Why pro-choice makes more sense

[Felicity]

Your own conscience is all you need to be concerned with. Be true to it and you will be fine.

One should be sure it is a properly formed conscience before you rely on the "gee, that sounds right to me" method of moral decision-making.

 

[jallman]

One should be sure it is a properly formed conscience before you rely on the "gee, that sounds right to me" method of moral decision-making.

And what would you call a properly formed conscience? Do you mean properly formed or properly indoctrinated?

 

[talloulou]

There is nothing anymore arbitrary about personhood than there is about "human DNA" being your criteria.

To be fair "human DNA" is not her criteria. She doesn't assert that flakes of skin or drops of blood should be considered persons. She asserts that organisms recognized as living members of the species homosapiens should be the criteria.

....if we're being fair.... and honest about one anothers views.

 

[Cremaster77]

There is nothing anymore arbitrary about personhood than there is about "human DNA" being your criteria.

Nothing except biology.

 

[Felicity]

There is nothing anymore arbitrary about personhood than there is about "human DNA" being your criteria.

Yes there is--the definition of person can change. The organism that demonstrates is is of the species human by means of its DNA--is UNCHANGEABLE.

 

[jallman]

To be fair "human DNA" is not her criteria. She doesn't assert that flakes of skin or drops of blood should be considered persons. She asserts that organisms recognized as living members of the species homosapiens should be the criteria.

....if we're being fair.... and honest about one anothers views.

Okay, fine...unique human DNA and totipotency. I still think it is an overly simplistic view of what it means to be human.

 

[jallman]

Yes there is--the definition of person can change. The organism that demonstrates is is of the species human by means of its DNA--is UNCHANGEABLE.

But we, ultimately, are speaking about respecting the sanctity of life, correct?

 

[Felicity]

And what would you call a properly formed conscience? Do you mean properly formed or properly indoctrinated?

One that is truly objective.

 

[Felicity]

But we, ultimately, are speaking about respecting the sanctity of life, correct?

I see you trying to lead this to theology so you can dismiss the BIOLOGICAL FACTS.....Sooooorrrrryyyy...I'll stick with jus' the facts, here.

 

[jallman]

One that is truly objective.

I don't hold that high a regard for the myth of objectivity.

 

[talloulou]

One should be sure it is a properly formed conscience before you rely on the "gee, that sounds right to me" method of moral decision-making.

I try to keep my mind malleable while trying to refrain from being gullible, adaptable but not easily manipulated.

 

[jallman]

I see you trying to lead this to theology so you can dismiss the BIOLOGICAL FACTS.....Sooooorrrrryyyy...I'll stick with jus' the facts, here.

No, I am simply trying to ascertain why you feel this need to place unnecessary limitations and restrictions on a person's choice to protect a thing.

 

[Felicity]

I don't hold that high a regard for the myth of objectivity.

Another of your pinpointed demarcations tell you that objectivity is a myth?

 

[jallman]

Another of your pinpointed demarcations tell you that objectivity is a myth?

Observation and a close study of human nature.

 

[talloulou]

No, I am simply trying to ascertain why you feel this need to place unnecessary limitations and restrictions on a person's choice to protect a thing.

Because it is really about a person's choice to protect or assualt a living member of the species homosapiens whom I am not overly comfortable viewing as a "thing."

 

[Felicity]

I try to keep my mind malleable while trying to refrain from being gullible, adaptable but not easily manipulated.

That's good. Be careful, though....some things sound sooooo right and they just aren't in objectivity.

 

[jallman]

Because it is really about a person's choice to protect or assualt a living member of the species homosapiens whom I am not overly comfortable viewing as a "thing."

So then, it's about feelings for you...comfort or discomfort?

 

[Felicity]

No, I am simply trying to ascertain why you feel this need to place unnecessary limitations and restrictions on a person's choice to protect a thing.

Change "person" and "thing" to human (since they both are demonstatably human organisms) and you'll see why.

 

[jallman]

Change "person" and "thing" to human (since they both are demonstatably human organisms) and you'll see why.

Human is irrelevant. If it is a human thing it does not have anymore moral consequence than any other thing. If it is a human person, then we have every duty to protect him/her from suffering.

 

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Felicity
Another of your pinpointed demarcations tell you that objectivity is a myth?

Observation and a close study of human nature.

So that's a "yes.":lol:

 

[talloulou]

So then, it's about feelings for you...comfort or discomfort?

Sure that's fair to say. If someone is doing something that may be wrong, horrible, violent, ect....and I am completely unaware of it then I obviously can't have anything to do with it one way or the other.

However if I know something is going on that might be wrong and I know about it and I accept it and make no effort to even speak out against it then I immediately become complicit and my conscious suffers. My concern for the unborn is as much about my empathy for them as it is about my selfish need not to be complicit in something my conscious views as wrong.

 

[Felicity]

Human is irrelevant. If it is a human thing it does not have anymore moral consequence than any other thing. If it is a human person, then we have every duty to protect him/her from suffering.

Keep honest now...:naughty


A human organism isn't a human "thing" --in the way you're using the word...don't start with the equivocation!

 

[jallman]

So that's a "yes.":lol:

If you want to see it as such. I just know for a fact that human beings cannot maintain objectivity at all times. I also know that perception and cultural/religious/social influence have a clear impact on these so-called "absolutes".

Even the Vatican recognizes cultural relativity in the Catechism.

 

[jallman]

Keep honest now...:naughty


A human organism isn't a human "thing" --in the way you're using the word...don't start with the equivocation!

It certainly isn't a person or place prior to the connection of the CNS. Being that we both agree it is a noun, that leaves only one more option: a thing.

 

[Felicity]

Even the Vatican recognizes cultural relativity in the Catechism.

Not "moral relativity" though....that's one of your major issues with them, isn't it?