Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

[lightgigantic]

Not no "entity" - no person. Yet. An entity, a valuable and wonderful one, but not yet a person.

Except for the woman, of course - a person we note you overlooked, in claiming our lack of "entitie" for advocacy. And therein we see a pattern - - - -

And with that qualification, it's worse even than you note, in many cases.

and what, pray tell, does an entity posses that takes them to this threshold of being a "person"

We maintain that the entire prolife crowd is actually in agreement with us on this matter - that your handling of, say, three week embryos, in all other situations and throughout history, reveals that you also regard them as not persons, as entities valued for their potential but not for their current status as people.

Total crap

Already explained to you several times before that there is a historical and even current and even western precedent of this not being the case

3That makes your entire line of arguments an exercise in bad faith and self-deception. Advocacy? What you are actually advocating for is female subjugation - look at your claim above, that men should have control over what women do with their own bodies because they had sex with them. The weird, perverted arrogance of something like that would be shocking, pathological, if it were not so familiar.

whats bad is pushing the same crap argument uphill despite repeatedly failing in every circumstance

 

[iceaura]

and what, pray tell, does an entity posses that takes them to this threshold of being a "person"

There is no such "threshold", for starters. The question is irrelevant, second: it suffices to observe - as has been, with multiple lines of argument and reams of evidence - that a three week embryo does not possess it in your view, or the view of any other prolife poster here, or the evident view of any substantial faction of Western culture, or the evident view of any human culture of which we have record.

Having established that, we no longer need to respect your pretensions to "advocacy" for that embryo as a person. We can respond to the reality of your posting, instead, which is in great part misogynistic slander.

Already explained to you several times before that here is a historical and even current and even western precedent of this not being the case

You mean you have asserted that before, several times, overlooking the more or less obvious irrelevancies of your supposed evidence (pointed out to you a couple of times, enough already), along with other falsehoods and lies about my posts - yep. Your character has been on full display here many times.

And this is the prolife character, typically. This is the normal ground of the anti-abortion movement, the Republican idiocies about rape, the terrorizing of abortionists and bullying of pregnant women, the trivialization and denigration of women's actual lives and decisions. Ugly, no?

 

[wynn]

Not no "entity" - no person. Yet. An entity, a valuable and wonderful one, but not yet a person.

I said:

Those in favor of abortion on demand maintain that there is no entity on behalf of which to advocate to begin with.

The phrase I used is no entity on behalf of which to advocate.
Not "no entity."

Except for the woman, of course - a person we note you overlooked, in claiming our lack of "entitie" for advocacy. And therein we see a pattern - - - -

Those in favor of abortion on demand and those in favor of engaging in sex even when children are not desired - they don't only don't consider the unborn to be entities on behalf of whom to advocate, they also don't consider women to be entities on behalf of whom to advocate.

We maintain that the entire prolife crowd is actually in agreement with us on this matter - that your handling of, say, three week embryos, in all other situations and throughout history, reveals that you also regard them as not persons, as entities valued for their potential but not for their current status as people. That makes your entire line of arguments an exercise in bad faith and self-deception.

By that reasoning then, for example, emergency room doctors who perform triage in crisis situations, and thus effectively leave some people to die, don't consider those people persons.
This is absurd. Of course they consider them persons. And they also understand that esp. in a crisis situation, only so much can be done.
The limitations of the human abilities to save health and life do not strip people of their personhood.

Pregnancy is, literally, a life or death situation, and so is sex. They are so by nature.
Those in favor of abortion on demand and those in favor of engaging in sex even when children are not desired, try to present sex and pregnancy as something other than they are.

Advocacy? What you are actually advocating for is female subjugation - look at your claim above, that men should have control over what women do with their own bodies because they had sex with them. The weird, perverted arrogance of something like that would be shocking, pathological, if it were not so familiar.

It's those in favor of abortion on demand and those in favor of engaging in sex even when children are not desired, that are advocating female subjugation.
It's those in favor of abortion on demand and those in favor of engaging in sex even when children are not desired, that are presenting women as beings who don't deserve to have the status of persons.

 

[wynn]

And this is the prolife character, typically. This is the normal ground of the anti-abortion movement, the Republican idiocies about rape, the terrorizing of abortionists and bullying of pregnant women, the trivialization and denigration of women's actual lives and decisions. Ugly, no?

As Tiassa noted earlier:

Thus, I do think the abortion policy you describe is somewhat restrictive, unless of course I'm simply missing some aspect of it. But it is also possible that the policy is sufficient if the culture is not so stunted in its address of these issues. After all, I'm looking at it from a context eyeball-deep in the neurotic spasm otherwise known as the American political debate.

