/lit/ - Literature

No one can.

>>7135744
Having a full head of hair

The making of conscience.

Up to 9 months? Impossibru.

>>7135744
>satisfactory
I can't. I think there's a point by at least the beginning of the third trimester where it's a baby and is the mother's responsibility. In the first few weeks of pregnancy, on the other hand, there's no way I'm calling something without a nervous system a person, and you can vacuum it out rather than raising an unwanted child.

>>7135761

You must define conscience in a satisfactory manner.
You must demonstrate why the fetus does not fall into this category.

A person is someone who does not live inside their mother's womb.

>>7135779
Lack of dependency is not satisfactory as a criteria to define the concept of person. Paraplegics or people suffering from acute chronic disease are usually considered persons for example.

>>7135744
I say that you should err on the side of caution and qualify anything with human DNA and a brain, which excludes some early embryos but includes later term fetus.

clones fam

>>7135818
Being dependant on other people =/= living inside your mother's womb

>>7135884
Then what is the rationale for the criterium?

>>7135779

Fails to define "someone" and thereby doesn't provide a definition with any level of acceptability.

A being in the process of having qualitative experiences

>>7135744

can play chess (i.e. makes legal moves and understands when he has won or lost)

Man only enters personhood after making their first shitpost on 4chan

humans aren't people

>>7135751

>>7135744
>Provide a satisfactory definition of personhood which excludes a human fetus.
why? is being human not enough?

>>7135744
Rationality and being self-conscious

>>7135772

Nervous system starts forming 16 days into the pregnancy.

>>7135772
>the mind is the brain
when will this meme die off?

>There are people in this thread who unironically believe that mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life

>>7136146
>there are people in this thread who unironically think that utilitarians believe in rights

>>7135744

Singer made a compelling case about this. It's been too long since I read it to paraphrase properly, but you could look into it if you're interested. If I recall correctly, it has to do with the capability of having preferences. One of the more controversial aspects of his argument was that this also bereft infants and small children of personhood, but it was compelling nonetheless.

However, as to the entire abortion debate, the personhood or lack thereof of the fetus is of no consequence, provided one believes in the principle of self-sovereignty. Given self-sovereignty, the mother can abort the child at her discretion.

Not wanting to share your body with the fetus doesn't make you a murderer even if it entails the death of the fetus, much in the same way that not donating a kidney doesn't make you a murderer even if it entails the death of a kidney-diseased person. Self-sovereignty trumps the other organism's need for your goo, so to speak.

>>7135905
Retards arent people?
not that i disagree

>>7136160
rights are for gays, feminists, and liberals (same thing)

>>7136127
That's not a brain with the functions we attribute to a conscious animal.

>>7136136
Okay, in what bit of undifferentiated neural tissue do you believe it resides?

>>7136164
What kind of retards? I know a down syndromed kid who understands the basics of chess.

>>7136163
>Not wanting to share your body with the fetus doesn't make you a murderer even if it entails the death of the fetus, much in the same way that not donating a kidney doesn't make you a murderer even if it entails the death of a kidney-diseased person.
this is so much bullshit, the latter is clearly an act of omission, while abortion isnt

this isn't literature related

>>7136173
>Okay, in what bit of undifferentiated neural tissue do you believe it resides?
in none of it, the abstract and unextended (intellectual activity) cant be in the concrete and extended (brain)

>>7136176

Pray tell why the difference is of consequence.

>>7136186
it's a false analogy, and consequences arent all that matter

>>7136185
Oh wow.
>Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

You need to learn more about what can be done with relatively simple circuitry.

>>7136198
>we can make minds
talk about magic :^)

>>7136193

>it's a false analogy,

Perhaps. If you can tell me the crucial significance of the difference between a clear act of omission and that which is not (which itself is contentious). As it stands, you've just repeated yourself.

Let me ask again: why is the difference between an active act (I suppose that must be what you mean, as opposed to omissive act) such as abortion crucially morally different than an act of omission?

>and consequences arent all that matter

I simply don't understand this. I am a bit of an idiot. Care to elaborate?

>>7135744
A white primate.

>>7136220

>>7136203
I think you missed the point. I was replying to someone who claims the "mind" must exist beyond the neural circuitry, and I'm saying there's no basis for thinking that, because the neural circuitry can do more than most laypeople give it credit for (yes, "laypeople" I work with neurobiology so pls no bully)

>>7136163

I think that really misinterprets self sovereignty.

Bodily autonomy is a principle to protect people from assault, violation and imprisonement. Not inconvenient bodily functions essential to human reproduction.

>>7135744
I can't. What's your conclusion?

>>7136268
We're all equal in deserving to live.

Could a person be someone with the ability to respect another agent's rights?

To display moral reciprocity?

