Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood

[_Droopy]

Humans aren't worth respect because they happen to have a human genome.

This is exactly the position I would expect to ultimately develop within the pragmatist/utilitarian frame of reference. Its clear moral and societal danger is, of course, that once having lost respect for humanness per se, definitions and conceptions of what constitutes, not humanness, but legitimate humanness are opened up to the self justifying winds of political expediency, social/cultural drift, and the philosophical vogue of the cultural moment.

It's other qualities that humans just so happen to possess that matter in my view. The specifics are technical, but it's more related to the capacity for sentient consciousness.

If the capacity for sentient consciousness is the core of one's concern, then it would appear that being opposed to abortion, from the moment of conception, save for cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life/well being of the mother, would be the logically required position, as the capacity for both consciousness and sentience is inherent at the most fundamental levels of human embryonic development.

From within specific perceptual and moral frames of reference, this is correct.

It's a definition, droopy.

No, its an open philosophical question, one that, as in virtually all other areas in which you pretend to deep intellectual insight, you balk at pursuing beyond Wiki links and arguments from authority purporting to settle such thorny questions once and for all (according to some obscure and presently fashionable consensus among an equally obscure and fashionable segment of the intelligentsia).

I didn't think you'd want to go very far into "specific perceptual and moral frames of reference." That would, after all, require some real arduous, exacting, detailed thinking for which some Wiki links regarding what's popular at the moment among some segment of the academic community are not going to be an adequate substitute.

[_Droopy]

He's arguing that the availability of abortion breeds a callousness towards human life that in turn predisposes people towards harming other, non-fetal, people. Therefore, it is in society's best interest to not allow this.

Nope. I've never made that argument. My argument is that convenience abortion on demand, or, unrestricted elective abortion based upon, to use Tarski's term, a pregnancy interfering with or causing an interruption of the perusing of "life goals" produces a moral coldness (of the same kind that results in many unwanted pregnancies) or unconcern toward other humans, not based upon whether they are unborn, born, or already well developed "persons," but whether or not they are "in my way" in my pursuance of "life goals" and are in a position to make morally grounded claims upon my time, priorities, and life focus.

This isn't a particulary common anti-abortion argument.

Actually, its quite well developed, and has been for sometime (and your unawareness of it shocks me not at all).

The concept of "quality of life" has long been displacing concern for humanness qua humanness in the general area of bioethics, of which the abortion debate is one facet. The ramifications of unlimited convenience abortion reach into the debate over euthanasia (unrestricted convenience abortion's close sibling), embryonic stem cell research, and the nature of the rationing of health care that would be required in any sort of socialized, single payer health care system.

It reminds me of animal rights activists' arguments that are along the same line. We should outlaw various harms to animals, not simply because animals themselves are deserving of rights, but because their mistreatment predisposes people to treat other people badly.

Except that animals do not, and cannot, have "rights," and are not human, which means this analogy is a logical hole with no bottom (its well understood, while we're at it, that cruelty to animals is a good predictor of violence toward human beings in the future, as is violence against the property of others).

[_Darth J]

It reminds me of animal rights activists' arguments that are along the same line. We should outlaw various harms to animals, not simply because animals themselves are deserving of rights, but because their mistreatment predisposes people to treat other people badly.

Except that animals do not, and cannot, have "rights," and are not human, which means this analogy is a logical hole with no bottom (its well understood, while we're at it, that cruelty to animals is a good predictor of violence toward human beings in the future, as is violence against the property of others).

He's not arguing in favor of animal rights, Droopy. He's disputing your argument.

And the research indicating that torturing animals leads to violence against people comes from psychology. But you've made it clear that you don't think psychology is a science, so there's no reason for you to allude to psychological studies.

And yes, animals do indeed have rights. Wherever laws against animal cruelty are in effect, animals have been granted statutory rights to be free from cruelty. There is also a remedy for a breach of those rights, in the form of criminal penalties. I'm aware that you can't grasp the concept of rights that are created by statute, because that would entail knowing what you're talking about and stuff like that.

But as far your philosophical assertion that animals "cannot" have rights, I'm really not surprised at all that you don't believe in the teachings of the church you purport to defend.

The Gospel and Animals

“Says one, ‘I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts.’ Any man who would tell you this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beast giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The beasts were four of the most noble animals that filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect. They were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God.” (DHC, vol. 5, pp. 343–44.)

[_EAllusion]

This is exactly the position I would expect to ultimately develop within the pragmatist/utilitarian frame of reference.

Utilitarianism does not dictate one's views on personhood - utiltiarians have varying views on the subject. The specific view I tentatively hold derives in part from the fact that I am a desire consequentialist, but that's all gibberish to you if your posts here are any indication.

Its clear moral and societal danger is, of course, that once having lost respect for humanness per se, definitions and conceptions of what constitutes, not humanness, but legitimate humanness are opened up to the self justifying winds of political expediency, social/cultural drift, and the philosophical vogue of the cultural moment.

