It is currently Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:44 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:18 am
Posts: 2499
Droopy wrote:
I'm not at all clear to me...

That's obvious, dude. You're not clear to anyone else either.

_________________
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Of course not. It just seems likely among those who "protest too much."


In other words, its a standard leftist smear tactic, used primarily for public consumption when circumvention of critical argument is required.

Quote:
And of course, there is plenty of research that says homophobes tend to be attracted to members of the same sex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Quote:
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
Source

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
Abstract

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies


Now, I'm glad you posted this, Bluffalo, as its a wonderful point maker re my long held and argued position that much of psychology isn't science at all, in the normative sense of the term, but a body of disciplines and approaches that wrap themselves in its robes and utilize its structure and language.

The abstract opens with a volley of question begging (the concept of "homophobia" did not originate within psychology, but within the Gay rights lobby/movement and among the cultural Left that supports it, and the concept itself is questionable in that light) and a representative sample of - 35 "homophobes" who are analyzed based upon there scores on a "index of homophobia."

Now, to get an idea of just how "scientific" this "index of homophobia" is, let's take a look at it:

Quote:
I would feel comfortable working closely with a gay man.
____ 2.) I would enjoy attending social functions at which queer people were present.
____ 3.) I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my neighbor was queer.
____ 4.) If a member of my sex made a sexual advance towards me, I would
feel angry.
____ 5.) I would feel comfortable knowing I was attractive to members of my gender.
____ 6.) I would feel uncomfortable being seen in a gay bar.
____ 7.) I would feel uncomfortable if a member of my sex made an advance
towards me.
____ 8.) I would be comfortable if I found myself attracted to a member of my sex.
____ 9.) I would feel disappointed if I learned that my child was queer.
____ 10.) I would feel nervous being in a group of queers.
____ 11.) I would feel comfortable knowing that my clergy person was queer.
____ 12.) I would be upset if I learned that my sibling was queer.
____ 13.) I would feel that I had failed as a parent if I learned that my child was gay.
____ 14.) If I saw two men holding hands in public, I would feel disgusted.
____ 15.) If a member of my gender made an advance towards me, I would be
offended.
____ 16.) I would feel comfortable if I learned that my daughter’s teacher was a
lesbian.
____ 17.) I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my spouse or partner was
attracted to a member of his/her gender.
____ 18.) I would feel at ease talking with a queer at a party.
____ 19.) I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my boss was queer.
____ 20.) It would not bother me to walk through a predominantly gay section of town
____ 21.) It would disturb me to find out that my doctor was queer.
____ 22.) I would feel comfortable if I learned that my best friend of my gender was
queer.
____ 23.) If a member of my gender made an advance towards me, I would feel
flattered.
____ 24.) I would feel uncomfortable knowing that my son’s teacher


One can choose Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree.

As even a modestly educated organ grinder monkey can quite clearly see, far from being anything remotely resembling "social science," this is nothing more than a preconceived, ideologically loaded pseudoscientific instrument that assumes the existence of a mental disorder based upon the existence of an alleged psychopathology ( a phobia) and which then determines the existence of such psychopathology based upon personal attitudes and perceptions of homosexuals and homosexuality qua homosexuality with reference to the existence of the alleged psychological condition and grounded in the further question begging assumption that overall negative attitudes toward homosexuality, Gay culture, and homosexual tendencies among friends or family members, is evidence of mental disorder (psychological incorrectness, if not political).

Now, let's revise this instrument a bit, in a way that exposes its actual bias and agenda, and see if its still looks like something most people would want to defend:


Index of Aryanophobia


This questionnaire is deigned to measure the way you feel about working or association with Aryans and members of the master race. This is not a test, so there are no wrong answers. Answer each item as carefully and accurately as you can by placing a number beside each one as follows:


