How do you feel about the LP platform on abortion?

[Truth Warrior]

The reason I want to stick with people is that animals are totally irrelevant -- we do not believe they have a right to life at any age, and we have no way of knowing if they are self aware. It is not a useful analogy.



I think that I am a mind, and am by nature self aware. I do not think my body gained self awareness, I think my mind gained a body. Before that point I would say that I did not exist, there was only a mass of tissue. (or, if I did exist, I had nothing to do with my body)

Can you answer the question about body parts please? I can put it another way, if it helps:

Suppose you lost your body below the abdomen. Why would you consider yourself to be the upper portion, and not the lower? Why is amputating a leg and discarding it not murder, but amputating a head and discarding it is? Isn't it because the brain, as the seat of the mind, plays a special role in defining personhood?

If your mother had aborted you, where would you be?

 

[tremendoustie]

If your mother had aborted you, where would you be?

I don't know how that works, I'm not God. Perhaps I would have a different body, or perhaps I would never have existed at all. Where would I be if my parents had used birth control or never met each other? It's the same question.

Now, if my mother aborted me as a human being with a mind, that would be murder, in my view.

The distinction is quite obvious to me. It's why there's nothing wrong with destroying robots. In order for it to be murder, there must be a being experiencing being murdered.

 

[Krugerrand]

The reason I want to stick with people is that animals are totally irrelevant -- we do not believe they have a right to life at any age, and we have no way of knowing if they are self aware. It is not a useful analogy.

I think that I am a mind, and am by nature self aware. I do not think my body gained self awareness, I think my mind gained a body. Before that point I would say that I did not exist, there was only a mass of tissue. (or, if I did exist, I had nothing to do with my body)

Can you answer the question about body parts please? I can put it another way, if it helps:

Suppose you lost your body below the abdomen. Why would you consider yourself to be the upper portion, and not the lower? Why is amputating a leg and discarding it not murder, but amputating a head and discarding it is? Isn't it because the brain, as the seat of the mind, plays a special role in defining personhood?

Animals are perfectly relevant. You are suggesting that my logic implies that a part of a human is a separate human. A part of any creature is not a separate creature. Part of a chicken is not a separate chicken. Part of a rat is not a separate rat. Part of a human is not a separate human. (star-fish being a possible exception) Drop the self-awareness distraction. Self-awareness is one characteristic that humans have. So is hair. But, you are still human before the hair characteristic develops.

Why would consider the discarding of an amputated led not murder - for the same reason cutting of a chicken's leg is not the death of the chicken - the entity / organism lives without the part. Cut off the head of a person, cut off the head of the chicken - the organism/entity dies. I consider that killing the entity/organism. It has nothing to do with where the seat of the mind is.

You are flatly denying the existance of an entity - be it human, chicken, monkey or whatever.

This is what I take as human:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

I do not care at what stage it is in its development. You can trace your development or ANYBODY's development back to the moment sperm meets egg. That's what gets protected - the homo sapien - at any point in development up until its natural death.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I don't know how that works, I'm not God. Perhaps I would have a different body, or perhaps I would never have existed at all. Where would I be if my parents had used birth control or never met each other? It's the same question.

Now, if my mother aborted me as a self-aware human being, that would be murder.

Nor am I.

At what point of your prenatal development COULD she have, and have it not be?

BTW, the SCOTUS doesn't know either.<IMHO> They just drew a line in time. Before OK, after NOT.

 

[JS4Pat]

The federal government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in the issue of abortion. For this reason, we believe that Roe vs Wade should be overturned and this complex and sensitive issue returned to the states.

Irrelevant! Aggression is aggression, no matter who, how or where.

Hang on now...

Aren't laws against murder settled (for the most part) at the state level?

I'm as Pro-Life as they come.

I used to even support federal intervention on this issue - but this movement has taught me the "constitutional flaw" in such a position.

I truly believe (at least on a national level) that my above suggestion could be the common ground on the issue that has never been able to find common ground.

 

[tremendoustie]

Animals are perfectly relevant. You are suggesting that my logic implies that a part of a human is a separate human. A part of any creature is not a separate creature. Part of a chicken is not a separate chicken. Part of a rat is not a separate rat. Part of a human is not a separate human. (star-fish being a possible exception)

Can you just answer the question? Surely you have beliefs about humans, can you just describe your beliefs about them for me? Why must we switch to animals? (could it be that you recognize there is something different about people?)

