Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[wynn]

In this case the rights of the pregnant woman are being discarded, at the fundamental level of her physical being (self defense against serious trauma and ugly personal assault, even) to accomodate the invalid justifications of a temporary pretense that authoritarian religious fanatics have honestly redefined human embryos and zygotes as persons.

The motives for this odd malice are obvious in the auxiliary commentary these religious fanatics attach to their arguments - women are "other" and lesser than them; the woman is to obey, and sacrifice, and suffer, according to their whims and pretentions. Her exercise of free will and decision is to be curbed according their edicts, even to control over her own body and time. She renounced herself to them by having sex.

The dishonesty of the pretense (personhood is and has been granted to zygotes in no other circumstances, the assignment of personhood is without the normal recognitions of limit and separate identity, etc) is bad enough. The use of that dishonest pretense to justify subjugation of the woman to such perverted and psychologically corrupt political force is worse.

The inability of religious fanatics to recognize their own evil, their own betrayal of their own better nature and human integrity, is one of the major features of religion that we need to keep carefully in mind. There is no limit to the means they will employ, as there would be were they self-aware (and not psychopaths, of course).

You do notice that you misattributed the passage that you quoted?

And you do notice that you didn't read some of my previous posts in this thread?

 

[wynn]

Your response is meaningless, you haven't demonstrated anything.

I've already pointed out that pregnancy is difficult and requires timing - I even went as far as outlining some of the details. Most of the time there is exactly zero risk of pregnancy. If there is no risk of pregnancy your entire premise is meaningless.

You failed to address this point when it was raised, in fact you slunk off and stopped posting entirely. Now your back, and reposting the same argument without addressing the counter point.

What could possibly compete with your faith in your ability to predict natural events?

 

[Trippy]

What could possibly compete with your faith in your ability to predict natural events?

Duh.

It's called biology.

There's this thing called the menstrual cycle.

Under normal circumstance, most women ovulate 12-14 days after the first day of their period.

A human ovum is usually only viable for 12 hours after ovulation.

Sperm is usually viable for 3-4 days once it reaches the fallopian tubes (If it makes it that far - they live 5-7 days after ejaculation).

For most women it is safe, for example, to have unprotected sex during the first work after their period ends, and have exactly zero chance of pregnancy.

 

[wynn]

Duh.

It's called biology.

There's this thing called the menstrual cycle.

Under normal circumstance, most women ovulate 12-14 days after the first day of their period.

A human ovum is usually only viable for 12 hours after ovulation.

Sperm is usually viable for 3-4 days once it reaches the fallopian tubes (If it makes it that far - they live 5-7 days after ejaculation).

For most women it is safe, for example, to have unprotected sex during the first work after their period ends, and have exactly zero chance of pregnancy.

If this is supposed to mean that statistical probability is a sufficient and adequate tool for making decisions, then you are missing quite a few things.

Decisions are based on values. This is where your camp differs from other camps.

 

[Trippy]

If this is supposed to mean that statistical probability is a sufficient and adequate tool for making decisions, then you are missing quite a few things.

Decisions are based on values. This is where your camp differs from other camps.

It's obvious you don't understand what it means.

At this point, you're just wasting everbodies time.

 

[rodereve]

I think that a zygote at conception cannot be termed as "life", reason being that it has the potential to life (just like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogren, sulfur and phosphorus in combination can produce life), but not the qualities of life at that moment. I think somewhere past conception, but before childbirth, the fetus claims the right to be called "life". Obviously sometime in prenatal development, the brain starts working, or the heart starts beating, or the lungs start expanding, I'm not sure where we draw the line what qualifies life, but it is definitely at one of those stages.

Now "personhood" is just some technicality, a word we made up so we can argue semantics. I think its because all our laws state that "persons" have rights, and we have to determine who has the right to that personhood. But to me, it shouldn't matter. We should defend the potential to life, just as much as we defend life itself.