____ 1.) I would feel comfortable working closely with a white Aryan.
____ 2.) I would enjoy attending social functions at which members of the master race were present.
____ 3.) I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my neighbor was Aryan.
____ 4.) If a member of the master race commanded me to do something, I would feel angry.
____ 5.) I would feel comfortable knowing I was thought of as inferior by members of the master race.
____ 6.) I would feel uncomfortable being seen in an Aryan bar.
____ 7.) I would feel uncomfortable if a member of the master race made an advance towards me.
____ 8.) I would be comfortable if I found myself attracted to a member of the master race.
____ 9.) I would feel disappointed if I learned that my child was in the Hitler Youth.
____ 10.) I would feel nervous being in a group of Aryans.
____ 11.) I would feel comfortable knowing that my clergy person was Aryan.
____ 12.) I would be upset if I learned that my sibling was not Aryan (blended family)
____ 13.) I would feel that I had failed as a parent if I learned that my child was a National Socialist.
____ 14.) If I saw two men holding Nazi flags in public, I would feel disgusted.
____ 15.) If a member of the master race made an advance towards me, I would be offended.
____ 16.) I would feel comfortable if I learned that my daughter’s teacher was an Aryan.
____ 17.) I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my spouse or partner was attracted to a member of the master race.
____ 18.) I would feel at ease talking with a member of the gestapo at a party.
____ 19.) I would feel uncomfortable if I learned that my boss was Aryan.
____ 20.) It would not bother me to walk through a predominantly Aryan section of town
____ 21.) It would disturb me to find out that my doctor was Aryan.
____ 22.) I would feel comfortable if I learned that my best friend of my gender was Aryan.
____ 23.) If a member of my race made an advance towards me, I would feel flattered.
____ 24.) I would feel uncomfortable knowing that my son’s teacher was Aryan.
____ 25.) I would feel comfortable working closely with an Aryan.

At a score of 100-125 one has "mostly negative feelings about Aryans/members of the master race, and is clearly an Aryanophobe (or Caucasiophobe).

We can do this any way we like. We could reverse the process, for instance. We could make up, upon ideological grounds, the mental disorder of heterophobia, and then ask questions about it in a search for those suffering from it and who would then be understood to be in need of therapeutic intervention. We could classify homosexuality as a psychopathology in which extreme, irrational fear of the opposite gender pushes one into same sex attraction. We could construct ideologically/politically loaded instruments that demonstrate psychopathology when people score within a certain range based upon their feelings about leftists, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Mormons, Catholics, or any identity group we desire, and then interpret negative perceptions (as we define "negative") as indicating the presence of personality disorder.

We can, in other words, medicalize ethics, philosophy, political ideology, and moral conviction. This has a long and sordid history on the Left, and its still continuing to this day (and I don't mean just this study, by any means).

This is classic Adorno (and Lenin, for that matter).

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 9:32 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
Droopy, what would the meter read, attached to Droopy Jr., if you were exposed to gay porn?

There is a high probability that it would show arousal. That's just a scientific fact. Your absurd comparison of gays to white supremacists further supports it.

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:02 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Tarski wrote:
Droopy wrote:

Its only a lie if I know it is.


And you knew it!


Put your crystal ball away, and let's get on with it.

Quote:
The Church has never clarified if and when the unjustified killing of an unborn child is murder,

Quote:
How brave of them.


Yawn...

Quote:
You apparently don't understand my model of personhood since you argue with me below by stating that it is a matter of degrees ---which is exactly what I said!


You have not as yet articulated any model of personhood, with any degree of detail.

Quote:
and again! I am the one that opposes the absolutes. Please try to convince your fellow conservatives who seem to think that a fertilized embryo is a person.


I have severe doubts that my initial critique of "personhood" is anything like yours, were you to articulate it hear in other than bare outline.

Quote:
The difference between the embryo, a fetus, an infant, and and elderly person, are ones of degree, phase, development, and continuity, not one of kind.

not one of kind? So a pine seed just is a tree-period?


Are you having problems conceptualizing the idea that the entire developmental trajectory from embryo to fetus to infant to child to adult to corpse all involve a human organism?

Quote:
he says without bothering to give define humanness.


Have you ever heard of DNA, Tarski? That's where we begin. All the specific information therein defines the core nature of the organism. "Humanness" in any more expansive sense is another nebulous conceptualization, like "personhood" that you are going to have to delineate in much greater detail, less throwing the terms around hoping one of them will somehow stick.

Quote:
Gee, I wonder what is the humanness content of a human sperm cell (or any other cell).


Probably the fact that it is a human sperm cell and a human female egg that unite to form a human cell mass that becomes a human embryo. Round and round the ideological centrifuge we go, eh Tarski?

Quote:
There is no fact of the matter in borderline cases. But, a one year old is definitely a person as is a newborn (we would stipulate as much in any case), while a newly fertilized ovum is not. Do you really think you can address personhood without reference to the issues I mentioned?


Part of the main problem I addressed in my last post is the:

1. Nebulousness of the concept of "personhood, " and

2. The question of whether on not "personhood" need be the defining demarcation line in reference to which moral questions regarding abortion can be legitimately asked at any time in the human developmental process.

Quote:
you believe in unrestricted abortion, for any reason, upon any pretext, as a form of birth control.

