to use personhood to dehumanize when it only applies, in this debate to humans?Disagree with that all you like, but your disagreement doesn't make my opinion false or dishonest.
Except if both are rather subjective and thus are arguing different ideas.Since you are making far less sense now that you were earlier,... I will clarify MY comments again.
Two people can not (in my opinion) claim to use reason, rationale and give consideration to the moral consequences,... come to seperate (opposite) conclusions for when a child's life begins and BOTH be objectively correct.
Except if both are rather subjective and thus are arguing different ideas.
If the reason, rationale and morals are subjective, then both people can use their own versions to come up with a different (objective) answer - one of which will be objectively incorrect.Since you are making far less sense now that you were earlier,... I will clarify MY comments again.
Two people can not (in my opinion) claim to use reason, rationale and give consideration to the moral consequences,... come to seperate (opposite) conclusions for when a child's life begins and BOTH be objectively correct.
If the reason, rationale and morals are subjective, (a notion that has not been confirmed or substantiated) then both people can use their own versions to come up with a different (objective) answer - one of which will be objectively incorrect.
I'm still not convinced that personhood is objective, however.
That's a non-sequiter; it's irrelevant. I'm not sure it's true, either, though I have little interest in finding out.Neither did a significant part of the U.S. population during the time of slavery.
Aparently is more objective now than it was then.
That's a non-sequiter; it's irrelevant. I'm not sure it's true, either, though I have little interest in finding out.
Are you going to get around to responding to the posts which you said you would? I think we've been moored in pointless subjectivity for long enough now, if you're veering off into sidelines on slavery.
But the conclusions are arrived at on different basis. I understand what you are saying and am fully aware of your position on this. However consider this and I am only speaking for myself here.Again, I am talking about the conclusions,.... Not the means of reasoning.
Either a child is a child or it is not. Either it is alive or it is not. Either it's life began at conception or it did not.
These (above) are not subjective conclusions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?