(July 29, 2013 at 4:07 pm)Slave Wrote: My point is I took issue with people in this thread for their opinions on abortion and argued my stance on the matter.

I didn't ask what you were doing. I asked what your point was.

You bring up species classification. In fact, you and Frodo keep harping on it as if you both think it's some kind of slam dunk. How does species classification fit into a discussion of ethics or abortion rights?

Because we are talking about humans. I care about the affairs of humans and human rights, as I consider myself a humanitarian.

We also keep 'harping on' about species classification after having been repeatedly told that an embryo (and all other development stages of human life) are not human.

---

teaearlgreyhot Wrote:The golden rule is my assumption. Assuming the golden rule, then abortion isn't murder. Many atheists here assume golden rule so I thought it would provide an interesting perspective to those of us who hold it. I don't believe in objective morality. I only hold to the golden rule because every violation of it I can imagine disgusts me.

I must know however, why do you personally object to murdering an adult human? I.e. by what criteria do you conclude that murder is wrong?

Fair enough for the first paragraph.

As for your question, I guess I would say murder is wrong if not done in self-defense and even then it should be as a last resort only. I disagree with the death penalty, as I see it is hypocritical to kill murderers for killing i.e. 'an eye for an eye' is bullshit.

---

(July 29, 2013 at 3:57 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: A zygote + is a human life
A person is a human life at a later stage of development

We don't have rights because we are human.

We have rights because we exist as people.

Personhood, not species classification, defines rights.

Is this point clear yet?

Ah, I missed this. I love it when people assert opinions as outright fact. I love it as muich as I love hearing that Jesus is God and we should worship him.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights Wrote:Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. . .

Like I said, personhood is up for debate, as this is a matter of philosophical inquiry and is not rooted in scientific fact.

Your assertion that human rights only pertain to 'people' and not humans is your assertion.

Do not espouse opinion as fact, if you have any respect for intellectual honesty in debates.

(July 29, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Slave Wrote: Because we are talking about humans. I care about the affairs of humans and human rights, as I consider myself a humanitarian.

We also keep 'harping on' about species classification after having been repeatedly told that an embryo (and all other development stages of human life) are not human.

---

teaearlgreyhot Wrote:The golden rule is my assumption. Assuming the golden rule, then abortion isn't murder. Many atheists here assume golden rule so I thought it would provide an interesting perspective to those of us who hold it. I don't believe in objective morality. I only hold to the golden rule because every violation of it I can imagine disgusts me.

I must know however, why do you personally object to murdering an adult human? I.e. by what criteria do you conclude that murder is wrong?

Fair enough for the first paragraph.

As for your question, I guess I would say murder is wrong if not done in self-defense and even then it should be as a last resort only. I disagree with the death penalty, as I see it is hypocritical to kill murderers for killing i.e. 'an eye for an eye' is bullshit.

Firstly, I think we need to clear up our terms. My understanding is that the word "kill" means to take the life of another and "murder" is specifically denotes the wrongful killing of another. "Kill" isn't necessarily an action that is right or wrong. Murder however is by definition wrong. To say "murder is wrong if.." makes as little sense as saying "wrongful killing is wrong if..." as if one could say "wrongful killing is right if..." which is a contradiction.

What's at issue here what acts of killing are specifically acts of murder (wrongful killing) and why they are murder.

Do you apply your criteria of what is murder to all living things or just humans? Am I to understand this is your thinking?

All acts of murder are ones that involve a human killing another human "not out of self defense or not as a last resort"

Killing a kitten is not an act that involves a human killing another human "not out of self defense or not as a last resort".

Therefore, killing a kitten is not murder.

teaearlgreyhot Wrote:Firstly, I think we need to clear up our terms. My understanding is that the word "kill" means to take the life of another and "murder" is specifically denotes the wrongful killing of another.

I would agree with this classification.

Quote:"Kill" isn't necessarily an action that is right or wrong.

Correct.

Quote:Murder however is by definition wrong. To say "murder is wrong if.." makes as little sense as saying "wrongful killing is wrong if..." as if one could say "wrongful killing is right if..." which is a contradiction.

I can dig it.

Quote:What's at issue here what acts of killing are specifically acts of murder (wrongful killing) and why they are murder.