>>7136263

Self-sovereignty is the right to exclusive use of your own body. I find it goes without saying that this includes the exclusive right to your own bodily fluids, organs, etc.

If you want to call the above something else (self-ownership, individual autonomy, etc.) feel free. If you want to argue that exclusive, private ownership of your own bodily fluids, organs and the like shouldn't be a fundamental human right, please do so. At any rate, the analogy still stands.

>>7136293

Then I guess I don't agree with this absolute interpretation of self sovereignty.

>>7136227
I think you miss the point that some people genuinely (yes) believe they are an immaterial soul, and that considering they already have access to the internet there is nothing more you could say to make them think about it in another light.

>>7136293
>Self-sovereignty is the right to exclusive use of your own body
It isn't if it assumes assault on other persons, so the anon before was right.
>I find it goes without saying that this includes the exclusive right to your own bodily fluids, organs, etc.
Again, if it means throwing your shit on someone else or involving in ilegal activity, no.
> If you want to argue that exclusive, private ownership of your own bodily fluids, organs and the like shouldn't be a fundamental human right, please do so.
It already isn't an absolute right. It doesn't stand and your ignorance of legal principles (which aren't in this case coherent) shows.
Personhood of the fetus is the only relevant question here, if a fetus is a person then all human rights are extended to it- it means no one has the right to kill you under any circumstances.
Also not donating a kidney if it would save your child is not murder in a traditional sense, but your actions do end up killing a person so a moral resposnibility still exists.

>>7136211
>If you can tell me the crucial significance of the difference between a clear act of omission and that which is not
>if you can tell me the difference between x and not x
i believe it is self evident

morally, it would depend, if the will has the end (the death of the other person) as its own end, then it would be murder, either in an act of omission or an "active" act (if that isnt a tautology).

As to the principle of self-sovereignity, it is useless in determining what is morally licit/ilicit, since ethics is concerned with what human beings should do, no what they want to do

>>7135744
A person is anything that we allow to form contracts and be held accountable for crimes.

>>7136367
Then we'd have to grant rights to blacks and women. And that's too liberal for my tastes. So no, absolutely not

>>7136384
Of course not, anybody who cannot sign contracts or be prosecuted for crimes is just not a person. It's the other way around.

>>7136282
You are correct, but we are not all equal in deserving to die.

>>7136330

>It isn't if it assumes assault on other persons, so the anon before was right.
>Again, if it means throwing your shit on someone else or involving in ilegal activity, no.

There is no assault taking place when you uphold the right to self-ownership of your body. Refusing to donate a blood transfusion is upholding your own rights, not assaulting the one in need of it.

>It already isn't an absolute right.

Kindly elaborate.

>It doesn't stand and your ignorance of legal principles (which aren't in this case coherent) shows.

Poor form sport. As it stands, this is merely a "no" and a thinly veined insult. Provide a counterargument. Where exactly does the analogy fail? Remember, I am a bit of an idiot.

>Personhood of the fetus is the only relevant question here, if a fetus is a person then all human rights are extended to it- it means no one has the right to kill you under any circumstances.

Certainly, if the fetus is a person it has a right to life. It doesn't, however, have a right to infringe on another persons bodily autonomy if that person is unwilling to share. If it did, you would be morally obligated to donate your kidney to a kidney diseased person. Are you?

>Also not donating a kidney if it would save your child is not murder in a traditional sense, but your actions do end up killing a person so a moral resposnibility still exists.

It's not to save your child. It's to save any arbitrary kidney-diseased person. There are plenty of those. Still, I believe self-sovereignty trumps that moral responsibility. If you do not, I suggest you donate your kidney.

>>7136332

Specifically, I am looking for the reason why refusing a kidney diseased person a kidney is morally permissible, but refusing a fetus your blood is impermissible/murder.

I didn't quite understand the accusation of it being a false analogy. Something about the one being an act of omission, and the other being just an act, and there being a significant moral difference between the two that I fail to understand. If we were to accept that, that would entail that killing a person is wrong, but leaving a car-struck person we came upon by chance to die in a ditch is permissible. I disagree.

>>7136367
This, tbh.

"Person" is just a legal term.

Like "Sane".

I don't think infanticide is immoral

Human life isn't intrinsically valuable.

Especially if it's got the self-awareness of a chicken nugget.

Pro-lifers should spend less time caring about hypothetical people, and more caring about the actual ones.

>>7136408
Why is the principle of self sovereignity relevant to ethical discussion? You havent justified it

>>7136458

True. I take it as a given, and I did mention that already in >>7136163

If you disagree, you're quite right that the entire argument doesn't apply. That is the main premise, as outlined initially.

However, I do sincerely believe that if the principle of self-sovereignty is not the case, absurdity would entail. And I also believe that most people subscribe to the idea of self-ownership of their own bodies. If it is not owned by the self, who owns it?

