336 Million

[thegreekdog]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/next-pope-five-key-issues

Pope Benedict XVI appeared to signal a break with traditional teaching on the use of condoms almost three years ago when he said the use of condoms was acceptable "in certain cases". If, for example, a male prostitute used a condom to reduce the risk of HIV infection, he said, that could be considered "a first step in the direction of moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants". The example, however, was carefully chosen: by deploying it, the pope avoided the issue of birth control and made no mention of condom use in heterosexual relationships.

The Vatican later clarified the remarks, stressing that the pope has "not reformed or changed the church's teaching" on the matter.

His spokesman added: "The pope considered an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality represents a real risk to the lives of others. In this case, the pope does not morally justify the exercise of disordered sexuality, but believes that the use of condoms to reduce the risk of infection is a 'first step on the road to a more human sexuality', rather than not to use it and risking the lives of others."

In 2009, during his first trip to Africa as pope, Benedict provoked outrage after declaring that condoms were not the answer to the continent's fight against HIV and Aids – and could make the problem worse.

Speaking to journalists on his flight, the pontiff said the condition was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". His successor will have to decide whether this remains the position of the church.

Your quote, taken out of context, looks convincing TGD, until you realise that in context what is being discussed is whether an HIV positive male gay prostitute should wear a condom to reduce any harm he does to others, and had no reference to the discussions around family planning, which is what this debate is centred around.

Why does that make a difference?

Ultimately, it's taboo to have protected sex, whether you're married or not. The question was what was the Church's stance on contraception, not what the Church's stance was on family planning. I explained it before...

- Married - no protected sex
- Single - no sex, but if you're going to have sex, protection is better than no protection

It is puzzling to see people jumping to Player's defense without also providing some evidence of their own. Player made an affirmative statement that the position I laid out were some American parishes or priests. She had no links, no evidence, nothing. WTF?

[2dimes]

I'm pro-choice. My discussion with Mets dealt with infanticide, not abortion. Essentially, there are studies showing that there is a lack of cognitive whatever with infants up to a certain age and therefore, perhaps such infants aren't people (much like fetuses aren't people) and thus can be killed. Mets made a logical argument. My response was that matters of life and death are not based on logic.

So, in post birth abortions what would be your choice for method. Bludgioning, asphixiation, drowning, machine gun, other? I usually need to alter a quote to get good conversation like this going. Is there signs or some sort of test to tell when they have become a person?

[notyou2]

I'm pro-choice. My discussion with Mets dealt with infanticide, not abortion. Essentially, there are studies showing that there is a lack of cognitive whatever with infants up to a certain age and therefore, perhaps such infants aren't people (much like fetuses aren't people) and thus can be killed. Mets made a logical argument. My response was that matters of life and death are not based on logic.

So, in post birth abortions what would be your choice for method. Bludgioning, asphixiation, drowning, machine gun, other? I usually need to alter a quote to get good conversation like this going. Is there signs or some sort of test to tell when they have become a person?

Dingo should be an option.

[2dimes]

I'm pro-choice. My discussion with Mets dealt with infanticide, not abortion. Essentially, there are studies showing that there is a lack of cognitive whatever with infants up to a certain age and therefore, perhaps such infants aren't people (much like fetuses aren't people) and thus can be killed. Mets made a logical argument. My response was that matters of life and death are not based on logic.

So, in post birth abortions what would be your choice for method. Bludgioning, asphixiation, drowning, machine gun, other? I usually need to alter a quote to get good conversation like this going. Is there signs or some sort of test to tell when they have become a person?

Dingo should be an option.

Huh, I was against it before you started talking sense there.

[Lootifer]

I'm pro-choice. My discussion with Mets dealt with infanticide, not abortion. Essentially, there are studies showing that there is a lack of cognitive whatever with infants up to a certain age and therefore, perhaps such infants aren't people (much like fetuses aren't people) and thus can be killed. Mets made a logical argument. My response was that matters of life and death are not based on logic.

So, in post birth abortions what would be your choice for method. Bludgioning, asphixiation, drowning, machine gun, other? I usually need to alter a quote to get good conversation like this going. Is there signs or some sort of test to tell when they have become a person?

Dingo should be an option.

I think I read a story a year or so ago where they found the woman to be not guilty of murder and that a dingo had actually taken her baby.

[Night Strike]

I'm pro-choice. My discussion with Mets dealt with infanticide, not abortion. Essentially, there are studies showing that there is a lack of cognitive whatever with infants up to a certain age and therefore, perhaps such infants aren't people (much like fetuses aren't people) and thus can be killed. Mets made a logical argument. My response was that matters of life and death are not based on logic.