Do you apply your criteria of what is murder to all living things or just humans? Am I to understand this is your thinking?

I do not conflate the murder of one human by another with a human killing an animal. Of course, there are moral considerations to be made with regards to the killing of other life forms.

Quote:All acts of murder are ones that involve a human killing another human "not out of self defense or not as a last resort"

Killing a kitten is not an act that involves a human killing another human "not out of self defense or not as a last resort".

Therefore, killing a kitten is not murder.

I agree.

(July 29, 2013 at 3:57 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: A zygote + is a human life
A person is a human life at a later stage of development

We don't have rights because we are human.

We have rights because we exist as people.

Personhood, not species classification, defines rights.

Is this point clear yet?

Your point is very clear DP. It just doesn't adress the discussion.

Keep your anti choice rhetoric for those who are anti choice.

(July 29, 2013 at 5:29 pm)Slave Wrote:

Quote:All acts of murder are ones that involve a human killing another human "not out of self defense or not as a last resort"

Killing a kitten is not an act that involves a human killing another human "not out of self defense or not as a last resort".

Therefore, killing a kitten is not murder.

I agree.

This brings up two more questions. (1) Why is the species of the two parties in an act of murder important?, and (2) What is a human?

On the second question: What is a human?

Is a "human" synonymous with "the human body"? Say a human were in a completely vegetative state and we knew for sure that (1) there is absolutely no human consciousness at all inside of it nor (2) there is absolutely no possibility that person could reawaken from the vegetative state. This "person" is completely fried and is just a drooling set of organs. Would it still be murder to kill such a person?

Or say that the consciousness of a person who once inhabited a human body were somehow stored in a computer. Would it be wrong to take an ax to that computer effectively killing the person stored inside?

[quote=

teaearlgreyhot Wrote:This brings up two more questions. (1) Why is the species of the two parties in an act of murder important?

Because if we say it is okay to kill humans, we set ourselves up for suffering, whereas the act of killing another animal poses no such threat. It comes down to human survival. Now, you can argue that humans and animals (indeed, we are part of the animal kingdom) are no different and we all deserve the same inalienable rights, such as that as the right to life. While I can see the rationale behind such an argument, this isn't my immediate concern.

To be more concerned with the matters of your own species is a justifiable and rational position to hold. Extending our conscience to all other animals is a distinctly human trait, and one we can (and arguably should) utilize for the benefit of other species, but this has no footing in a human rights issue.

Quote:On the second question: What is a human?

Is a "human" synonymous with "the human body"? Say a human were in a completely vegetative state and we knew for sure that (1) there is absolutely no human consciousness at all inside of it nor (2) there is absolutely no possibility that person could reawaken from the vegetative state. This "person" is completely fried and is just a drooling set of organs. Would it still be murder to kill such a person?

For all intents and purposes, one could consider euthanasia as a form of murder. Absolutely. What is human is an easy question to answer. A human is a member of the species homo sapiens. A 'living-dead' body such as that of a brain dead victim, is still a human, despite whatever function their brain is capable of performing.

Sentience and self-awareness are two traits of humans, most notably the latter. And as I have already pointed out, our capacity for self-awareness doesn't even kick in until the 15 month mark or so. Humans are not the only forms of life to display sentience, and so is not a distinctly human trait either. What separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom are our genetics and - more importantly - what those genes are capable of. We all know that humans posses an incredible edge with our brains. We are also highly evolved social creatures, among other things.

Quote:Or say that the consciousness of a person who once inhabited a human body were somehow stored in a computer. Would it be wrong to take an ax to that computer effectively killing the person stored inside?

This is a very interesting question and I would love to be able to answer it with any kind of authority. As the technology for transplanting a human brain into an inorganic body does not yet present itself however, this is impossible to answer at present. Just for the sake of discussion though, I would say that no, I would not classify a synthetic form complete with a human brain as human. I would not consider it murder in this context.

I want to mention consciousness. We still do not know the exact ingredients of consciousness, but I believe it to be a combination of our brains and bodies, not just limited to our brains alone. It would stand to reason that this would be the case as our bodies and brains act in a symbiotic nature to one another. Physical memory, for example, could very well (and most likely does) contribute to what we would classify as consciousness. I can't imagine any kind of physical memory could be transferred to a synthetic form. And so, perhaps consciousness is limited to us in our human bodies. Just a thought.