It has been discussed earlier in this thread how some people, and esp. Americans, tend to narrow down and basically strawman in the abortion debate; they create two extremes, and are unwilling or unable to even consider anything else.

Thus when someone does actually propose something else, those Americans quickly, and falsely, assume the person is part of one of the two extremes.

 

[lightgigantic]

There is no such "threshold", for starters.

nonsense

If you say that there is a distinction between an embreyo and a person, then obviously an embreyo must cross a certain threshold to become it, since all persons were embreyos.

So tell us, what is this threshold, or please be quiet.

The question is irrelevant, second: it suffices to observe - as has been, with multiple lines of argument and reams of evidence - that a three week embryo does not possess it in your view, or the view of any other prolife poster here, or the evident view of any substantial faction of Western culture, or the evident view of any human culture of which we have record. Having established that, we no longer need to respect your pretensions to "advocacy" for that embryo as a person. We can respond to the reality of your posting, instead, which is in great part misogynistic slander.

Thats simply how you imagine the world to be.
You simply don't have the intellectual stamina to back up these statements and instead resort to slander

You mean you have asserted that before, several times, overlooking the more or less obvious irrelevancies of your supposed evidence (pointed out to you a couple of times, enough already), along with other falsehoods and lies about my posts - yep. Your character has been on full display here many times.

And this is the prolife character, typically. This is the normal ground of the anti-abortion movement, the Republican idiocies about rape, the terrorizing of abortionists and bullying of pregnant women, the trivialization and denigration of women's actual lives and decisions. Ugly, no?

Feel free to link those statements of yours.
Even now you can't reiterate your stance , much like you failed to do previously.
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

If you say that there is a distinction between an embreyo and a person, then obviously an embreyo must cross a certain threshold to become it, since all persons were embreyos.

That's not obvious. It's possible, but very unlikely in that kind of circumstance (there would have to be some kind magic property that emerged all at once) - my guess is the line must be drawn more or less arbitrarily according to judgment in good faith, as in Roe vs Wade.

One place you can't draw it, at least not honestly, is at or before three weeks. That just makes a liar out of you.

But then - -

Even now you can't reiterate your stance , much like you failed to do previously

that would be redundant anyway, so why not?

 

[lightgigantic]

That's not obvious. It's possible, but very unlikely in that kind of circumstance (there would have to be some kind magic property that emerged all at once) - my guess is the line must be drawn more or less arbitrarily according to judgment in good faith, as in Roe vs Wade.

hence political/arbitrary language
:shrug:

One place you can't draw it, at least not honestly, is at or before three weeks. That just makes a liar out of you.

when you have to rely on political, arbitrary terms (along side with the convenient disregard of historical and contemporary and even western incidents that indicate otherwise) you have a weak argument
:shrug:

But then - - that would be redundant anyway, so why not?

Until you can actually back up your claims up, its only your points that are redundant
:shrug:

 

[Tiassa]

The Obvious Question

A Note for Lightgigantic

I find it curious that you continue to ignore the woman.

For instance, I have a dry-foot policy distinguishing the fetus in the womb from the person in the world. I have expressed this many times in abortion discussions at Sciforums. I have made that point in this thread, including my reasons why (1, 2, 3, 4). You might disagree, and, indeed, have expressed your puzzlement at the idea that there is a difference between existing inside another person's body and existing independently of that body.

But for all you focus on reiterating the personhood of a zygote, it is as if the woman is irrelevant to you.

Why is that?

The proposition on which this discussion is based concedes the personhood of the zygote, and addresses potential ways of minimizing the dehumanization of the woman, yet you seem rather quite loath to address those points.

Why do you not want to address the point of a woman's humanity? Why are women so irrelevant to your consideration? What about the humanity of a woman is so scary that you have no other recourse but to ignore it? Why is a woman invisible to your consideration of something taking place inside her body?

 

[lightgigantic]

A Note for Lightgigantic

I find it curious that you continue to ignore the woman.

For instance, I have a dry-foot policy distinguishing the fetus in the womb from the person in the world. I have expressed this many times in abortion discussions at Sciforums. I have made that point in this thread, including my reasons why (1, 2, 3, 4). You might disagree, and, indeed, have expressed your puzzlement at the idea that there is a difference between existing inside another person's body and existing independently of that body.

But for all you focus on reiterating the personhood of a zygote, it is as if the woman is irrelevant to you.

Why is that?