Quote:
That's twice!! WTF??
Now there is no conceivable excuse this time. Since I said "first trimester" I have in that very sentence implicated at least one possible restriction!


You allowed for no restrictions whatsoever in the first trimester. Here is what you said:

Quote:
by the way, for a first trimester abortion, it is enough that the pregnant women in question does not want a child and cannot carry the fetus to term without causing major damage to her own life goals


Please show how this language is not a carte blanche for abortion in the first trimester for any subjective reason or pretext whatsoever.

Quote:
Then I went on to give other indications that would question the morality abortion done to avoid minor inconveniences or as part of a premediated habit of delayed contraception. (I know of no one who would do this however. It is a fantasy of the right.)


You went on to give no specific or clear examples at all, save for an extreme hypothetical circumstance that I then showed no necessary reason for abortion at all.

Quote:
You essentially support the traditional NOW, NARL, radical feminist/anti-natalist position of the cultural Left, at least for the first trimester.

Quote:
Oops, there is that restriction again. Maybe there are more.



See your own words above.

Quote:
by the way, anyone who uses the word "anti-natalist" deserves nothing but laughter.


Yes, I'm sure your right, Tarski.

Quote:
Except that the malicious psychopath father (of the mere non-person unconscious tiny fetus) is intent on pursuing legal action, calculated lying, and unrelenty emotional manipulation of relatives and friends and other steps to ruin the mothers reputation and force himself into her life----forever (because he is a psychopath who thinks he owns her). The mother is not herself consitutionally able to out maneuver the creep and one can anticipate ends up a defeated suicide risk. The adoption was never really an option except on paper. You apprently have no idea how simple this is for some personalities and the kind of hell and hopelessness that follows.


These kinds of "what if you were the Pope and you were kidnapped by the Mafia and forced to have sex with a beautiful woman on film, and if you don't they will nuke Los Angeles" ethics class scenarios are fun, but the very fact that you need to use them to make your point is telling in and of itself.

Its like writing a movie screenplay. I can see a number of ways out of her predicament, and quite without abortion.

Quote:
Fortunately, as it stands, you and your inexperienced judgemental old white celebate ass friends do not get to make such judgements from a safe distance as you would like.


The typical sanctimonious moral breast beating from the Anointed when they've been cornered by their own intellectual shoddiness.

Quote:
Since my point isn't rationally opposable or even remotely sad if we assume the whole spirit child thing, I can only assume that your opposition to my example is based on political habit only.


So very typical of the Anointed, to reduce the principled convictions and philosophical principles of their opponents to mere "habits"

You have not even an inkling of an idea the slippery moral and social road you and the rest of the Left are traveling here, and neither your strange, inverted morality nor your slipshod sophistries in its defense can alter what we already know about where that road leads.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
It's not immoral to kill nonpersons if no person is harmed by it, therefore there's nothing wrong with killing fetuses if they are not persons.


Therefore, there is nothing wrong with killing Jews, if no non-person (non-Jews, or at least Aryans) is harmed, from within the National Socialist perspective (Jews are "cattle," from within this perspective). Similarly, from within another modern perspective, Jews are "apes and pigs" and can be dealt with accordingly.

Other perceived sub-humans, such as blacks, can also be dealt with - predicated upon the particular cultural assumptions and ideology of the time - in whatever manner deemed appropriate for "non-persons" from within that cultural context.

Again, we have the concept "person" deployed as a moral demarcation line, but no guidance as to just what a "person" is from within what perceptual prism, nor any clear way to determine how these terms and concepts will be understood and used within other cultural contexts and other perceptual prisms once the fundamental premise - that there is a class of humans known as "non-persons" who can be exterminated at will for whatever subjective preferential reason - has been accepted as a fundamental moral axiom.

It is also not at all clear in a moral sense that embryos and fetuses can simply be killed at will, even if they are "non-persons" in some immediate sociocultural sense, as if killing embryos qua killing embryos on a mass societal scale can somehow be isolated from larger scale moral and cultural dynamics and effects that are inherent, not simply in the act itself, but in the psychological and moral qualities of a people that could produce such a cultural practice of mass convenience embryo/fetus killing.

Quote:
A person is a being deserving of moral respect.


From within specific perceptual and moral frames of reference, this is correct.

Quote:
Since there are philosophically strong conceptions of personhood - the dominant ones actually - that do not cover all of the unborn, it is a central issue in the debate over abortion. It is thee primary issue, actually.


But they are not settled, and the philosophical questions posed are wide open.