(July 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 29, 2013 at 2:44 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: What sources? What science? I still haven't seen any, and you've failed to address the many people who have asked you, so here I am again: What sources? What science?

You needs to read the thread Rex

(I'm on my mobile so forgive me for not wiping your bum for you)

I've read this thread from front to back TWICE now, Frodo, you haven't provided a single fucking source!

Ok so Frodo is just sidestepping my questions. I take that to meaning he's an intellectual coward who is refusing to let his points actually be challenged. I've asked him to clarify his stance, requested these so-called "scientific sources" THREE TIMES without any kind of answer whatsoever. NOTHING.

This thread is a fuckfest. People keep saying they want only facts and not personal conjecture, forgetting very clearly that there is a philosophical element to the entire discussion which is that of personhood.

I'm going to lay this out as clearly and simply as I possibly can. I'm at my wit's end trying to get any kind of point across to people who keep clamping their hands over their ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, BABY MURDERER, LALALA!" I am NOT a person given to stubbornly clinging to my points if I am shown to be in error. I've shown that on this forum four separate times, and I do so because I DO follow the evidence.

Thus, we have the claim being parroted by a select few: "Human life begins at conception, and personhood is not a part of this discussion, and I am not interested in personal conjecture, only facts, therefore I am siding with science which states that human life starts at conception!"

Fuck EVERYONE claiming this shit. According to WHOM is this a solid, indisputable fact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_personhood

Quote:The beginning of human personhood is the period in an individual's life when he or she is recognized, or begins to be recognized, as a person. The precise timing and nature of this occurrence is not universally agreed upon, and has been a subject of discussion and debate in science, religion and philosophy. The question of when and how personhood begins is often the nexus of controversy on issues such as abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights.

This article on wikipedia goes into GREAT detail describing the many viewpoints that conflict in regards to this. Personhood is NOT something so casually discarded except by those with a mind too narrow to look ahead and see the actual complexity of the argument. There are clearly quite a few in this thread who do understand it, and then there's a few who are sticking their heads up their own asses and calling their way the "scientifically-sound" way.

Get your heads out of your butt-puckers. Science does not agree with you any more than it agrees with itself on the matter. It's not so simply black-and-white as you make it out to be and every time I read a post by someone claiming exactly that I want to slap them with the business end of a salmon.

Until certain individuals educate themselves on this point (the linked article is a GREAT starting point) and realize just how far the argument actually reaches there's no point debating anything with them. I am saying this as a general catch-all because there's no one person in particular displaying cognitive dissonance in this thread; if you think you might be applicable to what I am saying, then you probably are and you should get your learn on.

I'm not continuing any further discussions with people who insist on being stubborn jackholes who want to define the argument in the narrowest context possible until they get over themselves. If it doesn't happen, then don't expect to see me in this thread anymore. I'm not arguing with people who draw on absolutes for the basis of their arguments on something that is by its complexity INCAPABLE of being defined by absolutes.

---

(July 29, 2013 at 7:09 pm)Slave Wrote: For all intents and purposes, one could consider euthanasia as a form of murder. Absolutely. What is human is an easy question to answer. A human is a member of the species homo sapiens. A 'living-dead' body such as that of a brain dead victim, is still a human, despite whatever function their brain is capable of performing.

You mean for your own intents and purposes. Because for OTHER intents and purposes, one could consider it as a form of just letting something that is going to die without outside assistance finally be given peace. Seriously, why do you think they have all those machines hooked up to those who are brain-dead? Because those machines are the only things keeping those organs functioning. Narrow-minded claims. "It's still a human" ignores the moral, ethical, and philosophical concerns as well as the scientific point that a human being without a brain will not last on its own. A human being is more than just the parts that make it up, we are not just bags of flesh; we are beings capable of independent thought and action and self-sustenance, and if you remove that key element, you are no longer fully human.

(July 29, 2013 at 9:38 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Until certain individuals educate themselves on this point (the linked article is a GREAT starting point) and realize just how far the argument actually reaches there's no point debating anything with them.

I gave up hours ago Creed. It's ok. Come have a beer with me.