The only thing any of us ought to know is that using invectives & dogma hinders true progress and that it's best to be honest and approach the issue from as many angles as possible: moral, intellectual, social, etc.,
Simply because I and many others, including pro-abortion-choice people, arrive at a non-zero value for the fetus doesn't mean it's due to an defect in any of the above.
Weasel. You know a fetus isn't the same thing as a person, yet are deliberately choosing language to distort that dissimilarity. And then, you have the temerity to accuse -me- of semantics.
You read the article... so, you tell me... how many women dead of septic shock is a fetus worth?
1. The reason why I have tried not to use the word "person" is so as not to invite extraneous connotations (i.e. semantics); if the use of "person" implies which humans have rights, than its use would serve to beg the question in this situation.
2. The quote first posted & that I responded to was not about therapeutic abortions. The main point of me posting was not to debate abortion itself, but to question our reactions to how we think about it, and how people could work together to make "safe, legal, and rare" a reality. If a similar tale of a priest changing a woman's mind about abortion and saving her fetus made the rounds, many of us would probably think *cough* "bullshit" *cough*, while others would make some less-than-kind comments about the lack of moral authority anyone in the church has nowadays. I was merely trying to apply the same eye I would hope to have about the priest's story to this one.
1. You used 'human,' and in so doing played the same semantic game.
2. Priests aid and abet child molestation by supporting an institution which does the same, and have no place in a just society. Had you said 'minister,' I wouldn't be jumping all over you, but you didn't.
1. Human is the standard/scientific English translation of the species name, no semantics. However, if many would still think that human is too loaded a term, then apologies; please use homo sapiens from here on in and retroactively apply it to previous comments.
You could just say 'fetus' and leave the species understood. You didn't.
I'm a metaphysical naturalist. It gets as much respect as it has nerves. I'm willing to grant that a newborn baby (or 8-month developed fetus) gets additional consideration on account of the sentiment of the parents... but when we're talking about a mother's decision to abort, shut your word hole and extend to her the presumption she/they is/are capable of making a rational decision.
If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Period.
The burden is on you to prove something interesting with your little questions.
I made it a goal to not to presume what anyone thinks about such issues within this conversation; I have heard several times a denial of species when discussing abortion, so the use of "human" seemed both necessary and honest (again, if that was a problem, a re-reading with the latin equivalent should clear up any issues).
Again, the point of my post was not to talk about the morality of abortion itself (I would not try to use etherial's LJ to make such an unrelated post; apologies to him if such occurred). The point was that the story was interesting to me because it seemed that the way we interpret it probably depends on something similar to the calculus I put forth, and then suddenly realizing how making people heroes and villains as relates to the issue might serve to polarize factions and get in the way of assisting those who would seek help.
[As an aside, I'd be interested in learning more about metaphysical naturalism; any good sources? If not, is it very different from (philosophical) materialism? Thanks.]
Richard Carrier's book, Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism is a form of philosophical materialism, though it differs from historical materialism etc.
It is worth noting I'm displaying insufficient compassion towards [those whose beliefs differ], and so not being a very good spokesperson for the philosophy of life I'm espousing.
Generally, I consider people who shoot doctors to be villains. Your mileage may vary.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Ought
Date: 2008-02-05 06:53 pm (UTC)Simply because I and many others, including pro-abortion-choice people, arrive at a non-zero value for the fetus doesn't mean it's due to an defect in any of the above.
Re: Ought
Date: 2008-02-05 07:06 pm (UTC)You read the article... so, you tell me... how many women dead of septic shock is a fetus worth?
Re: Language
Date: 2008-02-05 08:13 pm (UTC)2. The quote first posted & that I responded to was not about therapeutic abortions. The main point of me posting was not to debate abortion itself, but to question our reactions to how we think about it, and how people could work together to make "safe, legal, and rare" a reality. If a similar tale of a priest changing a woman's mind about abortion and saving her fetus made the rounds, many of us would probably think *cough* "bullshit" *cough*, while others would make some less-than-kind comments about the lack of moral authority anyone in the church has nowadays. I was merely trying to apply the same eye I would hope to have about the priest's story to this one.
Re: Language
Date: 2008-02-06 12:09 pm (UTC)2. Priests aid and abet child molestation by supporting an institution which does the same, and have no place in a just society. Had you said 'minister,' I wouldn't be jumping all over you, but you didn't.
Re: Language
Date: 2008-02-06 06:49 pm (UTC)2. Understood
Re: Language
Date: 2008-02-06 06:56 pm (UTC)I'm a metaphysical naturalist. It gets as much respect as it has nerves. I'm willing to grant that a newborn baby (or 8-month developed fetus) gets additional consideration on account of the sentiment of the parents... but when we're talking about a mother's decision to abort, shut your word hole and extend to her the presumption she/they is/are capable of making a rational decision.
If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Period.
The burden is on you to prove something interesting with your little questions.
Re: Language
Date: 2008-02-06 07:39 pm (UTC)Again, the point of my post was not to talk about the morality of abortion itself (I would not try to use
[As an aside, I'd be interested in learning more about metaphysical naturalism; any good sources? If not, is it very different from (philosophical) materialism? Thanks.]
Re: Language
Date: 2008-02-06 07:44 pm (UTC)It is worth noting I'm displaying insufficient compassion towards [those whose beliefs differ], and so not being a very good spokesperson for the philosophy of life I'm espousing.
Generally, I consider people who shoot doctors to be villains. Your mileage may vary.
Re: Language
Date: 2008-02-06 08:07 pm (UTC)