03-18-2024, 05:42 PM
This post was last modified 03-18-2024, 05:46 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: grammar
Noice!
Rather than invoke homicide, (a legal designation) I prefer simply to remain in the pre-judgment end of the discussion.
Such matters as choosing to say we can "designate" personhood, rather than "acknowledge" it. Or how we deign to call it "murder," but we don't prosecute doctors. If it is a person how does the state recognize the pregnant person, as two people? There's a lot of litigious tomfoolery in many discussions that simply can't be reconciled with the tools the "law" provides. It becomes a talking game. We excel at that.
I'm not presumptuous enough to speak of it in terms of moral judgement, especially when morality can be so "cultural" as to escape my ability to understand it.
I confess, I do value tradition and tend to find guidance within it... within reason. But tradition never dealt with the abortion issue as we must. Those were more the 'Because I said so" kind of times. I find no guidance there.
If I understand you correctly, it's a matter viability. I must point out that those things change with technology. Will it be up to those in the technologic realm to determine when it is and isn't viable? Will we make a law that's vague enough to allow such changes in the world to be included? If so, can such an insubstantial judgment be the basis for a law? Presuming the hyperbolic notion of someday technology making it possible for an entire pregnancy to develop in vitro, should a 'right' be declared that this is how all abortion must end lest we kill a person? It's tangled.
In short, I resist that "survivability' should be a measure of personhood. It seems that the definition personhood should subjected to another person's condition. It feels like the ultimate vulnerability. Which of course doesn't matter if you're not the personhood in question. But many of us were.
This is no challenge to your post. I'm just spit-balling notions, here... please don't take any of my objections as personal or judgmental.... it's been one of those days.
Rather than invoke homicide, (a legal designation) I prefer simply to remain in the pre-judgment end of the discussion.
Such matters as choosing to say we can "designate" personhood, rather than "acknowledge" it. Or how we deign to call it "murder," but we don't prosecute doctors. If it is a person how does the state recognize the pregnant person, as two people? There's a lot of litigious tomfoolery in many discussions that simply can't be reconciled with the tools the "law" provides. It becomes a talking game. We excel at that.
I'm not presumptuous enough to speak of it in terms of moral judgement, especially when morality can be so "cultural" as to escape my ability to understand it.
I confess, I do value tradition and tend to find guidance within it... within reason. But tradition never dealt with the abortion issue as we must. Those were more the 'Because I said so" kind of times. I find no guidance there.
If I understand you correctly, it's a matter viability. I must point out that those things change with technology. Will it be up to those in the technologic realm to determine when it is and isn't viable? Will we make a law that's vague enough to allow such changes in the world to be included? If so, can such an insubstantial judgment be the basis for a law? Presuming the hyperbolic notion of someday technology making it possible for an entire pregnancy to develop in vitro, should a 'right' be declared that this is how all abortion must end lest we kill a person? It's tangled.
In short, I resist that "survivability' should be a measure of personhood. It seems that the definition personhood should subjected to another person's condition. It feels like the ultimate vulnerability. Which of course doesn't matter if you're not the personhood in question. But many of us were.
This is no challenge to your post. I'm just spit-balling notions, here... please don't take any of my objections as personal or judgmental.... it's been one of those days.