So, at least I think you're saying the person's lower half is not a new person. The next quesiton is, is the top half still a person if the bottom half dies? And, is the bottom half still a person if the top half dies? Or, is neither half a person?

Drop the self-awareness distraction. Self-awareness is one characteristic that humans have. So is hair. But, you are still human before the hair characteristic develops.

This logic is flawed:

Paint is one attribute that hot air baloons have. So is a balloon. But, the hot air baloon is still a balloon without paint.

So, a hot air baloon need not have a baloon then, right?

There is such a thing as an essential, and non essential attribute.

The key to murder is this:
Is any being experiencing being murdered? If not, it's not murder. It's the reason there's nothing wrong with destroying rocks -- there is no entity experiencing being destroyed.

Why would consider the discarding of an amputated led not murder - for the same reason cutting of a chicken's leg is not the death of the chicken - the entity / organism lives without the part. Cut off the head of a person, cut off the head of the chicken - the organism/entity dies. I consider that killing the entity/organism. It has nothing to do with where the seat of the mind is.

No, suppose you keep the cells in the rest of the person's body alive after you cut off the head. So, you just pump oxygenated blood through it, and whatever else is needed. No problem right? You cut of the leg, the leg dies, but the rest of the cells live. You cut of the head, the head dies, but the rest of the cells live. Same thing.

You are flatly denying the existance of an entity - be it human, chicken, monkey or whatever.

This is what I take as human:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Hominina
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

I do not care at what stage it is in its development. You can trace your development or ANYBODY's development back to the moment sperm meets egg. That's what gets protected - the homo sapien - at any point in development up until its natural death.

Until the natural death of which cells? Is there a ratio of live/dead cells that must be reached, or what? What's your definition of death?

 

[Truth Warrior]

The federal government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in the issue of abortion. For this reason, we believe that Roe vs Wade should be overturned and this complex and sensitive issue returned to the states.



Hang on now...

Aren't laws against murder settled (for the most part) at the state level?

I'm as Pro-Life as they come.

I used to even support federal intervention on this issue - but this movement has taught me the "constitutional flaw" in such a position.

I truly believe (at least on a national level) that my above suggestion could be the common ground on the issue that has never been able to find common ground.

I oppose AGGRESSION whether "legal" or not from WHEREVER.

Thanks!

 

[tremendoustie]

Nor am I.

At what point of your prenatal development COULD she have, and have it not be?

BTW, the SCOTUS doesn't know either.<IMHO> They just drew a line in time. Before OK, after NOT.

I would say before brain waves. I think it would be hard to imagine the possibility of awareness with no brain waves.

The question is this: Is there a being experiencing being murdered? Since the mind seems to be tied very closely with the brain, it would be hard to imagine the answer being "yes", for a being with no brain activity.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I would say before brain waves. I think it would be hard to imagine the possibility of awareness with no brain waves.

The question is this: Is there a being experiencing being murdered? Since the mind seems to be tied very closely with the brain, it would be hard to imagine the answer being "yes", for a being with no brain activity.

So if you murder someone in their sleep, it's NOT murder? How about coma patients with brain activity?

Thanks!

 

[tremendoustie]

So if you murder someone in their sleep, it's NOT murder? How about coma patients with brain activity?

Thanks!

I think in both of these cases the person is self-aware, with their own perspective. Thus, it would be murder. It's not that I mean a person has to fully understand or percieve the reality what's going on -- only that when you kill that being, someone experiences it -- there is a mind on the other end. That's what makes it murder.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I think in both of these cases the person is self-aware, with their own perspective. Thus, it would be murder. It's not that I mean a person has to fully understand or percieve the reality what's going on -- only that when you kill that being, someone experiences it -- there is a mind on the other end. That's what makes it murder.

That really makes it kinda tough on the unborn who know NOTHING but a nurturing warm wet dark bag, wouldn't you have to say? Oh, maybe some sounds too. They don't even know that they know that.

Thanks!

 

[tremendoustie]

That really makes it kinda tough on the unborn who know NOTHING but a nurturing warm wet dark bag, wouldn't you have to say? Oh, maybe some sounds too. They don't even know that they know that.

Thanks!

If they experience that warm wet dark bag, they are aware and have minds, and I would say killing them would be murder. I don't think two cells experience this, or anything, but I do think that a baby right before birth does. So, the question is, when does the change occur? And I think brain waves are a good delineator. It also makes sense to have a similar definition for the beginning of life as the end of it, and we use brain waves to determine death.

