Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 19, 2022, 4:43 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Abortion dialogue I've been having...
RE: Abortion dialogue I've been having...
(June 21, 2010 at 4:49 pm)Meatball Wrote: Brain activity means sapience? You think a fetus is sapient as soon as it's first brain cell starts firing?

It deserves respect? What does that entail other than a right to a birth? Is it a person?

In your opinion, should a 'post-sapience abortions' be illegal? What should the punishment be?

No, no, no you misunderstand, the baby doesn't gain sapience when it's brains starts, when it's brain starts which is what make us what we are sapient beings, he should be respected as a child of a sapient being, and the potential he has since as a baby they already show little personality.

It received enough to be a human being, although not sapient he can already feel like a sentient being and a nervous system(all that make us sapient), it deserves our respect, and a rights like everyother sapient being, and yes it is a person, a small person that's defenceless.

On 3 conditions it's illegal:
-fetus has disease.
-mother is in danger.
-Mother doesn't know about the baby(however this far along the pregnancy it would be a little dumb to not know), but gives a week of thought so she can think trough, even if the baby passes the nervous system start test.
The punishment should be a medium sized fine like 500 or 1000 euros.

Sae those opinions border on immorality and nihilism,
"because someone else does it, it should not be immoral" NO
"Killing is not immoral" you are advocating to freedom to oppress others like religion
"Human life as no value" this is a old west treated people "shame all those precious cattle dies because that worthless cowboy was ambushed by 50 guys"

Things have natural value to humans, some of them deny it, and those persons are usually horrible, china's right to censor, corporative abuse of workers "after all we're the government your right is to work for us so we can enjoy our good lifes"

The moment you call killing not immoral you're opening the pandora box without any hope, where oppression and free executions for everyone are morally justified, "kill someone" EXECUTION "steal from someone" EXECUTION "touch a woman breasts" EXECUTION "wear socks of the wrong colour" EXECUTION

You're advocating a oppressive and moraless world, you're defending the worst parts in religion.

There are 3 moral laws that everyone should respect and if they disrespect it they should be stripped of freedom and rights, by disrespecting their duties to the world:
-Duty of Equality-The first is you should treat every sapient as equals.
-Duty of Behaviour-You shall be good person(the normal moral laws no killing, not hurting people)
-Duty of Survival-This is a duty to ignore the other 2 duties, if you're life is on danger you should try the best to survive, and if you have to kill or hurt someone in self-defence, do it, but do not exaggerate, if you want to sacrifice yourself for another that's your point, if you died because you didn't fought you're a loss to the world.

As society gives you rights Sae it also gives it duties, if you can follow your duties you should not have andy rights at all.
Reply
RE: Abortion dialogue I've been having...
Syna Wrote:Because I got so mad and wrote up an enormous post detailing why Sae was wrong and got side tracked into defining the value of ALL currently thinking beings with respect to time, potential and resources, I cannot post it here without safely feeling it could get the appropriate trial by fire it deserves.

So instead, I challenge Sae and anyone else to chomp this thread: http://atheistforums.org/thread-3948-pos...l#pid75777

*chomps* ^_^

I initially thought you were proposing that it was a catch all equation, but i know better now ^_^

However, in terms of comprehensiveness... I think that it is worth noting all of the nuances Smile Evidently, Ashendant is challenging my notions... I suppose I'd better respond to him/her wherever he/she started to disagree with me Tiny Tiger
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
RE: Abortion dialogue I've been having...
Oh, what do you know? ^_^ I responded to that first one when he copied and pasted it over in Synackaon's interesting thread ^_^ Or at least... I think i did... > _ >

(June 22, 2010 at 11:11 am)Ashendant Wrote:
(June 21, 2010 at 4:49 pm)Meatball Wrote: Brain activity means sapience? You think a fetus is sapient as soon as it's first brain cell starts firing?

It deserves respect? What does that entail other than a right to a birth? Is it a person?

In your opinion, should a 'post-sapience abortions' be illegal? What should the punishment be?

No, no, no you misunderstand, the baby doesn't gain sapience when it's brains starts, when it's brain starts which is what make us what we are sapient beings, he should be respected as a child of a sapient being, and the potential he has since as a baby they already show little personality.

Why does sapience matter so much to you?

Quote:It received enough to be a human being, although not sapient he can already feel like a sentient being and a nervous system(all that make us sapient), it deserves our respect, and a rights like everyother sapient being, and yes it is a person, a small person that's defenceless.

How does it deserve our respect? I can see me (in some cases) respecting the mother and/or father for choosing the burden of propagating our species... and I give it respect in accordance to the fact that another person or persons value it enough to keep it alive. But the baby itself deserving of respect (appearently in a sense beyond 'oh, you exist... I'm not violent, so I'll try to avoid hurting you')? I see nothing to respect (beyond recognition) in and of the baby itself. v_v

Quote:On 3 conditions it's illegal:
-fetus has disease.
-mother is in danger.
-Mother doesn't know about the baby(however this far along the pregnancy it would be a little dumb to not know), but gives a week of thought so she can think trough, even if the baby passes the nervous system start test.
The punishment should be a medium sized fine like 500 or 1000 euros.

Why should it be illegal save on these conditions... and further: why should there be any monetary punishment at all? Abortions are not so simple for many people... and I think the psychological torment that the potential mother faces in deciding what to do about the thing growing inside of her is more than enough discipline.

Quote:Sae those opinions border on immorality and nihilism,
"because someone else does it, it should not be immoral" NO
"Killing is not immoral" you are advocating to freedom to oppress others like religion
"Human life as no value" this is a old west treated people "shame all those precious cattle dies because that worthless cowboy was ambushed by 50 guys"

Border on such things? I consider myself quite moral... and if you'll note my 'handle', I am a nihilistic existentialistic determinist.