 

[lightgigantic]

I think that a zygote at conception cannot be termed as "life", reason being that it has the potential to life (just like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogren, sulfur and phosphorus in combination can produce life), but not the qualities of life at that moment.

not sure what you are talking about since death (or even disease) can intercede in the existence of a zygote (and hence ruin its development) while the chemical compounds you mention have zero potential for (life) development in all and any circumstances one could care to mention.

IOW what to speak of having the potential, clearly it already has it.

I think somewhere past conception, but before childbirth, the fetus claims the right to be called "life". Obviously sometime in prenatal development, the brain starts working, or the heart starts beating, or the lungs start expanding, I'm not sure where we draw the line what qualifies life, but it is definitely at one of those stages.

If that was the case, doctors would have no way to assess whether an unborn child in these stages is healthy or even alive. Obviously this isn't the case.

Now "personhood" is just some technicality, a word we made up so we can argue semantics. I think its because all our laws state that "persons" have rights, and we have to determine who has the right to that personhood. But to me, it shouldn't matter. We should defend the potential to life, just as much as we defend life itself.

So what do you propose for persons who have suffered some affliction in the womb (eg thalidomide, chain smoking mother etc) during their apparent stage of being neither (according to your language) properly alive or even having personhood?

IOW how can they be due compensation if they are damaged at an apparent stage of non-existence?

 

[wynn]

It's obvious you don't understand what it means.

At this point, you're just waisting everbodies time.

You could at least make an effort to spell your ad homs correctly.

not sure what you are talking about since death (or even disease) can intercede in the existence of a zygote (and hence ruin its development) while the chemical compounds you mention have zero potential for (life) development in all and any circumstances one could care to mention

If that was the case, doctors would have no way to access whether an unborn child in these stages is healthy or even alive. Obviously this isn't the case.

So what do you propose for persons who have suffered some affliction in the womb (eg thalidomide, chain smoking mother etc) during their apparent stage of being neither (according to your language) properly alive or even having personhood?

IOW how can they be due compensation if they are damaged at an apparent stage of non-existence?

Clearly, you need some mind-blowing sex! That ought to make you understand where your opponents are coming from.

 

[elte]

...We should defend the potential to life, just as much as we defend life itself.

I recall that once sperm was thought to be much closer to personhood than we think of it now. These things have good reason to be changed as society changes. With the population of the planet stressing out our supportive ecosystem so much, people may come to see the potential life of sperm and eggs better used to enhance the lives of the presently living people, by, for example, being used in stem cell therapy or DNA revitalization.

 

[Trippy]

You could at least make an effort to spell your ad homs correctly.

You could at least make the effort to use the phrase ad hom correctly.

Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt in this matter, as far as possible responses go, this is just weak.

It's difficult or impossible to discuss anything with you when you seem to have an almost pathological aversion to offering any meaningful resposnes.

 

[wynn]

It's difficult or impossible to discuss anything with you when you seem to have an almost pathological aversion to offering any meaningful resposnes.

What is there to discuss?

We fundamentally differ in the values that we hold. There is no way around that. I readily admit it, but you accuse me of pathology.

 

[Trippy]

What is there to discuss?

We fundamentally differ in the values that we hold. There is no way around that. I readily admit it, but you accuse me of pathology.

So what?

Now the fact that I prefer a facts based objrctive approach to questions, rather than the subjective emotional one you seem to prefer is supposed to somehow distract from the fact that your assertion/suggestion/what ever you want to call it raises a contradiction and therefore fails according to the standards you yourself invoked?

To whit.
You raised the point that if it was morally reprehensible to kill a fetus, then it should perhaps be morally reprehensible to engage in intercourse where no child is desired. To support your claim you made the point that contraceptives have a well known risk of failure.
You subsequently, claimed that all you were doing was using the socratic method to question a widely held belief, and claimed no one had been able to counter your argument.
Your argument contradicts itself in that it is not possible to get pregnant at all times during a womans menstrual cycle, in fact the first thing that couples trying to reproduce have to get right is the timing, I cited some specific examples based on an average cycle to support this.
You dismissed these on the grounds that they were a statisical measure, without actually addressing them. This leads us to your second contradiction, and your second failure according to the socratic method. On the one hand, statistics was a strong enough grounds for yo to argue that even the use of contraceptives was insufficient to counter your argument, as there was always a small probability of failure. On the other hand you dismiss statistics out of hand, and refuse to accept them.