How would the world look if people didn't have self-ownership of their bodies? It's an interesting discussion.

>>7136474
the principle should be abandoned if it permits moral wrongs

a right to do wrong is an oxymoron

>>7136408
>There is no assault taking place when you uphold the right to self-ownership of your body. Refusing to donate a blood transfusion is upholding your own rights, not assaulting the one in need of it.
Not if a fetus has personhood.
>Kindly elaborate.
I have. It's a right that operates within limits which I already have elaborated.
>Certainly, if the fetus is a person it has a right to life.
Which is an absolute right with no buts, it's the ultimate human right, above all others.
>It doesn't, however, have a right to infringe on another persons bodily autonomy if that person is unwilling to share.
It does as it's above a right that does not exist in a way you describe it.
> If it did, you would be morally obligated to donate your kidney to a kidney diseased person. Are you?
If my son or a member of my family or a friend had a kidney disease I certainly would. And I can't give it to a random stranger because it can't be received by the body very easily and needs to be done within a time limit, as it isn't frozen meat that I can just send away. Because of these reasons I only donate blood as I can't really go to a clinic and offer my kidney.
>It's not to save your child.
Giving birth to your child as opposed to vacuuming it and then throwing it away isn't to save your child?
>It's to save any arbitrary kidney-diseased person.
In this case the analogy isn't to an arbitrary person, it's to your child.
>There are plenty of those.
You can only have so many children.
> Still, I believe self-sovereignty trumps that moral responsibility.
It doesn't. There is no reason to have it as a moral vertical if it only serves to mine all other moral principles.
>If you do not, I suggest you donate your kidney.
If someone I know will be in need I certainly will. As I've said before it hardly makes sense to walk in and ask to give it away randomly, it wouldn't make sense, it needs genetic similarity. And even within family it is often rejected.
>>>7136332
>Specifically, I am looking for the reason why refusing a kidney diseased person a kidney
Because one is a passive act, refraining from action. So it isn't the same and it is a false analogy. That on the other hand does not make it morality permissible as your inaction may lead to death of most usually a family member.
>I didn't quite understand the accusation of it being a false analogy.
Not giving away a kidney is hardly the same as ripping away your unborn child. One is passive and one active. The analogy may work for lack of care for the fetus such as consumption of drugs which indirectly leads to death.
>Something about the one being an act of omission, and the other being just an act, and there being a significant moral difference between the two that I fail to understand.
The fact that they are different things makes it a false analogy. But it being one doesn't mean one is morally permissible, watching a person suffocate in a car or water is evil in a different way.

>>7136450
Pro lifers consider unborn children actual humans and there is nothing worse then infanticide. So it's a basic problem.

>>7136486
Logical consistency is all that matters. Your feelings about it are irrelevant.

Let me know If you're going to get touchy feely about this topic so I can leave the thread before you start PMSing.

>>7136521
>there is nothing worse then infanticide

Prove it. I think killing someone who can actually think and feel is worse.

>>7136529
What is inconsistent in the belief that personhood starts with conception as opposed to whenever it is convenient?

>>7136534
Prove that murder of any kind is bad and that evil exists at all.

>>7136539
You can't defend it. Your last rebuttal was basically "muh feelings".

I'm done here. Enjoy your fetuses and PMS.

>>7136553
What exactly can't I defend?
You can't defend that body autonomy is a right at all and yet here you are.

>>7136529
except it isnt consistent at all, what would be consistent would be to apply the principle but recognizing that the principle isnt absolute.

If murder is wrong then you shouldnt do it, it doesnt matter if it breaks your freedom or it make you feel bad that it isnt. If it's wrong it's wrong

Prove to me why foetuses are persons and deserving of rights

professional suggestion: you can't

>>7136327
>some people genuinely (yes) believe they are an immaterial soul, and that considering they already have access to the internet there is nothing more you could say to make them think about it in another light.

>>7136514
>>7136486

Just to clear up, I'm not that guy >>7136529
>>7136553. Honestly, I don't abide to that culture of debate. It's stifling. Poor form sport.

I'm going to bed now. You raise interesting points. If this thread is alive tomorrow, I may write you up a reply.

That which can try to define itself but will always fail.

>>7135744
a person is a sentient entity. as newborns are dumber than pigs, and pigs aren't considered people, it is reasonable to say a fetus is not a person. however, no reason not to err on the side of caution and go with the earlier cut-off date that's currently in practice in many places.

That which can breath on its own.

>>7136572
Rights as a concept are axiomatic in nature, you can't prove that any person deserves rights at all. First you must accept the axiom to work within it.

>>7136327
unless you want to take a full on materialistic mysterianism approach, what other choice do you have?