• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Trump to expand Hobby Lobby to "moral convictions"

I did. Just giving another example of a what could be a preferred value construct.

Sentience. Or potential sentience--but only if ever sentient in the right way/amount at some earlier time. And not if one is dependent on a single other human being. Meaning your mother, of female parent. If you happen to be at some date after birth dependent on a single human being for any reason though, that's different.

Seems like you have to work pretty hard to exclude the poor little fetuses from belonging to the class of humans that possess any value. Or being valued.

I think it's much more straightforward to simply value human life. Which clearly begins at conception. Regardless of how one determines, preferentially and subjectively, to define personhood.

And I think that the generally desirable response to dependent or otherwise vulnerable human life is protect and nurture it. To facilitate its natural flourishing as able. Because I am a human being who has been once in the womb, once so dependent, and I'm grateful I was given the opportunity to continue to live and develop both before and after birth.

And I think to nurture and protect dependent and vulnerable human life, yes particularly that which reasonably can be expected to grow, develop and thrive, is generally more desirable than to seek excuses or rationalizations for devaluing or disrespecting it. And I think definitions of personhood that preferentially exclude the weakest and most powerless humans tend to have corrosive effects on our society and civilization.

My point from the beginning is that none of this requires either some arbitrary or subjectively defined "intrinsic" value nor a theological underpinning. Not that such arguments are not possible. Or unknown to me.

You have given no reason for valuing human life, other than that you are human (and even that reason you have been unwilling to defend). That is the definition of an arbitrary belief.

I value persons because every person, no matter how stupid, or evil, or handicapped, is a self aware, autonomous being capable of experiencing and interacting with the world around it in a categorically different way than non-persons.

When you say you value humans because you are human I suspect the above is what you value about them, not the inanimate collection of human DNA.
 
Comparing personhood to ableism or racism is ignorant and insulting and confuses (perceived) differences of degree with distinctions in category.

"Person," like "human" is a category with clearly defined boundaries. Just because there are disagreements about the boundaries of "person" does not make various definitions of personhood subjective, it simply makes many of those definitions wrong. There is an objectively correct definition of person. I have stated what I think it is and why I think it is valuable.

You rely (I presume) on the scientific definition of human but offer no justification as to why humans are to be valued. Your posts have seemed to dance around an argument against objective truth while at the same time loudly professing an objective statement with absolutely no supporting argument.
 
Do you think they make sense? Can we agree they don't make sense and move on?

What is it about your humanness that is valuable that doesn't apply to your skin color or height, etc.?

I've already indicated, nothing particularly. It's merely a judgement I determine to make. Or that we agree to make.

Wanted to highlight this exchange again.

You are stating that there is nothing particularly valuable about humanness and valuing humans is simply a judgment you determine to make.

So essentially for you valuing human life is simply a matter of preference, like picking an ice cream flavor. Yeah that's definitely not arbitrary at all. Today you value fetuses but tomorrow maybe it's only white Christian men, who can say.

And if a value is correct simply because "we agree to make it" then I guess you do support abortion before viability after all since "we" decided that a woman's autonomy is more valuable than a pre-viability fetus.
 
Last edited:
I am claiming no objective truth. Valuing human life is a conditioned preference. One that makes sense to me as a human.

Btw, even a zygote can be considered "living", not an "inanimate " collection of DNA.

And bs on your righteousness indignation. Only valuing "sentient" beings (with all of your qualifications of course) is certainly a type of abelism. Notice you've used the term "capable of". And it is certainly a subjective preference to determine to value anything (objects or any of their particular characteristics).
 
Assuming a woman has a 30 day menstrual cycle. Conceives on day 15. Implantation inside the uterus in the uterine lining takes place 10 days on average. Levels of HCG start to produce on day 25 of her cycle. She is technically due on day 30 but is late. Day 33 she takes a pregnancy test and the HCG levels are detected to confirm pregnancy.