You're begging the question of your own position. Tell me Droopy, why should we define a being as being worthy of moral respect if and only if they possess a genome that is sufficiently human-like? Why should that matter? I don't think it is our biological structure that makes us worthy of respect per se. It's the fact that our biological structure causes us to have certain traits that are worthy of respect - that we have sentience, conscious aims, a recoverable sense of self in time, etc. Theoretically, an alien species could possess the same traits and be co-equally deserving of the same moral rights. You're free to disagree, but you don't appear to be aware that your position isn't self evident. It's not even popular. It requires defending and you don't seem up to the task of doing so.

If the capacity for sentient consciousness is the core of one's concern...

Not potential. Capacity. A bird's egg has the potential to become something that can fly. It does not have the capacity to fly.

No, its an open philosophical question,

I'm defining what "personhood" refers to. I'm not saying what traits constitutes personhood. This is a basic term that you are completely unaware of. Hence you fly off the handle talking about throwing Jews into the ovens when I merely use the term. Odd that you blather on and on about deep philosophical knowledge and insight and yet are completely oblivious to basic philosophical terminology. In all those years of being an auto-didact, it would seem you failed to learn something that is taught at an entry level course. Fret not, as I'm sure this very thread will at some point cause you to look up what we are talking about. You'll then come back at a later time using the correct approach and acting like this never happened.

[_EAllusion]

He's not arguing in favor of animal rights, Droopy. He's disputing your argument.

I would dispute it, but I'm not even disputing it here. I'm simply pointing it out. We're not debating the ethics of legalized abortion here, so it's a red herring. A lot of words are being used simply to point out that Brackite's post is predicated on assuming a view of personhood many pro-choicers aren't apt to agree with. Hearing "personhood" sent off some emotional, associative trip-wire in Droopy's brain and this is the result. Personhood is just having qualities deserving of moral/legal respect. Droopy clearly has views on this - he thinks being a biologically human individual is what defines personhood. But, because he can't follow things well, he prefers his own term "humanness" - which loads his position into term right out of the gate - to take the place of personhood. It's not our fault if he wants to use his idiosyncratic terms to replace standard jargon in ethics and law. It doesn't make what I said any less on point.

[_Darth J]

He's not arguing in favor of animal rights, Droopy. He's disputing your argument.

I would dispute it, but I'm not even disputing it here. I'm simply pointing it out. We're not debating the ethics of legalized abortion here, so it's a red herring. A lot of words are being used simply to point out that Brackite's post is predicated on assuming a view of personhood many pro-choicers aren't apt to agree with. Hearing "personhood" sent off some emotional, associative trip-wire in Droopy's brain and this is the result. Personhood is just having qualities deserving of moral/legal respect. Droopy clearly has views on this - he thinks being a biologically human individual is what defines personhood. But, because he can't follow things well, he prefers his own term "humanness" - which loads his position into term right out of the gate - to take the place of personhood. It's not our fault if he wants to use his idiosyncratic terms to replace standard jargon in ethics and law. It doesn't make what I said any less on point.

Right, that's what I meant. Droopy can't even frame an issue; he just regurgitates talking points. That's why he is responding to your statement as if it's your affirmative position.

[_Droopy]

Utilitarianism does not dictate one's views on personhood -

Utilitarianism can ground its idea of morality in nothing more than cultural consensus, and in the cultural consensus of a selected sub-group of that culture. And therein lies disturbing possibilities.

So you are here claiming that consequentialism (of any kind) is not simply another form or formulation of utilitarian ethics (could it not be called "desire utilitarianism?". Is not disire (and rule and preference) consequentialism a variation upon a broader, essentially utilitarian derived philosophical theme?

You're begging the question of your own position. Tell me Droopy, why should we define a being as being worthy of moral respect if and only if they possess a genome that is sufficiently human-like? Why should that matter?

1. This is not what I've claimed, and is, at best, a gross oversimplification.
2. "Human-like." I'm not interested in human-like DNA, only human DNA.

I don't think it is our biological structure that makes us worthy of respect per se. It's the fact that our biological structure causes us to have certain traits that are worthy of respect - that we have sentience, conscious aims, a recoverable sense of self in time, etc.

The "traits" that you say are worthy of respect are inherent and contained within the sperm and the egg upon their successful combining in the womb. The "traits" of "personhood," or, to clarify, the attributes you claim are worthy of moral consideration are the intrinsic and inexorable manifestations of the fundamental and inherent nature of the information and properties contained within the developing embryo.

Your removal of moral consideration from the human being in one form, and retention of it in another is at the center of the entire ethical problem of abortion. The fundamental question of virtually all abortion since Roe has been the question of the personal and social inconvenience a human life in a relatively undeveloped or progressively complexifying form presents to the "life goals" (personal life options) of a human being in a more advanced stage of development.