Clearly, if they do it, and they do not consider what they do immoral: said thing is to them: not immoral. It is simply egotistical to suggest that only my morals (or the morals of my society) are what is 'truly moral'. YES. It is rather the NTS in what renditions of said argument I've seen.

I am not intentionally advocating anything... I am forming a counter argument to what I see as a senseless connection. There might be consequences for acting... and their might not be... but acting is a freedom that is difficult to take away. Further, I am of the belief that many 'crimes' are performed either out of desperation, or out of impulse... murder not excluded. More effective than prison (in such cases), then, would be surveillance and conditioning people to control their impulses or what have you. What is so immoral about killing, if you would please?

I do not recall suggesting that anything has no value. In fact, my position is rather that value is decided by the individual, and that human life has no inherent value that is to be recognizable from other life v_v The "old west" did not exist, it is a bunch of romanticism. However, I would indeed consider it a shame to waste resources, esp. if one person's weakness was a primary factor in the resources being wasted.

Quote:Things have natural value to humans, some of them deny it, and those persons are usually horrible, china's right to censor, corporative abuse of workers "after all we're the government your right is to work for us so we can enjoy our good lifes"

Nothing has "natural value"... things only have any sort of 'essence' at all as a result of you attempting to identify patterns in what exists and is perceived by you. I deny it, and I think I'm rather grand Tiny Tiger The Chinese have as much a "right to censor" as america, and isn't likely to bite either of them in the ass while their large populations remain largely behind censorship of such things as images and words. And the government has whatever rights it wants to have over its populace... but it's populace might strike back (usually feebly) if it is cruel enough.

A very simple way of looking at it is like this: "The only rules are what a man can do... and what he can't" - Captain Jack Sparrow. That does not, however, mean one should be oblivious to what their actions might do.

Quote:The moment you call killing not immoral you're opening the pandora box without any hope, where oppression and free executions for everyone are morally justified, "kill someone" EXECUTION "steal from someone" EXECUTION "touch a woman breasts" EXECUTION "wear socks of the wrong colour" EXECUTION

Killing is clearly not immoral... and I don't see what Pandora's Box has to do with anything, especially when you say "without hope", which according to the legend came into existence alongside the evils and chaos of the box... and was the weakest and feeblest of all that came from the box.

Oppression and executions (free?????) are evidently morally justifiable, as many a country that has claimed to be moral has done both. If you kill someone, it is indeed true that you will likely be slain yourself, especially if you happen to live in a nation that grants a death penalty for murder (which seems a bit silly once you think about how each executor would need to be murdered by another one and on and on and on).

Indeed... stealing from someone in some of the elder cultures to this day means losing a hand... which can easily indirectly kill you (or directly, from loss of blood). Touching a woman's breasts in several countries (when she is not married or the like) is tantamount to encroaching on her honor (and the honor of her husband). What is the common result? You guessed it: execution. Wearing socks of the wrong color might have been an offense in Soviet Russia... and as with some other similarities (ie: showing too much ankle as a woman in the middle east), would likely lead to death.

How interesting... all of the things you just noted already lead to death... in moral societies no less. This is rather fascinating... I do wonder what conclusions we might draw from that? ^_^

Quote:You're advocating a oppressive and moraless world, you're defending the worst parts in religion.

Actually, I believe the worst part of religion is the brainwashing factor. I am hardly advocating an oppressive world... indeed what I suggested just a little bit ago borderlined on anarchy. As for moralless... do you really think that would be such a bad thing? Look at all the "horrible" things done by moral people for moral reasons... and it becomes clear that morals are simply opinions on philosophical matters Smile

Quote:There are 3 moral laws that everyone should respect and if they disrespect it they should be stripped of freedom and rights, by disrespecting their duties to the world:
-Duty of Equality-The first is you should treat every sapient as equals.
-Duty of Behaviour-You shall be good person(the normal moral laws no killing, not hurting people)
-Duty of Survival-This is a duty to ignore the other 2 duties, if you're life is on danger you should try the best to survive, and if you have to kill or hurt someone in self-defence, do it, but do not exaggerate, if you want to sacrifice yourself for another that's your point, if you died because you didn't fought you're a loss to the world.

I don't agree. Equality is not only impossible, but the idea is disgusting in my viewpoint. 'Behavioral laws' is a cute way to say 'oppression'. Survival is overrated... If death would do more for my cause(s): death embrace me.

Quote:As society gives you rights Sae it also gives it duties, if you can follow your duties you should not have andy rights at all.

How interesting... as I was aware, society is currently what is keeping me back from beginning "hormone therapy" right now, today. It might even have something to do with morals. v_v

Were you aware that laws are not made to allow freedoms... but to restrict them? I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I am, however, stating that society gives no rights... society can only take them away, or stop taking away some rights.

Duties are a separate matter. Doing more for your society is a thing that can garner you respect... not rights.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
RE: Abortion dialogue I've been having...
Oh I get i!, Ashendant's morals are The One True Morality!

Ashendant Wrote:There are 3 moral laws that everyone should respect and if they disrespect it they should be stripped of freedom and rights...
  • You shall be good person(the normal moral laws no killing, not hurting people)
Is this some kind of joke? Recursive, circular morality?

Take that weak-sauce objective morality crap out of here.
- Meatball
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Catholic nuns are having abortions themselves Fake Messiah 8 784 February 22, 2019 at 3:02 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  Abortion denied in Brazil of a fetus without a brain Eilonnwy 21 6480 June 20, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Last Post: Samson



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)