And yet we have you here repeating the same debunked assertions, only now you cite "irreconcilable differences" as sufficient reason to ignore valid counterpoints to your argument that remain unaddressed.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

The belief that engaging in sex (even when children are not desired) is necessary for mental health is a mere belief and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That is an extraordinary assertion. I urge you to actually support it.

You know, with proper psychological literature that isn't crafted by some holy rolling puritan intent on satisfying his own sexual needs vicariously by obsessing over other people's.

• • •​

I thought I had been quite clear at the onset : The issue involves the rights of two living entities - not one.

The question is your disregard for one of those two "entities".

1 a : being, existence; especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence

b : the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes

2 : something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality

(Merriam-Webster)

• • •​

An entity is something that exists by itself, although it need not be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate ....

.... Sometimes, the word entity is used in a general sense of a being, whether or not the referent has material existence, e.g., is often referred to as an entity with no corporeal form (non-physical entity), such as a language. It is also often used to refer to ghosts and other spirits.

(Wikipedia)​

The problem with your argument is that a cow is an entity. That is, regardless of what some of my zealous neighbors who assert unfounded notions like the principle of equal consideration that demands bovine-human parity might assert, not all entities should be presumed to moral equality under any functional standard; the only standard that can achieve such equality is a conceptual abstraction. In real function, a cow is not a human, and while both are entities, a cow is not a person.

... much like the rights of black people doesn't somehow render the rights of white people obsolete .. unless we are working with the assumption that its the intrinsic right of a white person to veto whatever right may be afforded to a black person

I would say this is ineffably stupid, but, then again, you are a person who thinks there is no functional difference between something that exists outside your body compared to inside it.

Of course, that comes back to the presupposition of personhood, which was conceded in the topic proposition.

And you still seem to be ignoring the fact that a woman is a person.
____________________

Notes:

Merriam-Webster. "entity". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2013. Merriam-Webster.com. January 20, 2013. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entity

Wikipedia. "Entity". January 8, 2013. En.Wikipedia.org. January 20, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

 

[lightgigantic]

The question is your disregard for one of those two "entities".

actually its more the case that you are disregarding one of these two entities. I doubt you can find a single reference from my posts where I have explicitly disregarded women. On the other hand, its not at all difficult to find quotes from you disregarding the unborn child

1 a : being, existence; especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence

b : the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes

2 : something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality

(Merriam-Webster)​

Not sure how this is supposed to problematize my use of the word

• • •​

An entity is something that exists by itself, although it need not be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate ....

.... Sometimes, the word entity is used in a general sense of a being, whether or not the referent has material existence, e.g., is often referred to as an entity with no corporeal form (non-physical entity), such as a language. It is also often used to refer to ghosts and other spirits.

(Wikipedia)

The problem with your argument is that a cow is an entity.

and what?
according to your arguments a cow is not an entity?
Or an unborn child is on par with a cow?

You are not making a lot of sense at the moment ....
:scratchin:

That is, regardless of what some of my zealous neighbors who assert unfounded notions like the principle of equal consideration that demands bovine-human parity might assert, not all entities should be presumed to moral equality under any functional standard; the only standard that can achieve such equality is a conceptual abstraction. In real function, a cow is not a human, and while both are entities, a cow is not a person.

whatever problems people might have with life existing in he womb, I'm pretty sure it doesn't lie in identifying its taxonomic rank or whatever, ..... or that there is some confusion about discussing it as an "entity" and people thinking of it in a sense of a corporate entity or something like a ghost or any of those other red herrings you are flushing around there

I would say this is ineffably stupid, but, then again, you are a person who thinks there is no functional difference between something that exists outside your body compared to inside it.