So, in post birth abortions what would be your choice for method. Bludgioning, asphixiation, drowning, machine gun, other? I usually need to alter a quote to get good conversation like this going. Is there signs or some sort of test to tell when they have become a person?

Throwing the baby in the trash is good enough for our current President.

[Lootifer]

I'm pro-choice. My discussion with Mets dealt with infanticide, not abortion. Essentially, there are studies showing that there is a lack of cognitive whatever with infants up to a certain age and therefore, perhaps such infants aren't people (much like fetuses aren't people) and thus can be killed. Mets made a logical argument. My response was that matters of life and death are not based on logic.

So, in post birth abortions what would be your choice for method. Bludgioning, asphixiation, drowning, machine gun, other? I usually need to alter a quote to get good conversation like this going. Is there signs or some sort of test to tell when they have become a person?

Throwing the baby in the trash is good enough for our current President.

@ J9B: It's posts such as these that result in all the ad hominem attack on neo-cons.

[Night Strike]

I'm pro-choice. My discussion with Mets dealt with infanticide, not abortion. Essentially, there are studies showing that there is a lack of cognitive whatever with infants up to a certain age and therefore, perhaps such infants aren't people (much like fetuses aren't people) and thus can be killed. Mets made a logical argument. My response was that matters of life and death are not based on logic.

So, in post birth abortions what would be your choice for method. Bludgioning, asphixiation, drowning, machine gun, other? I usually need to alter a quote to get good conversation like this going. Is there signs or some sort of test to tell when they have become a person?

Throwing the baby in the trash is good enough for our current President.

@ J9B: It's posts such as these that result in all the ad hominem attack on neo-cons.

Why the need for ad hominem? Barack Obama voted against an Illinois bill protecting the life of a baby born alive after a botched abortion. It's a fact of his voting record (which was fairly sparse other than "present").

[2dimes]

Hey if mere mortals like me and the wife have a baby, then someone of value such as a President, Rap/Rock star, Bishop, or something wants to throw it in a bin you better believe it'll get done.

Political party affiliation is not relivant. We're talking the difference between persons and poor folk who are just above fetus and just below new born infant.

[john9blue]

Throwing the baby in the trash is good enough for our current President.

@ J9B: It's posts such as these that result in all the ad hominem attack on neo-cons.

i think the reason i don't hate on neocons as much is because i know that many of their views will be widely rejected in a few decades. as far as i'm concerned, their anti-gay/warhawk/theocratic beliefs will not be a threat to america much longer, so i mostly ignore them.

although i do pretty much agree with his views on abortion (but the obama-trash-baby think didn't really make any sense to me)

[thegreekdog]

I'm pro-choice. My discussion with Mets dealt with infanticide, not abortion. Essentially, there are studies showing that there is a lack of cognitive whatever with infants up to a certain age and therefore, perhaps such infants aren't people (much like fetuses aren't people) and thus can be killed. Mets made a logical argument. My response was that matters of life and death are not based on logic.

So, in post birth abortions what would be your choice for method. Bludgioning, asphixiation, drowning, machine gun, other? I usually need to alter a quote to get good conversation like this going. Is there signs or some sort of test to tell when they have become a person?

Dingo should be an option.

Huh, I was against it before you started talking sense there.

The benefit of dingo-related infanticide is that you are serving two purposes - getting rid of an unwanted child AND feeding a needy animal.

[_sabotage_]

A needy animal or an animal in need?

[2dimes]

Is there an order or is it just Persons versus, dingos, fetii, new borns, poor folk, etc.
Like are some closer than others or is it either you are or you are not?

Also is there any exceptions? For example, poor folk with a usefull trade such as chef, can be spared if there's a need to liquidate sub-humans somewhere.

[WestWind]

I agree to a certain extent, but I have no empathy for abortions that take place before a fetus is even capable of feeling pain or having desires (the first several weeks of pregnancy). Prior to that point, I don't think much more of abortion than I would swatting an insect, at least in terms of concern for the dying being.

Yikes, people actually feel this way? Regardless of whether or not the fetus can feel anything, you're still completely destroying the potential for a new person. While there's some circumstances where this is understandable, I think it's fair to ask for a hell of a lot more respect for a potential human being than the term "swatting an insect" implies.

[2dimes]

Hmm, you're surprised by that huh?

you're still completely destroying the potential for a new person.