Quote:
support making it a crime to kill grass, do you? Why not? Because grass has no moral status in your view, right? Tarski and a huge % of pro-choicers - especially those with some background in ethics - think the same of blastocysts. Meanwhile, the central argument that animates pro-lifers is that fetuses do have moral status and therefore it is wrong to kill them. That's why it matters. You actually imply that it matters when you point out that fetuses are biologically human. The implication is that being biologically human is an important criteria for being a person. Maybe it didn't occur to you that not everyone agrees with this. It's not even a particularly defensible position, if you are curious.


Fascinating how the far Left, hard, secularistic utilitarian/pragmatist libertarianism, environmentalism, and other allied secular humanist philosophies (such as animal rights ideology (a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy)) form, in the end, a closed circle. All the same, at the root.

The moral problem of convenience abortion on demand, including in the first trimester, does not reside in "personhood," (whatever that is), but in humanness itself. That is the crux of the matter. A human embryo, barring accident or lethal disease, if left to itself and allowed to follow a normal, developmental path, will, inevitably and inexorably, become a human person.

Whether or not an embryo or fetus could be considered a "person" or not, is only peripherally relevant (and only comes into play under conditions in which the life of the mother, rape or incest (or, per the church, severe defects) tilt the moral question in the favor of abortion. When there is no such moral balancing in play, when the pregnancy was willfully entered into (by having sex), and when, left to itself, the embryo will develop into a human person, the moral question becomes, not whether the human being growing within the mother is a human person, but whether the developmental path from human being to human person can be terminated, and for what reasons.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 10:09 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Posts: 3059
Droopy wrote:
Probably the fact that it is a human sperm cell and a human female egg that unite to form a human cell mass that becomes a human embryo.


"human cell mass" ??

This is how I will think of you; a human cell mass.

Here is another use of the word human in the same (irrelevant) sense:

Human DNA mass. (Single chromosome maybe?)
It's human!!

Image

_________________
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 7:28 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12614
Droopy wrote:

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with killing Jews, if no non-person (non-Jews, or at least Aryans) is harmed, from within the National Socialist perspective (Jews are "cattle," from within this perspective). Similarly, from within another modern perspective, Jews are "apes and pigs" and can be dealt with accordingly.


Jews are persons. I guess you now understand why personhood matters to the debate. Probably not, but you should.
Quote:
Again, we have the concept "person" deployed as a moral demarcation line, but no guidance as to just what a "person" is


That's what the debate is about. You have your own definition of personhood too. You might not recognize it that way because you seem unfamiliar with the terminology as it is used in ethics and law, but you have it nonetheless. After all, you seem to think Jews are people but grass is not. You just sort of take it for granted, it would seem, that being a unique biological human is what defines personhood. Later you hint at the potential argument, which is distinct from that. This, however, is a view that requires defense, not assumption. I don't think that is the quality that matters for personhood. I don't think "vegetables" are persons, for instance. Humans aren't worth respect because they happen to have a human genome. While I find the question of personhood to be one of the more difficult issues in ethics, this stance is baseless to me. It's other qualities that humans just so happen to possess that matter in my view. The specifics are technical, but it's more related to the capacity for sentient consciousness. Tarksi is obviously along those lines as well, and that's the dominant viewpoint. What's important for this discussion, though, is not who's right but simply understanding why people disagree and what they are disagreeing about.
Quote:
From within specific perceptual and moral frames of reference, this is correct.

It's a definition, droopy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 7:40 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12614
It's worth noting that Droopy is making a second argument partially hidden behind a wall of bad writing that is its own thing. He's arguing that the availability of abortion breeds a callousness towards human life that in turn predisposes people towards harming other, non-fetal, people. Therefore, it is in society's best interest to not allow this. This isn't a particulary common anti-abortion argument. It reminds me of animal rights activists' arguments that are along the same line. We should outlaw various harms to animals, not simply because animals themselves are deserving of rights, but because their mistreatment predisposes people to treat other people badly.

This argument can be addressed on its own terms. But this thread isn't an abortion debate. This line of discussion is a consequence of Brackite seemingly being oblivious to the idea that someone wouldn't consider a fetus - an embryo even - a person.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:35 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Humans aren't worth respect because they happen to have a human genome.


This is exactly the position I would expect to ultimately develop within the pragmatist/utilitarian frame of reference. Its clear moral and societal danger is, of course, that once having lost respect for humanness per se, definitions and conceptions of what constitutes, not humanness, but legitimate humanness are opened up to the self justifying winds of political expediency, social/cultural drift, and the philosophical vogue of the cultural moment.