 

[Truth Warrior]

If they experience that warm wet dark bag, they are aware and have minds, and I would say killing them would be murder. I don't think two cells experience this, or anything, but I do think that a baby right before birth does. So, the question is, when does the change occur? And I think brain waves are a good delineator. It also makes sense to have a similar definition for the beginning of life as the end of it, and we use brain waves to determine death.

Mammals "experience" warm wet dark bags too. Do they have minds too? It's sensory perception. Most probably at an instinctual level. Pleasure/pain, fight/flight, etc.? Maybe discomfort is why the preborn kick their mothers.

Thanks!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Mammals "experience" warm wet dark bags too. Do they have minds too? It's sensory perception. Most probably at an instinctual level. Pleasure/pain, fight/flight, etc.? Maybe discomfort is why the preborn kick their mothers.

Thanks!

I kicked a lot. My sister didn't, and my mum says she sometimes thought the fetus was dead. lol

 

[Truth Warrior]

I kicked a lot. My sister didn't, and my mum says she sometimes thought the fetus was dead. lol

Who was first? The womb is stretched after birth. Our daughter was bigger at birth than her two older half brothers. She was even bigger than me, at birth. A first and only born. Maybe you were just more sensitive, picky and fussy. < LOL! >

 

[tremendoustie]

Mammals "experience" warm wet dark bags too. Do they have minds too? It's sensory perception. Most probably at an instinctual level. Pleasure/pain, fight/flight, etc.? Maybe discomfort is why the preborn kick their mothers.

Thanks!

There's really no way to know if other mammals experience anything, or are self-aware. Actually, another person can't even prove to you that they experience self-awareness, as far as you're concerned, they might be an automaton. There is no way to determine self-awareness for sure by only observing external behavior.

I know I'm self aware, and other people seem very simiar to me, so I assume they are self aware as well. I'm not convinced animals are self aware, they are quite different, even the most similar ones.

If I somehow knew that animals were indeed self aware, I would think they should be protected from murder in the same way we are.

 

[torchbearer]

I'm not looking to argue what Catholics believe or what the Catholic Church believes. I do not need it spood-fed either.

You are simply wrong in how you present their teachings.

Torchbearer: it's considered a mortal sin. So is murder. They are the same in severity.

Source you quote:
Masturbation particularly constitutes a very serious disorder that is illicit in itself and cannot be morally justified, although "the immaturity of adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age), psychological imbalance or habit can influence behaviour, diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be serious fault"
http://www.theologyofthebody.net/in...ask=view&id=70&Itemid=50&limit=1&limitstart=6
and
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
http://www.theologyofthebody.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=50

I suggest you worry about arguing what you believe and not what you think somebody else believes.

let's see here... according to catholicism, if you die with a mortal sin that you have not repented for... you go to hell.
Masturbation(spilling seed) is a mortal sin.
Murder is a mortal sin.
According to the men in funny hats.. you go to hell if you jerk off.
Any questions?

 

[Truth Warrior]

There's really no way to know if other mammals experience anything, or are self-aware. Actually, another person can't even prove to you that they experience self-awareness, as far as you're concerned, they might be an automaton. There is no way to determine self-awareness for sure by only observing external behavior.

I know I'm self aware, and other people seem very simiar to me, so I assume they are self aware as well. I'm not convinced animals are self aware, they are quite different, even the most similar ones.

If I somehow knew that animals were indeed self aware, I would think they should be protected from murder in the same way we are.

Until we can KNOW, wouldn't "error on the side of caution" be a much more preferable track to take, than just assuming not and killing them because the SCOTUS said it was all right?

Thanks!

 

[tremendoustie]

Until we can KNOW, wouldn't "error on the side of caution" be a much more preferable track to take, than just assuming not and killing them because the SCOTUS said it was all right?

Thanks!

I'm no fan of most of what SCOTUS does, and roe V wade is especially odious, so we can settle that for starters.

I agree with the err on the side of caution idea -- we could have a bit of margin to the usual time for brain waves, just to be sure. We also need to measure them more accurately, I don't think the time has been completely nailed down on that. I'm quite confident two cells are not self aware though. Actually, I think it's more likely that animals are aware than fertilized eggs.

Perhaps I really should give more thought to vegitarianism. As I've said though, my religious beliefs also indicate to me that animals are not aware, so I'm not worried too much ...

 

[Josh_LA]

LP platform on anything is a joke.