She is thrilled anc announces she's having a "baby"

or

She is unhappy and decides to abort the "fetus"


One sperm and one egg. Unique complex living and growing. A blob of nothing? My children are of that unique combination of that one sperm out of a million and one egg. Fertilized. That is it. The next fertilization isn't the same. Or the next or the next. Take that fertilized egg and detach it from the uterus and suck it out. There goes that unique individual. The miracle of life isn't personhood when the umbilical chord is cut. It is predetermined at the momement of conception.

Pretty simple.

If one of your kids stopped developing in the womb at 25 weeks but doctors told you they could deliver the "baby" and keep it alive indefinitely hooked up to machines but that there was no chance the "baby" would ever develop further would you do it?
 
Last edited:
I am claiming no objective truth. Valuing human life is a conditioned preference. One that makes sense to me as a human.

Btw, even a zygote can be considered "living", not an "inanimate " collection of DNA.

And bs on your righteousness indignation. Only valuing "sentient" beings (with all of your qualifications of course) is certainly a type of abelism. Notice you've used the term "capable of". And it is certainly a subjective preference to determine to value anything (objects or any of their particular characteristics).

So there is no objective truth?

By your definition of ableism valuing humans over non-humans is ableist as well.

Two questions I don't think I've asked, do you believe abortion should be illegal? Do you believe in God?
 
I am claiming no objective truth. Valuing human life is a conditioned preference. One that makes sense to me as a human.

Btw, even a zygote can be considered "living", not an "inanimate " collection of DNA.

And bs on your righteousness indignation. Only valuing "sentient" beings (with all of your qualifications of course) is certainly a type of abelism. Notice you've used the term "capable of". And it is certainly a subjective preference to determine to value anything (objects or any of their particular characteristics).

As to your second paragraph, is a dead human body a "human being" that is to be valued as such?
 
Yes, and my ableism is no more or less a preference than is yours. Just a somewhat more inclusive one.

Depends on what you mean by objective truth. I'm not claiming any here.

Legality? Haven't touched on that. I think conception should be actively discouraged amongst folks not desiring or willing to become parents. And that abortion should be discouraged as a means of birth control or avoidance. Or of dispensing with weaker forms of human life merely because they are (or it is) inconvenient. And I think all this can be so apart from an artificially constructed "personhood", useful as such a construct may seem.
 
As to your second paragraph, is a dead human body a "human being" that is to be valued as such?

No, a dead human is not a living human.

Oh, but you ask about value. Answer, naturally, is it depends. Are they mostly dead or all dead?
 
Last edited:
Yes, and my ableism is no more or less a preference than is yours. Just a somewhat more inclusive one.

Depends on what you mean by objective truth. I'm not claiming any here.

Legality? Haven't touched on that. I think conception should be actively discouraged amongst folks not desiring or willing to become parents. And that abortion should be discouraged as a means of birth control or avoidance. Or of dispensing with weaker forms of human life merely because they are (or it is) inconvenient. And I think all this can be so apart from an artificially constructed "personhood", useful as such a construct may seem.

So there are no such thing as values then. Everything is merely personal preference. Kant's statement that all persons deserve respect as autonomous agents is the same as a 5 year old's statement of "I like chocolate milk."

Is that what you believe? I'm genuinely asking because otherwise I'm very confused by your statements.
 
No, a dead human is not a living human.

Oh, but you ask about value. Answer, naturally, is it depends. Are they mostly dead or all dead?

Hahaha, good answer.

A dead human is still a collection of human DNA undergoing biological processes, same as a zygote. What is it that makes a human dead?
 
Legality? Haven't touched on that. I think conception should be actively discouraged amongst folks not desiring or willing to become parents. And that abortion should be discouraged as a means of birth control or avoidance. Or of dispensing with weaker forms of human life merely because they are (or it is) inconvenient. And I think all this can be so apart from an artificially constructed "personhood", useful as such a construct may seem.