Quote:
It's other qualities that humans just so happen to possess that matter in my view. The specifics are technical, but it's more related to the capacity for sentient consciousness.


If the capacity for sentient consciousness is the core of one's concern, then it would appear that being opposed to abortion, from the moment of conception, save for cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life/well being of the mother, would be the logically required position, as the capacity for both consciousness and sentience is inherent at the most fundamental levels of human embryonic development.
Quote:

From within specific perceptual and moral frames of reference, this is correct.

Quote:
It's a definition, droopy.


No, its an open philosophical question, one that, as in virtually all other areas in which you pretend to deep intellectual insight, you balk at pursuing beyond Wiki links and arguments from authority purporting to settle such thorny questions once and for all (according to some obscure and presently fashionable consensus among an equally obscure and fashionable segment of the intelligentsia).

I didn't think you'd want to go very far into "specific perceptual and moral frames of reference." That would, after all, require some real arduous, exacting, detailed thinking for which some Wiki links regarding what's popular at the moment among some segment of the academic community are not going to be an adequate substitute.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
He's arguing that the availability of abortion breeds a callousness towards human life that in turn predisposes people towards harming other, non-fetal, people. Therefore, it is in society's best interest to not allow this.


Nope. I've never made that argument. My argument is that convenience abortion on demand, or, unrestricted elective abortion based upon, to use Tarski's term, a pregnancy interfering with or causing an interruption of the perusing of "life goals" produces a moral coldness (of the same kind that results in many unwanted pregnancies) or unconcern toward other humans, not based upon whether they are unborn, born, or already well developed "persons," but whether or not they are "in my way" in my pursuance of "life goals" and are in a position to make morally grounded claims upon my time, priorities, and life focus.

Quote:
This isn't a particulary common anti-abortion argument.


Actually, its quite well developed, and has been for sometime (and your unawareness of it shocks me not at all).

The concept of "quality of life" has long been displacing concern for humanness qua humanness in the general area of bioethics, of which the abortion debate is one facet. The ramifications of unlimited convenience abortion reach into the debate over euthanasia (unrestricted convenience abortion's close sibling), embryonic stem cell research, and the nature of the rationing of health care that would be required in any sort of socialized, single payer health care system.

Quote:
It reminds me of animal rights activists' arguments that are along the same line. We should outlaw various harms to animals, not simply because animals themselves are deserving of rights, but because their mistreatment predisposes people to treat other people badly.


Except that animals do not, and cannot, have "rights," and are not human, which means this analogy is a logical hole with no bottom (its well understood, while we're at it, that cruelty to animals is a good predictor of violence toward human beings in the future, as is violence against the property of others).

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:18 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 13319
Droopy wrote:
Quote:


It reminds me of animal rights activists' arguments that are along the same line. We should outlaw various harms to animals, not simply because animals themselves are deserving of rights, but because their mistreatment predisposes people to treat other people badly.


Except that animals do not, and cannot, have "rights," and are not human, which means this analogy is a logical hole with no bottom (its well understood, while we're at it, that cruelty to animals is a good predictor of violence toward human beings in the future, as is violence against the property of others).


He's not arguing in favor of animal rights, Droopy. He's disputing your argument.

And the research indicating that torturing animals leads to violence against people comes from psychology. But you've made it clear that you don't think psychology is a science, so there's no reason for you to allude to psychological studies.

And yes, animals do indeed have rights. Wherever laws against animal cruelty are in effect, animals have been granted statutory rights to be free from cruelty. There is also a remedy for a breach of those rights, in the form of criminal penalties. I'm aware that you can't grasp the concept of rights that are created by statute, because that would entail knowing what you're talking about and stuff like that.

But as far your philosophical assertion that animals "cannot" have rights, I'm really not surprised at all that you don't believe in the teachings of the church you purport to defend.

The Gospel and Animals

“Says one, ‘I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.’ Any man who would tell you this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beast giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The beasts were four of the most noble animals that filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect. They were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God.” (DHC, vol. 5, pp. 343–44.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:22 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12614
Droopy wrote:
This is exactly the position I would expect to ultimately develop within the pragmatist/utilitarian frame of reference.


Utilitarianism does not dictate one's views on personhood - utiltiarians have varying views on the subject. The specific view I tentatively hold derives in part from the fact that I am a desire consequentialist, but that's all gibberish to you if your posts here are any indication.

Quote:
Its clear moral and societal danger is, of course, that once having lost respect for humanness per se, definitions and conceptions of what constitutes, not humanness, but legitimate humanness are opened up to the self justifying winds of political expediency, social/cultural drift, and the philosophical vogue of the cultural moment.


