Abortion and Women's Rights

[Losty]

Yea that would make sense except for one thing.
Human Being- a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development(thinking), power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Notice how DNA is not included as a distinguishing factor?

What part of "within humans" didn't you understand?

What are you talking about? This is the definition of a human being.

---

Wrong. Maybe you refuse to accept scientific evidence, but it can be proven.

Dude, stop being sarcastic. OF COURSE I accept scientific evidence when there is some. But... how could fetus "pain" be measured? Is there something I don't know about this subject? Please give me a link or something.

http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/R...PR0610.pdf

[John V]

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that I addressed humans v. animals separately from DNA, and prefaced the part about DNA with "Within humans." Therefore, it's pointless for you to note that we don't need DNA to separate animals from humans. You should go back and read the whole thread.

[Losty]

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that I addressed humans v. animals separately from DNA, and prefaced the part about DNA with "Within humans." Therefore, it's pointless for you to note that we don't need DNA to separate animals from humans. You should go back and read the whole thread.

LOL do you really think I have time for that? No thanks. I had a point when I posted that comment and if you don't get it then that's your problem.

---

If it helps, I'm pretty sure I was pointing out that it makes sense to laugh at you for saying having human DNA is a good qualifier to prove you're a person, but it does not make sense to laugh when DP says having complex thoughts is a qualifier for being a person because it actually is.

[John V]

LOL do you really think I have time for that?

You've made over 1500 posts since March, so yes, I think you have time for that.

No thanks. I had a point when I posted that comment and if you don't get it then that's your problem.

It's not that I don't get it. It's wrong, because you don't understand my position, because you're too lazy to follow the thread.

If it helps, I'm pretty sure I was pointing out that it makes sense to laugh at you for saying having human DNA is a good qualifier to prove you're a person, but it does not make sense to laugh when DP says having complex thoughts is a qualifier for being a person because it actually is.

Now you're misrepresenting his position, as he did not specify complex thoughts. Just the opposite. He feels that whatever thoughts are in a 21-week-old fetus, or an animal, are sufficient.

[Mr Greene]

Except that your 'point' was just plain wrong in the first place due to the fact that that isn't the methodology by which the species is defined. Indeed according to your definition anyone with learning difficulties isn't human.

[DeistPaladin]

For this purpose, yes, he equated them: Actually, infants do "think" as do animals. The thoughts may be simple (I'm tired, I'm hungry, I'm wet, etc.) but they are "thoughts".

...which was in response to your implied question of whether or not it's OK to kill infants because they don't 'think'.

He dodges the question of whether people who eat meat are therefore accessories to murder.

I didn't dodge the question. I answered it. YOU keep dodging my follow up questions.

Eating animals is unfortunately part of the natural order and arguably required. It's a less than perfect world. I draw the line at gratuitous cruelty, such as tossing kittens over a cliff for fun. You keep dodging that question, by the way.

Is tossing kittens off a cliff for fun something that's OK to do since kittens don't have human DNA?

Let's say we encounter an unlikely planet called Pandora and find an equally unlikely alien race of giant catlike humanoids. Can we just bomb them and take their stuff because we can and they're not human?

You don't like Star Trek, how about the movie A.I.? If we create self-aware androids, can we continue to treat them as disposable property or what?

We're waiting.

We'll wait forever because you don't want to answer any of these questions because they'll expose your thinking as, at best, a sloppy post-hoc justification of your desire to deny women their rights or, at worst, a deeply amoral, arbitrary and selfish view of "rights".

By your "reasoning" on the rights of others, if you see a over-the-cliff kitten toss, meh, fuck 'em; kittens aren't human. If we encounter a peaceful alien civilization, fuck 'em; they aren't human. If we construct self-aware androids who ask for their rights to be respected, fuck 'em; they aren't human.

But it gets worse than that. There's no legitimate reason, beyond arbitrary and bare assertion, that the line needs to be drawn at human DNA. Why human DNA? What is so special about human DNA? There really can be no answer better than "because we're human and that's what we want. Fuck everything else".

OK, then why stop there? Could the line be drawn along gender lines? Only those who have y-chromosomes have rights. We're men and that's what we want, right? Or couldn't we draw them along racial lines? Or restrict that to your family? Or maybe just you?

Only people with your unique DNA signature have rights. Everyone else can be treated as you see fit. Fuck everyone else. Existence is all about you.

My approach to understanding our moral obligations, flawed as it may be with regards to our biological need to consume meat, at least speaks to the reasons we feel compassion and empathy for other beings and why we think certain actions toward other beings are right or wrong.

[John V]

...which was in response to your implied question of whether or not it's OK to kill infants because they don't 'think'.

Yes...and?

I didn't dodge the question. I answered it. YOU keep dodging my follow up questions.

No, you wrote stuff. You didn't answer it.

Eating animals is unfortunately part of the natural order and arguably required.

Arguably? You can argue anything, I suppose, but the fact is that people don't need to eat meat.

It's a less than perfect world. I draw the line at gratuitous cruelty, such as tossing kittens over a cliff for fun. You keep dodging that question, by the way.

Is tossing kittens off a cliff for fun something that's OK to do since kittens don't have human DNA?

No, I would find that to be immoral, because I think kittens are cute.

Let's say we encounter an unlikely planet called Pandora and find an equally unlikely alien race of giant catlike humanoids. Can we just bomb them and take their stuff because we can and they're not human?