Others seem to be having some difficulty deciding what constitutes "person" these days. Including one that's actually escaped the womb.

[WestWind]

Hmm, you're surprised by that huh?

you're still completely destroying the potential for a new person.

Others seem to be having some difficulty deciding what constitutes "person" these days. Including one that's actually escaped the womb.

The problem here comes from the fact that we treat personhood (legally) as a black and white issue. Either you are a person, or you aren't. Mets seems to be fine with taking a hugely complex issue and forcing it into either a square hole or a round one, when it really doesn't fit either. He's working with the system we have, but that's not really a good excuse.

I'd venture to say that those against abortion aren't really against the destruction of a few cells. What they're opposed to is the complete removal of a potential human being. Sure, an embryo a few weeks old can't feel pain or think for itself. It may not legally be a person. However, there is (relatively) a very good chance that they will be in the future. That's the dimension of this argument that's often ignored, mainly because there's no existing legal institution for this concept. It's much easier to just default to the conscious/unconscious, alive/non-alive debate.

The question arising from this is what exactly are the rights of a "potential person"? My own personal stance is that they would be the same as those of a traditional "person", except in cases where the rights of an existing person are directly threatened by those of the potential person, in which case priority is given to the existing person. Furthermore, the closer a potential person is to becoming a full person (i.e. being born), the more heavily-weighted their rights are.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm, you're surprised by that huh?

you're still completely destroying the potential for a new person.

Others seem to be having some difficulty deciding what constitutes "person" these days. Including one that's actually escaped the womb.

The problem here comes from the fact that we treat personhood (legally) as a black and white issue. Either you are a person, or you aren't. Mets seems to be fine with taking a hugely complex issue and forcing it into either a square hole or a round one, when it really doesn't fit either. He's working with the system we have, but that's not really a good excuse.

I'd venture to say that those against abortion aren't really against the destruction of a few cells. What they're opposed to is the complete removal of a potential human being. Sure, an embryo a few weeks old can't feel pain or think for itself. It may not legally be a person. However, there is (relatively) a very good chance that they will be in the future. That's the dimension of this argument that's often ignored, mainly because there's no existing legal institution for this concept. It's much easier to just default to the conscious/unconscious, alive/non-alive debate.

The question arising from this is what exactly are the rights of a "potential person"? My own personal stance is that they would be the same as those of a traditional "person", except in cases where the rights of an existing person are directly threatened by those of the potential person, in which case priority is given to the existing person. Furthermore, the closer a potential person is to becoming a full person (i.e. being born), the more heavily-weighted their rights are.

Actually, I'm not sure the issue is hugely complex (logically speaking). I'll defer to Mets (and others) for logic, but as I understand his position, if the organism in question is not able to recognize itself in a mirror, it lacks cognitive capabilities and therefore does not have a right to life (in Mets' world). The potential is ignored in favor of logic.

I agree with your position in that the desire/right to live is not a logical issue. And that is ultimately my point.

[WestWind]

Actually, I'm not sure the issue is hugely complex (logically speaking). I'll defer to Mets (and others) for logic, but as I understand his position, if the organism in question is not able to recognize itself in a mirror, it lacks cognitive capabilities and therefore does not have a right to life (in Mets' world). The potential is ignored in favor of logic.

I agree with your position in that the desire/right to live is not a logical issue. And that is ultimately my point.

It's both a logical issue and an emotional one. I feel that issues are best decided when both aspects temper and supplement each other, but for the sake of argument let's just look at the logical side. The logical issue with Mets' argument is that he gives no value to potential personhood. There's either 1 (a person) or 0 (a non-person). A 1 has full rights, while a 0 has none. A 0 remains a 0 until it becomes a 1. The problem here is the assumption that a 0 instantaneously becomes a 1 at some point and gains full value and rights. My argument (which I feel is fairly well-supported by developmental biology) is that, in the case of human development, the 0 gradually rises in value towards a value of 1. The closer it gets to 1, the more likely it is that it will reach 1. Thus, it has great potential value, as well as its own residual value.

I hate to reduce this issue to nothing but numbers and logic, but it's the only way to make a point against this argument.

[Metsfanmax]

I agree to a certain extent, but I have no empathy for abortions that take place before a fetus is even capable of feeling pain or having desires (the first several weeks of pregnancy). Prior to that point, I don't think much more of abortion than I would swatting an insect, at least in terms of concern for the dying being.

Yikes, people actually feel this way? Regardless of whether or not the fetus can feel anything, you're still completely destroying the potential for a new person. While there's some circumstances where this is understandable, I think it's fair to ask for a hell of a lot more respect for a potential human being than the term "swatting an insect" implies.