You're begging the question of your own position. Tell me Droopy, why should we define a being as being worthy of moral respect if and only if they possess a genome that is sufficiently human-like? Why should that matter? I don't think it is our biological structure that makes us worthy of respect per se. It's the fact that our biological structure causes us to have certain traits that are worthy of respect - that we have sentience, conscious aims, a recoverable sense of self in time, etc. Theoretically, an alien species could possess the same traits and be co-equally deserving of the same moral rights. You're free to disagree, but you don't appear to be aware that your position isn't self evident. It's not even popular. It requires defending and you don't seem up to the task of doing so.
Quote:
If the capacity for sentient consciousness is the core of one's concern...


Not potential. Capacity. A bird's egg has the potential to become something that can fly. It does not have the capacity to fly.

Quote:
No, its an open philosophical question,


I'm defining what "personhood" refers to. I'm not saying what traits constitutes personhood. This is a basic term that you are completely unaware of. Hence you fly off the handle talking about throwing Jews into the ovens when I merely use the term. Odd that you blather on and on about deep philosophical knowledge and insight and yet are completely oblivious to basic philosophical terminology. In all those years of being an auto-didact, it would seem you failed to learn something that is taught at an entry level course. Fret not, as I'm sure this very thread will at some point cause you to look up what we are talking about. You'll then come back at a later time using the correct approach and acting like this never happened.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:35 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12614
Darth J wrote:

He's not arguing in favor of animal rights, Droopy. He's disputing your argument.


I would dispute it, but I'm not even disputing it here. I'm simply pointing it out. We're not debating the ethics of legalized abortion here, so it's a red herring. A lot of words are being used simply to point out that Brackite's post is predicated on assuming a view of personhood many pro-choicers aren't apt to agree with. Hearing "personhood" sent off some emotional, associative trip-wire in Droopy's brain and this is the result. Personhood is just having qualities deserving of moral/legal respect. Droopy clearly has views on this - he thinks being a biologically human individual is what defines personhood. But, because he can't follow things well, he prefers his own term "humanness" - which loads his position into term right out of the gate - to take the place of personhood. It's not our fault if he wants to use his idiosyncratic terms to replace standard jargon in ethics and law. It doesn't make what I said any less on point.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:50 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 13319
EAllusion wrote:
Darth J wrote:

He's not arguing in favor of animal rights, Droopy. He's disputing your argument.


I would dispute it, but I'm not even disputing it here. I'm simply pointing it out. We're not debating the ethics of legalized abortion here, so it's a red herring. A lot of words are being used simply to point out that Brackite's post is predicated on assuming a view of personhood many pro-choicers aren't apt to agree with. Hearing "personhood" sent off some emotional, associative trip-wire in Droopy's brain and this is the result. Personhood is just having qualities deserving of moral/legal respect. Droopy clearly has views on this - he thinks being a biologically human individual is what defines personhood. But, because he can't follow things well, he prefers his own term "humanness" - which loads his position into term right out of the gate - to take the place of personhood. It's not our fault if he wants to use his idiosyncratic terms to replace standard jargon in ethics and law. It doesn't make what I said any less on point.


Right, that's what I meant. Droopy can't even frame an issue; he just regurgitates talking points. That's why he is responding to your statement as if it's your affirmative position.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Utilitarianism does not dictate one's views on personhood -


Utilitarianism can ground its idea of morality in nothing more than cultural consensus, and in the cultural consensus of a selected sub-group of that culture. And therein lies disturbing possibilities.

So you are here claiming that consequentialism (of any kind) is not simply another form or formulation of utilitarian ethics (could it not be called "desire utilitarianism?". Is not disire (and rule and preference) consequentialism a variation upon a broader, essentially utilitarian derived philosophical theme?

Quote:
You're begging the question of your own position. Tell me Droopy, why should we define a being as being worthy of moral respect if and only if they possess a genome that is sufficiently human-like? Why should that matter?


1. This is not what I've claimed, and is, at best, a gross oversimplification.
2. "Human-like." I'm not interested in human-like DNA, only human DNA.

Quote:
I don't think it is our biological structure that makes us worthy of respect per se. It's the fact that our biological structure causes us to have certain traits that are worthy of respect - that we have sentience, conscious aims, a recoverable sense of self in time, etc.


The "traits" that you say are worthy of respect are inherent and contained within the sperm and the egg upon their successful combining in the womb. The "traits" of "personhood," or, to clarify, the attributes you claim are worthy of moral consideration are the intrinsic and inexorable manifestations of the fundamental and inherent nature of the information and properties contained within the developing embryo.