I think its ineffably stupid to veto any provision for advocacy in approaching a civil/moral issue .... which is a point that you too have issues with since you have failed to address this weakness in your statements

Of course, that comes back to the presupposition of personhood, which was conceded in the topic proposition.

and your suggestion that its ok to kill a child in the womb is not a view supported by presuppositions?

And you still seem to be ignoring the fact that a woman is a person.

You are still yet to establish how being a woman in the situation of pregnancy somehow grants her whim as the one and only moral barometer regarding the life and death of the child she is carrying. We live in a world where relationships of contingency (ie where one living entity is dependent on another - eg employer and employee ) are morally analyzed from broader perspectives than the convenience issues of the one holding the power.

IOW its not so much about ignoring the fact that a woman is a person, but your ignoring the fact that there are other persons (most notably that of the child) who have substantial needs, interests and concerns that also play a part. Your determination to ignore this goes to the extent to deny straight forward institutions of advocacy. IOW you are not satisfied to simply say that it is only the woman who has valid needs interests and concerns - you say that it is only women's views that should be entertained as valid
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

So what?

Now the fact that I prefer a facts based objrctive approach to questions, rather than the subjective emotional one you seem to prefer is supposed to somehow distract from the fact that your assertion/suggestion/what ever you want to call it raises a contradiction and therefore fails according to the standards you yourself invoked?

To whit.
You raised the point that if it was morally reprehensible to kill a fetus, then it should perhaps be morally reprehensible to engage in intercourse where no child is desired. To support your claim you made the point that contraceptives have a well known risk of failure.
You subsequently, claimed that all you were doing was using the socratic method to question a widely held belief, and claimed no one had been able to counter your argument.
Your argument contradicts itself in that it is not possible to get pregnant at all times during a womans menstrual cycle, in fact the first thing that couples trying to reproduce have to get right is the timing, I cited some specific examples based on an average cycle to support this.
You dismissed these on the grounds that they were a statisical measure, without actually addressing them. This leads us to your second contradiction, and your second failure according to the socratic method. On the one hand, statistics was a strong enough grounds for yo to argue that even the use of contraceptives was insufficient to counter your argument, as there was always a small probability of failure. On the other hand you dismiss statistics out of hand, and refuse to accept them.

And yet we have you here repeating the same debunked assertions, only now you cite "irreconcilable differences" as sufficient reason to ignore valid counterpoints to your argument that remain unaddressed.

That is an extraordinary assertion. I urge you to actually support it.

You know, with proper psychological literature that isn't crafted by some holy rolling puritan intent on satisfying his own sexual needs vicariously by obsessing over other people's.

And there I was, thinking that sex is something personal, something intimate, not something to be objectified, quantified and standardized ...

 

[Trippy]

And there I was, thinking that sex is something personal, something intimate, not something to be objectified, quantified and standardized ...

Yes.

The obvious thing to do when faced with a hole is to keep digging.

 

[iceaura]

I doubt you can find a single reference from my posts where I have explicitly disregarded women.

One doesn't explicitly disregard. English: a fine language for saying what you mean, or avoiding doing so - the effects being a bit too obvious, even for the terminally self-oblivious.

If that was the case, doctors would have no way to assess whether an unborn child in these stages is healthy or even alive.

? Nonsense. Doctors can determine whether even individual epithelial cells are healthy and alive. They aren't people either.

IOW how can they be due compensation if they are damaged at an apparent stage of non-existence?

1) Nobody is arguing nonexistence, and you know that. You couldn't make an honest argument on a million dollar bet. 2) They aren't, in fact. They and their mothers are only compensated after they are people, damaged persons. Even complete miscarriage at three weeks for such reasons is not handled as manslaughter, the dead embryo is not compensated and neither is the mother for the death of a child, and never have been, by any of the current prolife advocates or anyone else.