Seems no worse than eating them, which you would presumably allow.

You don't like Star Trek, how about the movie A.I.? If we create self-aware androids, can we continue to treat them as disposable property or what?

Sure.

We're waiting.

We'll wait forever because you don't want to answer any of these questions because they'll expose your thinking as, at best, a sloppy post-hoc justification of your desire to deny women their rights or, at worst, a deeply amoral, arbitrary and selfish view of "rights".

I didn't answer them specifically because I acknowledged in general that my position has problems. I've never seen a position on personhood that didn't. That's why it comes down to personal opinion.

By your "reasoning" on the rights of others, if you see a over-the-cliff kitten toss, meh, fuck 'em; kittens aren't human.

And by yours, if someone finds kittens tasty, meh, fuck 'em - people need to eat.

But it gets worse than that. There's no legitimate reason, beyond arbitrary and bare assertion, that the line needs to be drawn at human DNA. Why human DNA? What is so special about human DNA? There really can be no answer better than "because we're human and that's what we want. Fuck everything else".

And there's no legitimate reason that the line needs to be drawn at brain activity (except for stuff that's tasty to humans - their brain activity doesn't count).

OK, then why stop there? Could the line be drawn along gender lines? Only those who have y-chromosomes have rights. We're men and that's what we want, right? Or couldn't we draw them along racial lines? Or restrict that to your family? Or maybe just you?

OK, why stop at any brain activity. Could the line be drawn at higher functioning? Why not allow infanticide? Why not allow, or require, execution of those below a certain IQ? Or maybe enslavement?

[DeistPaladin]

No, you wrote stuff. You didn't answer it.

Then take issue with what I wrote. Don't disingenuously claim I dodged the question.

Arguably? You can argue anything, I suppose, but the fact is that people don't need to eat meat.

Which gets into a complex issue of human dietary requirements. Is a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle really sufficient? Some biologists belief the very reason we evolved our superior brains and therefore can have this discussion at all is because we started eating fish.

No, I would find that to be immoral, because I think kittens are cute.

Non Sequitur. The reason you offer is not related to morality.

Sure. [it's OK to treat self-aware robots as disposable]

Thank you for discontinuing your waffling on this issue and revealing yourself as amoral.

And by yours, if someone finds kittens tasty, meh, fuck 'em - people need to eat.

"Gratuitous violence", remember that distinction?

Killing for food =/= killing for fun (or torture for fun)

And you dodged the question by changing the subject to what I believe.

And there's no legitimate reason that the line needs to be drawn at brain activity

Sure there is. Only self-aware beings experience pain, fear, desire respect for their rights to choice, etc. Therefore, questions of morality, which deal with how our actions might inflict pain, cause fear or curtail the freedoms of others, directly relate to whether or not a being is self-aware. I can't make it any more simple than that for you.

OK, why stop at any brain activity. Could the line be drawn at higher functioning? Why not allow infanticide? Why not allow, or require, execution of those below a certain IQ? Or maybe enslavement?

Again, you dodge the question by changing the subject. "Oh yeah, well what about your beliefs? Huh? Huh?" First, answer the questions about your beliefs then ask me about mine. Your dodge helps to underscore just how arbitrary and amoral your beliefs about morality are.

And I've already answered these questions. See above.

[DeistPaladin]

I didn't answer them specifically because I acknowledged in general that my position has problems. I've never seen a position on personhood that didn't. That's why it comes down to personal opinion.

Then shut up and let women decide for themselves when and if they wish to have an abortion.

I've repeatedly said, and you've repeatedly ignored, that the burden of proof is on you to show that you have good cause to deny women their undisputed rights to control their own bodies and make their own choices. You need to do better then, "well, you know, my personal opinion is..."

[John V]

Which gets into a complex issue of human dietary requirements. Is a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle really sufficient?

Yes, it is.

Non Sequitur. The reason you offer is not related to morality.

You made a distinction for cats and dogs earlier, yet you support killing other animals with similar brain power. What reason related to morality do you have for this distinction?

Thank you for discontinuing your waffling on this issue and revealing yourself as amoral.

You'd protect robots and kittens, but not cows, although you feel that they think like an infant does.

"Gratuitous violence", remember that distinction?

Yes, and that's why I changed the scenario to eating kittens. You would support that, as it's not gratuitous, right?

Sure there is. Only self-aware beings experience pain, fear, desire respect for their rights to choice, etc. Therefore, questions of morality, which deal with how our actions might inflict pain, cause fear or curtail the freedoms of others, directly relate to whether or not a being is self-aware. I can't make it any more simple than that for you.

Are you equating brain activity with self-awareness?

Why are you OK with curtailing the freedom of cows and chickens by killing and eating them?

Why stop at any brain activity? Could the line be drawn at higher functioning? Why not allow infanticide? Why not allow, or require, execution of those below a certain IQ? Or maybe enslavement?

---

Then shut up

Trying to curtail my freedom...nice...

and let women decide for themselves when and if they wish to have an abortion.

I've repeatedly said, and you've repeatedly ignored, that the burden of proof is on you to show that you have good cause to deny women their undisputed rights to control their own bodies and make their own choices. You need to do better then, "well, you know, my personal opinion is..."

I've repeatedly noted that I'm not doing anything to stop them, and that I only have a position, not an agenda.

It's interesting that you get so upset