Your removal of moral consideration from the human being in one form, and retention of it in another is at the center of the entire ethical problem of abortion. The fundamental question of virtually all abortion since Roe has been the question of the personal and social inconvenience a human life in a relatively undeveloped or progressively complexifying form presents to the "life goals" (personal life options) of a human being in a more advanced stage of development.

The removal of moral consideration from the embryo or fetus to satisfy the need to circumvent the consequences of irresponsible sexual activity, and as a weapon of cultural struggle against western civilizational norms regarding traditional gender roles and normative concepts of family (the ideological core of feminist support of unrestricted abortion) cannot be limited, restricted, or confined to the embryo and fetus. That is the moral/philosophical can of worms the culture of unrestricted, unlimited abortion on demand opens before us. The question, outside of rape, incest, or the life and serious health consequences to a woman by bringing an unborn child to term, is, for the secular humanist Left, one of "quality of life" (defined as each person so defines it) over against allowing another life, as yet not fully developed, to fully emerge as a "person," even if certain sacrifices of "life goals," however subjectively understood, must be made by those who have already arrived at the state of "personhood."

The moral question then, and a question intimately bound up with the question of the sexual revolution, its value system, and the consequences of subscribing to that value system, is not personhood over against non-personhood (except in the cases where abortion is morally recognized as legitimate because of a profound conflict between a person (the mother) and the unborn fetus (emerging or potential person) that cannot be resolved with lesser means and which are not related to any actions or conduct taken either by the mother or by other third parties), but of what kind of society and what kind of people we are to become (and enculturate in the future) as the fundamental question is shifted away from the core sanctity of human life qua human life, and from the variables effecting the moral viability of the larger culture, to concentrated focus upon the self and its "quality of life" as defined by each morally autonomous human being independent of choices made regarding other human life, even if that human life is yet only emergent, and does not fully qualify, according to the ideological consensus of a particular age or era, as protected by the same moral barriers that protect "persons."

Quote:
If the capacity for sentient consciousness is the core of one's concern...
Quote:
Not potential. Capacity. An bird's egg has the potential to become something that can fly. It does not have the capacity to fly.


Now you're just playing word games. An embryo has the capacity (Ability to perform or produce, The maximum or optimum amount that can be produced) to become - to develop and complexify. The end result of which, unless interrupted and terminated, will be "pesonhood." That capacity is grounded in the embryo's inherent biological, genetic, and biochemical structure. The term "capacity" will support that usages - as productive, developing potential.

Quote:
I'm defining what "personhood" refers to. I'm not saying what traits constitutes personhood.


Then you should, because until you do, you're simply blowing smoke out of your philosophical derriere and masking ideology with artificial philosophical sweetener.

Until we know what "personhood" actually is, in some detail, we cannot look at convenience abortion on demand as in real moral conflict with it, as the Left demands we do.

I deleted your high school cut down tantrum for the irrelevant blather that it was. Try - just try, now and then - to rise just a bit above Kevin Graham in your "philosophical" discussions.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Hearing "personhood" sent off some emotional, associative trip-wire in Droopy's brain and this is the result.


Its just the problem that morality, for you, can be reduced to nothing more that subjective personal preference attainment, whatever that may be, and as defined within particular generation or era. If a pregnancy and/or motherhood will interrupt going to law school, or cause one to have to quite work and interrupt a carreer path for a while, or will put a crimp in one's social/sexual lifestyle, kill it. Terminate it. Abort it.

That is the mentality with which we are dealing here.

I do notice your inability to "think on the hoof" outside of what you appear to believe is a closed canon of textbook definitions and pat answers to philosophical questions and terminology by those you have chosen to see as authorities on these open and contentious subjects, but, after all, this is the Trailerpark, and philosophy in the Trailerpark may not be the same as philosophy in La Jolla.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Hearing "personhood" sent off some emotional, associative trip-wire in Droopy's brain and this is the result.


Its just the problem that morality, for you, can be reduced to nothing more that subjective personal preference attainment, whatever that may be, and as defined within a particular generation or era. If a pregnancy and/or motherhood will interrupt going to law school, or cause one to have to quite work and interrupt a career path for a while, or will put a crimp in one's social/sexual lifestyle, kill it. Terminate it. Abort it.

That is the mentality with which we are dealing here.