I wish there was a program in place to help people (especially low-economic Americans) avoid conception, teach them about sex, parenthood and even abortion (discouragement or just options). oh wait, there was and now it is gone...
 
at around 23-25 weeks, a typical baby's lungs can handle oxygen, called the Age of Vitality, and therefore can live outside of the mother. it doesn't mean that support services and that the child will thrive.

a quick google search:
"According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive."
 
I think I understand what your trying to ask so I don't want to come off as a doctor because I'm not

At 25 weeks baby is 100% fully developed. However based on today's technology I would know during my pregnancy how the baby is developing. Surgeons are operating in utero. I don't know to what extent but there is an advantage to fix something while baby is developing. Cool


I can only say that whatever could be fixed in utero to help baby survive would be the best scenario but early sonograms and test would be way before 25 weeks.

I certainly wouldn't abort or kill the baby. I don't know why a doctor would suddenly find out at 25 weeks the baby would need machines other than it lacked oxygen and became brain dead. Then I would treat it as a brain dead patient hooked up to machine. No sign life. Autistic? I would have an autistic child. Down syndrome? I would have a child with Down syndrome.

It's tough to answer because it would be unusual at 25 weeks. Chances are greater or delivery issues and lack of oxygen to babies brain or something during delivery that may have put the baby at risk.

So you understood what I was trying to ask and chose not to answer? That was an RJ level response to a hypothetical.

Don't worry about the logistics, your child is hooked up to machines that keep its heart beating but your child does not yet have the neural structures to support consciousness and there is no hope he/she ever will. What would you do?

On a related question (and please do bring your experience as a doctor to this question) what would you do if your child was brain dead with no hope of recovery?
 
Admittedly I haven't followed every post here, but I never saw an answer for how abortion and birth control prescriptions aren't health care. What is it then?
 
Abortion has little to nothing to do with the HL decision or expansion of it. The decision, itself is dangerous to all Americans with company provided healthcare. It is much more dangerous if the Trump policy is enacted. People will get sick and die needlessly.

Why do so many people who are anti-abortion (about the only people who are truly "pro-life" are Roman Catholics and other who also oppose the death penalty) stop caring about health once a person is born?
 
It never makes sense because the people that support these weird bullshit positions,usually in the name of religion, contradict that moral high ground with some other hypocritical action two seconds later. Like hobby lobby and their investments in companies that make birth control.
 
Let me clarify. I thought I understood and I wasn't trying to be Karllllllllll. I believe at 25 weeks that wouldn't happen and I didn't want to come off snippy as in "you push the baby out or c-section it and if it's not breathing do what you can as in smack the little peanut around a few times and see if it can breath on its own. If the baby is not breathing I would assume its dead but I would have known it was dead already when it died at 25 weeks.

I'm sorry I'm serious I wasn't getting what you were driving at.

to answer your first question. No neural structures? Heart beating and artificial means to breath. I would pull the plug. I would hope I was 100 percent convinced baby was brain dead. I'm sure it would be torture. I've known parents to be in the situation but never with a newborn. Still birth, yes but not artificial means. Just teenagers.

I guess I already answered your second question. I would pull the plug.

I wasn't being sarcastic saying I'm not a doctor by the way.

I probably should have been clearer the first time that I wasn't suggesting my hypothetical was medically possible but was more interested in your (and other's) position on "brain dead" fetus's (brain isn't really "alive" until ~28 weeks at the earliest and likely not until birth).

I think your answer presents a bit of a contradiction with the concept that life starts at conception. If a brain dead human isn't worth keeping "alive" (or isn't technically alive at all) then how can you claim that a fetus without brain function is alive or has a life worth preserving.

To me the whole notion that a fetus is alive before it strains consciousness is nonsensical. That's why I think all of the rhetoric about "abortion is murder" is so offensive and counterproductive.
 
I'm all for having a reasoned discussion about the value of a human fetus, how that value changes over time, and society at large's interest in that value.

But any position that claims a newly conceived fetus is on the same moral standing as a living, breathing, cognizant person defies common sense and is rarely, if ever, internally consistent.
 
Back
Top