The removal of moral consideration from the embryo or fetus to satisfy the need to circumvent the consequences of irresponsible sexual activity, and as a weapon of cultural struggle against western civilizational norms regarding traditional gender roles and normative concepts of family (the ideological core of feminist support of unrestricted abortion) cannot be limited, restricted, or confined to the embryo and fetus. That is the moral/philosophical can of worms the culture of unrestricted, unlimited abortion on demand opens before us. The question, outside of rape, incest, or the life and serious health consequences to a woman by bringing an unborn child to term, is, for the secular humanist Left, one of "quality of life" (defined as each person so defines it) over against allowing another life, as yet not fully developed, to fully emerge as a "person," even if certain sacrifices of "life goals," however subjectively understood, must be made by those who have already arrived at the state of "personhood."

The moral question then, and a question intimately bound up with the question of the sexual revolution, its value system, and the consequences of subscribing to that value system, is not personhood over against non-personhood (except in the cases where abortion is morally recognized as legitimate because of a profound conflict between a person (the mother) and the unborn fetus (emerging or potential person) that cannot be resolved with lesser means and which are not related to any actions or conduct taken either by the mother or by other third parties), but of what kind of society and what kind of people we are to become (and enculturate in the future) as the fundamental question is shifted away from the core sanctity of human life qua human life, and from the variables effecting the moral viability of the larger culture, to concentrated focus upon the self and its "quality of life" as defined by each morally autonomous human being independent of choices made regarding other human life, even if that human life is yet only emergent, and does not fully qualify, according to the ideological consensus of a particular age or era, as protected by the same moral barriers that protect "persons."

If the capacity for sentient consciousness is the core of one's concern...

Not potential. Capacity. An bird's egg has the potential to become something that can fly. It does not have the capacity to fly.

Now you're just playing word games. An embryo has the capacity (Ability to perform or produce, The maximum or optimum amount that can be produced) to become - to develop and complexify. The end result of which, unless interrupted and terminated, will be "pesonhood." That capacity is grounded in the embryo's inherent biological, genetic, and biochemical structure. The term "capacity" will support that usages - as productive, developing potential.

I'm defining what "personhood" refers to. I'm not saying what traits constitutes personhood.

Then you should, because until you do, you're simply blowing smoke out of your philosophical derriere and masking ideology with artificial philosophical sweetener.

Until we know what "personhood" actually is, in some detail, we cannot look at convenience abortion on demand as in real moral conflict with it, as the Left demands we do.

I deleted your high school cut down tantrum for the irrelevant blather that it was. Try - just try, now and then - to rise just a bit above Kevin Graham in your "philosophical" discussions.

[_Droopy]

Hearing "personhood" sent off some emotional, associative trip-wire in Droopy's brain and this is the result.

Its just the problem that morality, for you, can be reduced to nothing more that subjective personal preference attainment, whatever that may be, and as defined within particular generation or era. If a pregnancy and/or motherhood will interrupt going to law school, or cause one to have to quite work and interrupt a carreer path for a while, or will put a crimp in one's social/sexual lifestyle, kill it. Terminate it. Abort it.

That is the mentality with which we are dealing here.

I do notice your inability to "think on the hoof" outside of what you appear to believe is a closed canon of textbook definitions and pat answers to philosophical questions and terminology by those you have chosen to see as authorities on these open and contentious subjects, but, after all, this is the Trailerpark, and philosophy in the Trailerpark may not be the same as philosophy in La Jolla.

[_Droopy]

Hearing "personhood" sent off some emotional, associative trip-wire in Droopy's brain and this is the result.

Its just the problem that morality, for you, can be reduced to nothing more that subjective personal preference attainment, whatever that may be, and as defined within a particular generation or era. If a pregnancy and/or motherhood will interrupt going to law school, or cause one to have to quite work and interrupt a career path for a while, or will put a crimp in one's social/sexual lifestyle, kill it. Terminate it. Abort it.

That is the mentality with which we are dealing here.

I do notice your inability to "think on the hoof" outside of what you appear to believe is a closed canon of textbook definitions and pat answers to philosophical questions and terminology by those you have chosen to see as authorities on these open and contentious subjects, but, after all, this is the Trailerpark, and philosophy in the Trailerpark may not be the same as philosophy in La Jolla.

[_EAllusion]

1. This is not what I've claimed, and is, at best, a gross oversimplification.
2. "Human-like." I'm not interested in human-like DNA, only human DNA.

Populations of organisms are related on a continuum. The species cutoff point is artificial, even on the interbreeding criterion. The borders are fuzzy and if you were to happen upon them, that would create a problem for what you are asserting. I spotted you this problem by saying sufficiently human-like.

The "traits" that you say are worthy of respect are inherent and contained within the sperm and the egg upon their successful combining in the womb.

No they aren't. I'm not sure if you are asserting that blastocysts are conscious beings, but they aren't. If you are saying they have the potential to become one, that's true, usually. This is an argument some people adopt. I don't buy the potential criterion, but I get the arguments in favor of it. Surely you understand the difference between saying that a collection of cells has the potential to develop certain traits and saying that it has them.

Now you're just playing word games.

I'm making a distinction. This ethics of abortion 101 stuff. If you were as well-read as you like to claim, I don't think this would be as challenging a discussion as it's being made out to be.

Until we know what "personhood" actually is, in some detail...

Hey, look, it's the point I was making about Brackite's post.