I destroy the potential for a new person every minute that I'm not having sex. Yes, I don't deny that one can make the argument that a fetus is much more likely to be a human being. But that argument carries no moral weight. As I alluded to earlier, there's quite a good chance that Prince Charles will take the throne at some point. That is not an argument for treating him right now with the rights of King. The person elected President in 2016 will almost certainly actually be the President in 2017, but you don't give him or her access to the nuclear football until he or she takes the oath of office. I challenge you to give another meaningful example in which we should give something that is potentially going to be X with the rights or privileges of X. I don't think there is one (and it would lessen or destroy what we mean by rights to begin with).

It's both a logical issue and an emotional one. I feel that issues are best decided when both aspects temper and supplement each other, but for the sake of argument let's just look at the logical side. The logical issue with Mets' argument is that he gives no value to potential personhood. There's either 1 (a person) or 0 (a non-person). A 1 has full rights, while a 0 has none. A 0 remains a 0 until it becomes a 1. The problem here is the assumption that a 0 instantaneously becomes a 1 at some point and gains full value and rights. My argument (which I feel is fairly well-supported by developmental biology) is that, in the case of human development, the 0 gradually rises in value towards a value of 1. The closer it gets to 1, the more likely it is that it will reach 1. Thus, it has great potential value, as well as its own residual value.

Your description of the measuring system is accurate, but where you evidently misunderstand me is in assuming that I assert that the transition occurs suddenly. It is certainly obvious from our understanding of human physiology that this is not so. Nevertheless, what is most certainly true is that there is some period of time in which we can definitely say that a human being scores a 0 exactly. Then, the limit at which we should begin to treat the human similar to a full moral person is when we legitimately can no longer say with confidence that the infant has no person-like qualities. Thus, one should pick a relatively conservative standard. I have advocated a time of about one month after birth; before this time, all infants score a 0 on the personhood test.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, if we accept the "potential human" argument, then what are the implications?

1. Women lose their property rights over their own body (i.e. they can't evict the trespasser/unwanted fetus).
1a. To get around this, we can say, "oh, women's property rights > fetus' property rights."

2. Women become proportionally responsible for anything within their control which kills the potential human. In turn, should they face higher punishments? A potential human has been killed. For example, if a lack of exercise increases one's chances of a miscarriage, (or something like this), then that women is responsible for killing the potential person/human. Should women be charged for negligent homicide?

2b. Or would women only be incriminated for having an abortion--induced purposefully by pills or an operation?

3. Should we count all dead potential humans (feti) as dead humans? If not, then does the "potential human" description really matter? It still seems like the new description doesn't matter---if there's no change in these implications.

[thegreekdog]

So, if we accept the "potential human" argument, then what are the implications?

1. Women lose their property rights over their own body (i.e. they can't evict the trespasser/unwanted fetus).
1a. To get around this, we can say, "oh, women's property rights > fetus' property rights."

2. Women become proportionally responsible for anything within their control which kills the potential human. In turn, should they face higher punishments? A potential human has been killed. For example, if a lack of exercise increases one's chances of a miscarriage, (or something like this), then that women is responsible for killing the potential person/human. Should women be charged for negligent homicide?

2b. Or would women only be incriminated for having an abortion--induced purposefully by pills or an operation?

3. Should we count all dead potential humans (feti) as dead humans? If not, then does the "potential human" description really matter? It still seems like the new description doesn't matter---if there's no change in these implications.

Again (and I know you hate this), the question is not a logical one or one that can be solved by economic concepts. It never has been and it never will be. The desire to remain in existence removes logic (and economics). For example, while one may want to eliminate all undesirables, one certainly wouldn't classify oneself as an undesirable, no matter how much evidence there is that one is an undesirable; further, even if one would classify onself as an undesirable, one would certainly not want to be eliminated.

[BigBallinStalin]

Right, I agree that's how many people are, but if someone's arguments mainly hinge on emotional reasoning, it doesn't mean they have a good argument. I acknowledge that many people do this, but we should have some standard for determining if an argument sucks or not.

Besides, I'm just running with the potential human argument. If it runs into silly conclusions, then it's up to its defenders to correct for that. If not, then they may have a weak argument, so substitutes or improvements should be found to remedy that situation.

RE: the undesirable bit, does committing suicide refute your last sentence?

