Come to England

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I've had jerk chicken before. It was just sitting there on the plate making rude comments about my mother.

That joke is incredibly bad.

Yes but funny,especially when I have no bloody idea what 'jerk chicken' might be.Do you eat it or argue with it? I like smoked chicken.

[thesummerqueen]

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

[Tiberius]

Sentience is the "I" that we mean when we say "I am". It is the state of being self-aware of one's own existence. It is the ability to experience reality.

The problem with that definition is that babies aren't sentient...unless you can recall being a newborn and being self-aware. So, do you support the mother's right to choose whether her newborn baby lives or dies? What about mentally disabled people who are locked in a baby-like state? I've worked with such disabilities before; are you in favour of letting their families kill them off over their lack of self-awareness?

Additionally, if we accept determinism, self-awareness is an illusion and no more important in the grand scheme of things than anything else.

We have no moral obligations toward things that do not think, do not feel and do not have any capacity for self-awareness. You can't torture a rock. You can't murder a chair. These are things which don't feel pain, fear or any other kind of experience.

Yet unborn children (in later developments) can feel pain. Some on this forum have espoused the view that abortion should be legal up until birth; do you agree with that? I think it is simpler than this; I think that we have moral obligations towards our own species, since we are a very social species. We don't talk about "sentient rights", we talk about "human rights", and unborn children are genetically human.

A single-cell organism is a thing. It has no brain by which to experience reality or operate on any basis other than automated stimulus-response. We think nothing of taking anti-biotics and thereby cause a holocaust of microscopic beings. Nor should we.

Yet an embryo has something that other microscopic beings do not; human DNA. It will develop into a child, and ultimately an adult if it is allowed to be born. You cannot say the same about anti-biotics or any other microscopic being.

I'm speaking as one who used to be "pro-life". My argument then was "person A's right to life trumps person B's right to choice". When I studied fetal development, I realized there was no "person A" and so the entire foundation of my beliefs was gone. I've been "pro-choice" ever since.

I'm speaking as one who used to be "pro-choice". My argument now is not about "person A" but about "human A". Again, we don't have "person rights", we have "human rights". It makes no sense at all to support human rights for humans who happen to have been born, and disregard them for humans that have not yet been born.

[DeistPaladin]

Secondly, why would something create a moral obligation on us simply by being self-aware? Your premise, that it is based on empathy, falls short if one feels no empathy towards the subject. If it is shown that a murderer does not feel empathy towards the victim, then does it follow that he has no moral obligation towards him?

First, when I speak of humans as being social animals with a sense of empathy, I'm speaking broadly. The argument isn't demolished by the example of the occasional sociopath.

Second, there is the social contract to consider. I would protect others from being murdered or seek to punish murderers because I do not myself wish to be murdered.

---

The problem with that definition is that babies aren't sentient...unless you can recall being a newborn and being self-aware.

I think you're confusing memory with self-awareness. Babies certainly have all outward indications of being sentient. Lack of memory does not preclude sentience.

Additionally, if we accept determinism,

There's a big "IF". And a new can of worms I won't open right now.

Yet unborn children (in later developments) can feel pain.

Your use of the term "later developments" seems vague to me. Can you cite for me at roughly what week or trimester of development the unborn can feel pain? What research has shown this to be true?

Some on this forum have espoused the view that abortion should be legal up until birth; do you agree with that?

Under conditions where the mother's life is in serious jeopardy, yes. AFAIK, these are the laws on the books now. The ability to get an abortion legally in America today depends on the stage of the development of the fetus. You can't just walk into an abortion clinic in the 3rd trimester and say, "I've changed my mind. I want an abortion." These late term abortions are done only to save the life of the mother.

I think it is simpler than this; I think that we have moral obligations towards our own species, since we are a very social species.

I don't agree. Gratuitous cruelty to an animal is inhumane. Pulling the plug on a brain-dead coma patient is not.

Yet an embryo has something that other microscopic beings do not; human DNA.

Your point?

Skin cells in your nose contain your DNA. You're committing a minor holocaust every time you scratch your nose.

It makes no sense at all to support human rights for humans who happen to have been born, and disregard them for humans that have not yet been born.

How about the distinction that a embryo or fetus is not yet a sentient human and therefore has not yet warranted moral consideration? Seems a plainly drawn line to me.

[Tobie]

There's been an annoying amount of articles recently about people complaining about how religion is under threat. It all started because an Atheist group got some legislation passed that stopped mandatory prayers in a council in Devon. It's now gone too far, with Baroness Warsi calling atheists militant. The most ridiculous part is when she says that all totalitarian regimes are rooted in militant secularisation.

[jason56]

Don't come to England from the U.S. unless you're prepared for the fact we don't travel by umbrella.

[bozo]

Responding to the op, a welcome judgement that makes it illegal to have practising superstition, in this case praying, as an item on the agenda in town halls across the UK.
However, the determined godsquad councillors will continue the practice, albeit before the first agenda item is taken.
Well done the atheist councillor who raised the issue.....and won!

[5thHorseman]

The funniest thing is Baroness Warsi and Dr Carey whinge about atheists with regards to secularism, not realising there are a boat load of Islamic and Christian secularists amongst their own ranks. Quite possible that these secularist theists have knowledge of how to use a dictionary.

[Tiberius]

Silly 5thHorseman, Christians don't believe in dictionaries.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There's been an annoying amount of articles recently about people complaining about how religion is under threat. It all started because an Atheist group got some legislation passed that stopped mandatory prayers in a council in Devon. It's now gone too far, with Baroness Warsi calling atheists militant. The most ridiculous part is when she says that all totalitarian regimes are rooted in militant secularisation.

She actually called secularists militant, which is more idiotic when you consider that there are more 'religious' secularists than there are atheist secularists.

But citing Warsi is one area that perhaps contradicts the OP. She is the dog end of politics, but is unfortunately a voice that is supported by a decent chunk of the UK political élite and the population in general.