I do notice your inability to "think on the hoof" outside of what you appear to believe is a closed canon of textbook definitions and pat answers to philosophical questions and terminology by those you have chosen to see as authorities on these open and contentious subjects, but, after all, this is the Trailerpark, and philosophy in the Trailerpark may not be the same as philosophy in La Jolla.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:13 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12614
Droopy wrote:
1. This is not what I've claimed, and is, at best, a gross oversimplification.
2. "Human-like." I'm not interested in human-like DNA, only human DNA.


Populations of organisms are related on a continuum. The species cutoff point is artificial, even on the interbreeding criterion. The borders are fuzzy and if you were to happen upon them, that would create a problem for what you are asserting. I spotted you this problem by saying sufficiently human-like.

Quote:
The "traits" that you say are worthy of respect are inherent and contained within the sperm and the egg upon their successful combining in the womb.


No they aren't. I'm not sure if you are asserting that blastocysts are conscious beings, but they aren't. If you are saying they have the potential to become one, that's true, usually. This is an argument some people adopt. I don't buy the potential criterion, but I get the arguments in favor of it. Surely you understand the difference between saying that a collection of cells has the potential to develop certain traits and saying that it has them.
Quote:
Now you're just playing word games.


I'm making a distinction. This ethics of abortion 101 stuff. If you were as well-read as you like to claim, I don't think this would be as challenging a discussion as it's being made out to be.

Quote:
Until we know what "personhood" actually is, in some detail...

Hey, look, it's the point I was making about Brackite's post.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:15 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 13319
Droopy wrote:
Its just the problem that morality, for you, can be reduced to nothing more that subjective personal preference attainment, whatever that may be, and as defined within particular generation or era.


Oh, so what you're saying is that EAllusion has a testimony of his ideas that he gained through exercising Moroni's Promise.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:18 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 am
Posts: 12614
Droopy wrote:

I do notice your inability to "think on the hoof" outside of what you appear to believe is a closed canon of textbook definitions and pat answers to philosophical questions and terminology by those you have chosen to see as authorities on these open and contentious subjects, but, after all, this is the Trailerpark, and philosophy in the Trailerpark may not be the same as philosophy in La Jolla.


I've been able to parse what you are saying, which I take as a credit to myself. I've just pointed out the problem with you objecting to the jargon I'm using. At this point, either you still don't understand what it means or you're just being stubborn. Remember the Mississippi measure to legally define personhood to include fertlized eggs that failed?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/1108/ ... Day-neared

You know why they used that word? Because that's the standard term in law and ethics. Hence what I was saying made sense.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Populations of organisms are related on a continuum. The species cutoff point is artificial, even on the interbreeding criterion. The borders are fuzzy and if you were to happen upon them, that would create a problem for what you are asserting. I spotted you this problem by saying sufficiently human-like.


A human egg makes contact with and fertilizes a human female egg.

1. What is the genetic identity of the sperm, the egg, and the resulting cell division that is initiated by the fertilization process?

2. Is your sperm human sperm, or is it "human-like?" What other form of organic life can potentially form from the union of a human sperm and egg? Give us some taxonomic possibilities.


Quote:
The "traits" that you say are worthy of respect are inherent and contained within the sperm and the egg upon their successful combining in the womb.

Quote:
No they aren't. I'm not sure if you are asserting that blastocysts are conscious beings, but they aren't.


Now you're either being intentionally obtuse or you really aren't up to this discussion. I don't know which but I'll soldier on for the moment, with hope springing eternal.

All human attributes you claim are worthy of respect are already contained, as emergent properties and inherent developmental potential, within the embryo (or fetus, or human being at any stage of in vitro development). Abortion is the termination, or permanent interruption of a developmental process that, unless accident or disease of some kind alters its trajectory, can have no other result than the birth of a human child.

Now, here's the next question: Assuming a child makes its way out of the birth canal, and is lying there on the table in the hospital. Its cleaned up and taken to the mother to nurse and be held and cuddled. At what point, after exiting the birth canal, are moral protections and barriers to be erected around a human infant? Is it a "person" at the time the doctor spanks it? One hour later? A week? Some months? How long, and upon what basis do we make this determination?

Quote:
If you are saying they have the potential to become one, that's true. This is an argument some people adopt. I don't buy the potential criterion, but I get the arguments in favor of it. Surely you understand the difference between saying that a collection of cells has the potential to develop certain traits and saying that it has them.


I don't recall ever claiming that it has them. Ever. That would be rather ludicrous, don't you think (and I don't know who, if anyone, has ever made that argument, at least anyone who wishes to be taken seriously). If you don't accept that a human embryo is human, and has the inherent (and exclusive) potential to become a human infant, and then a human child, and then a human adult, then please explain why this is the case.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Stem, tana and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group