The proposition on which this discussion is based concedes the personhood of the zygote, and addresses potential ways of minimizing the dehumanization of the woman, yet you seem rather quite loath to address those points.

Why do you not want to address the point of a woman's humanity? Why are women so irrelevant to your consideration? What about the humanity of a woman is so scary that you have no other recourse but to ignore it? Why is a woman invisible to your consideration of something taking place inside her body?

This will probably appear three times since I have nevr had this "mod approved " thing when replying to a pre-existing linked reply

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

... 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

 

[wynn]

A Note for Lightgigantic

I find it curious that you continue to ignore the woman.

For instance, I have a dry-foot policy distinguishing the fetus in the womb from the person in the world. I have expressed this many times in abortion discussions at Sciforums. I have made that point in this thread, including my reasons why (1, 2, 3, 4). You might disagree, and, indeed, have expressed your puzzlement at the idea that there is a difference between existing inside another person's body and existing independently of that body.

But for all you focus on reiterating the personhood of a zygote, it is as if the woman is irrelevant to you.

Why is that?

The proposition on which this discussion is based concedes the personhood of the zygote, and addresses potential ways of minimizing the dehumanization of the woman, yet you seem rather quite loath to address those points.

Why do you not want to address the point of a woman's humanity? Why are women so irrelevant to your consideration? What about the humanity of a woman is so scary that you have no other recourse but to ignore it? Why is a woman invisible to your consideration of something taking place inside her body?

Strawmen.

Again:

The ontological resolution of fetal status under law, however, has tremendous effects on women. And women, ontologically speaking, are definitively and unquestionably people.

Those effects of the LACP ontological resolution asserted under force of law form the main question of this thread.

The question should be why in those cases that you are so concerned about - namely, in cases of severe pregnancy complications, rape, incest, miscarriage - neither you nor your opponents [ie. such as some Republicans and part of the Catholic Church] are willing to work with the model of triage.

In the model of triage, granting personhood to the unborn, from conception to birth, does not lead to absurd consequences in those cases that you are so concerned about - namely, in cases of severe pregnancy complications, rape, incest, miscarriage.

- - -

To the one, the most apparent solution is for women to just stop having sex with men, but this is impractical and would, over the long run, be unhealthy for women's mental health.

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.

Of course, once people believe something and get used to acting on that belief, even just considering not acting on it will seem difficult or impossible, what to speak of actually not acting on it. Whether it is about air-conditioning or sex.

 

[iceaura]

when you have to rely on political, arbitrary terms (along side with the convenient disregard of historical and contemporary and even western incidents that indicate otherwise) you have a weak argument

As anyone can read, above, there are no such "terms" being relied on, political or otherwise. And you are once again lying about my "disregard" of your earlier lies and claims. But this is how you roll - deflection, lies, deflection, lies, and personal attack in lieu of discussion or argument. We get nothing else from you.

And in this foul display of bad faith and worse character, you are reasonably typical of the prolife crowd - which calls into question the religious faith so tightly associated with such behavior. It breeds this - such is its nature?

Anyway: What is involved, rather than "terms", is a physical reality, which is recognized by you as well as everyone else whenever you are not pretending to make "arguments" about abortion. One aspect of this physical reality is that a person does not pop into being at some magic moment, like a light bulb switching on. Another aspect is that the development from zygote to person takes place inside the body of an actual extant person, and on any reasonable ethical grounds with that person's consent. When you attempt to deny someone their consent, to treat their body as a means or a tool or a stage for the use of theological or philosophical entities of your own devising, you do evil. When you manifestly do not even believe in these entities unless you need them to deny the person's consent, when their only role is to justify your use of someone's body as a means, the evil is direct and obvious and compounded.

 

[wynn]

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

... 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

It is a given of material conditioned existence that the rights of one entity come at the cost of the rights of another entity.

Given this, in order to keep a semblance of justice, people therefore sometimes redefine the ontological status of an entity, so that a scenario appears in which the rights of one entity do not come at the cost of the rights of another entity.

 

[lightgigantic]

As anyone can read, above, there are no such "terms" being relied on, political or otherwise.

Don't be daft.

You even used the word "arbitrary" when you defend your own position

And you are once again lying about my "disregard" of your earlier lies and claims. But this is how you roll - deflection, lies, deflection, lies, and personal attack in lieu of discussion or argument. We get nothing else from you.

And in this foul display of bad faith and worse character, you are reasonably typical of the prolife crowd - which calls into question the religious faith so tightly associated with such behavior. It breeds this - such is its nature?

Noted your failure to reiterate your position against such claims once again.