[WestWind]

I destroy the potential for a new person every minute that I'm not having sex. Yes, I don't deny that one can make the argument that a fetus is much more likely to be a human being. But that argument carries no moral weight. As I alluded to earlier, there's quite a good chance that Prince Charles will take the throne at some point. That is not an argument for treating him right now with the rights of King. The person elected President in 2016 will almost certainly actually be the President in 2017, but you don't give him or her access to the nuclear football until he or she takes the oath of office. I challenge you to give another meaningful example in which we should give something that is potentially going to be X with the rights or privileges of X. I don't think there is one (and it would lessen or destroy what we mean by rights to begin with).

The problem with your argument here is that you're taking a few rare, exceptional cases (i.e. royalty/presidency) and applying it at a general level to make an example for human rights. You're taking a specific, highly specialized case and trying to apply it in reverse to a broader population. That alone should tell you that this argument doesn't hold water. It's not an accepted practice in any branch of science and it's not an accepted argument strategy.

Your description of the measuring system is accurate, but where you evidently misunderstand me is in assuming that I assert that the transition occurs suddenly. It is certainly obvious from our understanding of human physiology that this is not so. Nevertheless, what is most certainly true is that there is some period of time in which we can definitely say that a human being scores a 0 exactly. Then, the limit at which we should begin to treat the human similar to a full moral person is when we legitimately can no longer say with confidence that the infant has no person-like qualities. Thus, one should pick a relatively conservative standard. I have advocated a time of about one month after birth; before this time, all infants score a 0 on the personhood test.

If you want to get technical, perception of pain is the first "step" on the ladder/spectrum to full personhood. That occurs after 24 weeks, IIRC. Thus, a human would "score" above a 0 after that period. There could be an argument for extending the first step of personhood to simply being alive, but this isn't the place for it.

[WestWind]

So, if we accept the "potential human" argument, then what are the implications?

1. Women lose their property rights over their own body (i.e. they can't evict the trespasser/unwanted fetus).
1a. To get around this, we can say, "oh, women's property rights > fetus' property rights."

2. Women become proportionally responsible for anything within their control which kills the potential human. In turn, should they face higher punishments? A potential human has been killed. For example, if a lack of exercise increases one's chances of a miscarriage, (or something like this), then that women is responsible for killing the potential person/human. Should women be charged for negligent homicide?

2b. Or would women only be incriminated for having an abortion--induced purposefully by pills or an operation?

3. Should we count all dead potential humans (feti) as dead humans? If not, then does the "potential human" description really matter? It still seems like the new description doesn't matter---if there's no change in these implications.

1. You can make an argument that the rights of a just-conceived fetus directly threaten the right of the mother to liberty and happiness. At a certain point the fetus' rights begin to gain more and more weight as the potential increases.

2. The problem here is that it'd be exceptionally difficult to prove that something that she did directly led to a miscarriage. The other problem is it'd be exceptionally tricky to balance the rights of a fetus vs. the rights of the mother. A lot of anti-abortion activists give the impression that they view the mother as just a baby factory with no rights. There's a line, but I'm not going to tell you that I know where it'd have to be drawn.

3. Hm, where is this question coming from? Why are we counting, anyways?

[BigBallinStalin]

So, if we accept the "potential human" argument, then what are the implications?

1. Women lose their property rights over their own body (i.e. they can't evict the trespasser/unwanted fetus).
1a. To get around this, we can say, "oh, women's property rights > fetus' property rights."

2. Women become proportionally responsible for anything within their control which kills the potential human. In turn, should they face higher punishments? A potential human has been killed. For example, if a lack of exercise increases one's chances of a miscarriage, (or something like this), then that women is responsible for killing the potential person/human. Should women be charged for negligent homicide?

2b. Or would women only be incriminated for having an abortion--induced purposefully by pills or an operation?

3. Should we count all dead potential humans (feti) as dead humans? If not, then does the "potential human" description really matter? It still seems like the new description doesn't matter---if there's no change in these implications.

1. You can make an argument that the rights of a just-conceived fetus directly threaten the right of the mother to liberty and happiness. At a certain point the fetus' rights begin to gain more and more weight as the potential increases.

2. The problem here is that it'd be exceptionally difficult to prove that something that she did directly led to a miscarriage. The other problem is it'd be exceptionally tricky to balance the rights of a fetus vs. the rights of the mother. A lot of anti-abortion activists give the impression that they view the mother as just a baby factory with no rights. There's a line, but I'm not going to tell you that I know where it'd have to be drawn.

3. Hm, where is this question coming from? Why are we counting, anyways?

It seems that the "potential fetus" argument doesn't provide further clarity to the issue.