You are still yet to establish how being a woman in the situation of pregnancy somehow grants her whim as the one and only moral barometer regarding the life and death of the child she is carrying.

She is not carrying a child. She is building, nurturing, and developing a potential, future child. And she is granted the final say and incontrovertible word on whether she is going to do this, because she does it herself and inside her body. Not only her whim, but her every fundamental decision and evaluation, is final in that circumstance. No means no, as they say.

The fact that you didn't think to regard that fairly obvious factor - "somehow" her decisions rule, you wondered, as if it were some mystery or inexplicable happenstance - is what decent people notice: "disregard" is a calm and polite word for that apparent state of affairs.

 

[Tiassa]

Stating the Obvious

And there I was, thinking that sex is something personal, something intimate, not something to be objectified, quantified and standardized ...

Certainly you can understand the context of perspective. If you're the lover, sure, what you're thinking is pretty boilerplate. If you're the PsyD tasked with sorting through people's relationship problems, it's a little different at least.

Is that somehow confusing?

 

[lightgigantic]

One doesn't explicitly disregard. English: a fine language for saying what you mean, or avoiding doing so - the effects being a bit too obvious, even for the terminally self-oblivious.

If however a person is claiming another is vouching for a certain statement or perspective, it behooves them to find a reference. Surely for someone as fond as footnoting as yourself, you can understand this

? Nonsense. Doctors can determine whether even individual epithelial cells are healthy and alive.

did you make a typo or mean to agree with my statement?

They aren't people either.

well, so says you.

1) Nobody is arguing nonexistence, and you know that.

huh?
If you read the post I was responding to, you can see precisely the type of non-existence (namely of life) that rodereve is trying to argue in favour of.

You couldn't make an honest argument on a million dollar bet.

at this stage I am beginning to wonder whether you made the mistake of thinking my response to rodereve was a response to your post ...

2) They aren't, in fact. They and their mothers are only compensated after they are people, damaged persons.

damage that was accrued at an apparent stage of non-existence, if you want to follow the reasoning of rodereve

Even complete miscarriage at three weeks for such reasons is not handled as manslaughter, the dead embryo is not compensated and neither is the mother for the death of a child, and never have been, by any of the current prolife advocates or anyone else.

I think you have totally missed the point of the reference

She is not carrying a child. She is building, nurturing, and developing a potential, future child.

on the contrary, you cannot be half pregnant, half dead or half right
:shrug:

And she is granted the final say and incontrovertible word on whether she is going to do this, because she does it herself and inside her body. Not only her whim, but her every fundamental decision and evaluation, is final in that circumstance. No means no, as they say.

Sure. Its not too hard to find morally questionable norms that were in vogue and popular at various moments in history.

The fact that you didn't think to regard that fairly obvious factor - "somehow" her decisions rule, you wondered, as if it were some mystery or inexplicable happenstance - is what decent people notice: "disregard" is a calm and polite word for that apparent state of affairs.

at this stage I am simply problematizing the assumption that holding the reins of power automatically translates as a morally acceptable behavior

 

[iceaura]

She is not carrying a child. She is building, nurturing, and developing a potential, future child.

on the contrary, you cannot be half pregnant, half dead or half right

So? Nothing "contrary" about that - and it's incorrect about the half right. You are completely wrong - but you could be half right, if you were minimally honest.

at this stage I am simply problematizing the assumption that holding the reins of power automatically translates as a morally acceptable behavior

As noted, you couldn't make an honest argument on a million dollar bet. You can't face yourself, so you can't say what you mean.

There is no such assumption involved. If there were, your assumption of those reins, your assumption of moral integrity surrounding the sewer of your self deception and lies, would be the first to be "problematized".

Sure. Its not too hard to find morally questionable norms that were in vogue and popular at various moments in history.

Or over centuries. Exactly. And in the case of this kind of norm, it's a long and particularly discouraging finding. How do we protect women from religious fanatics who want to leverage sex into power for themselves? These guys are human beings, they have rights we must respect regardless of their chosen mission in life. It's a central ethical and political question.