It doesn't really matter how many times you try to deflect the discussion into flaming and insult

Anyway: What is involved, rather than "terms", is a physical reality, which is recognized by you as well as everyone else whenever you are not pretending to make "arguments" about abortion.

Until you actually reiterate your position against the claims made against it (as opposed to simply deflecting with name calling as you have done in this post and many more previous) you are simply talking about how you imagine the world to be (while conveniently ignoring all evidence - historical, contemporary and even western if you want to play out your biases to such a degree - that suggests otherwise).

One aspect of this physical reality is that a person does not pop into being at some magic moment, like a light bulb switching on.

Then it would probably work in your favour not to suggest that the magical moment of personhood occurs at some arbitrary, politically motivated moment that doesn't threaten to unhinge your value system

Another aspect is that the development from zygote to person takes place inside the body of an actual extant person, and on any reasonable ethical grounds with that person's consent.

Got news for you ....
the "consent" program goes on in many cases for 20 or so years after birth ... as for ethics, it would be more accurate to describe it as "contemporary" rather than reasonable (since, in case you haven't noticed, this entire thread is based around what is the reasonable ethical grounds for the entire issue ... much like at a certain stage in history there was also an innvolved discussion around what was the reasonable ethical grounds for the issue of blacks)

When you attempt to deny someone their consent, to treat their body as a means or a tool or a stage for the use of theological or philosophical entities of your own devising, you do evil.

Given that you have to engineer a special term of your own devising to negotiate the obvious moral blight of killing someone in the womb, this is hardly a convincing argument from you

When you manifestly do not even believe in these entities unless you need them to deny the person's consent, when their only role is to justify your use of someone's body as a means, the evil is direct and obvious and compounded.

This obvious sore point of your reasoning has been done and dusted on previous occasions, even in this thread I believe. Either go back and address the points raised against this proposition of yours or cease with your proclamations on how you imagine the world to be.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

It is a given of material conditioned existence that the rights of one entity come at the cost of the rights of another entity.

Given this, in order to keep a semblance of justice, people therefore sometimes redefine the ontological status of an entity, so that a scenario appears in which the rights of one entity do not come at the cost of the rights of another entity.

Sure.

When examining the history of justice and its execution, you see that its rife with it.

 

[Trippy]

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.

Of course, once people believe something and get used to acting on that belief, even just considering not acting on it will seem difficult or impossible, what to speak of actually not acting on it. Whether it is about air-conditioning or sex.

You're still trotting this nonsense out why?

I think you should be 'encouraged' to address the contradiction in your suggestion before you play that card.

 

[wynn]

you're still trotting this nonsense out why?

I think you should be 'encouraged' to address the contradiction in your suggestion before you play that card.

qed.

 

[Trippy]

qed.

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.

 

[iceaura]

It is a given of material conditioned existence that the rights of one entity come at the cost of the rights of another entity.

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).

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

Nonsense.

Even by your own admission your definition of "personhood" is arbitrary. Your political dependence on re-defining "life" beginning some time after "life appears is a primary requirement in order for your assessment of the issue of abortion to be absolutely and solely about the rights of one living entity, as opposed to two.

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.

Nor more than championing the rights of black people somehow renders white people "lesser"

The dishonesty of the pretense (personhood is and has been granted to zygotes in no other circumstances,

Total absolute complete and utter bullshit.

Your inability to address evidence (either historical, contemporary or even western according to how deeply you desire to shroud the topic of discussion in your personal biases) that clearly points out the opposite has been noted several times in this thread as well as quite a few others.

You simply repeat the same statements betraying a poor fund of intelligence again and again and again as if mere repetition somehow grants authority to your miscopnceptions about the world

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).

will the irony never end?

The manner of your performing a hack job on your intelligence at the hands of an over-bearing political agenda prohibits you from even engaging a discussion on this topic. All you can do is constantly repeat how the premises of your argument are indubitable by ignoring clear evidence that clearly indicates you are in the wrong.
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Sure.

When examining the history of justice and its execution, you see that its rife with it.

It is not possible to resolve the problems of material conditioned existence without reference to an outlook that transcends it.

Within the materially conditioned outlook, we either have to settle for the morally repugnant option that the rights of one entity simply come at the cost of another and that this is simply as good as it gets; or we settle for the option where we try to redefine the ontological status of some entities (along with redefining some other phenomena; such as our ability to predict events, assuming that this ability is total, or very close to it).

This is why the abortion debate, as long as it is kept within the confines of such a materialistic outlook, is doomed to remain stuck.