The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[bshoc]

The point is which would I be more right to shoot, in which case the answer (especially if we follow your idea of ignoring scientific classifications) is neither, or both equally as much. I would choose to shoot the child, but I know I'd do that because I believe my species is more special than others, I've made a distinction. The only problem is, when we take to thinking as you do, while there's this artificial distinction that scientists have made up, essentially thousands of years ago humans and monkeys shared the same ancestor and therefore we've merely placed a fairly arbitrary limit on what deserves the rights of a human.

Would you rather know that you aborted a human child or a chimp?

Would you rather shoot dead a human or a chimp?

Those two questions make that whole line of though irrelevant, you can make the distinction between human and chimp, however the DNA of a fetus or the same fetus at 90 years old both look the same and human under a microscope. You see I'm not categorising anything, the opposite if anything.



If bringing chimps into the argument is the last ounce of ammo you guys have, I may as well start the victory celebrations.

 

[HotShot]

Sex is not something you should be punished for.

But thats not reality? You can say that for everything - drugs, beers, smacking an idiot, stabbing someone?

Everything has risks and consequences - just a fact of life. And you have to determine and be prepared on how big these consequences can affect you.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Would you rather know that you aborted a human child or a chimp?

Would you rather shoot dead a human or a chimp?

Those two questions make that whole line of though irrelevant, you can make the distinction between human and chimp, however the DNA of a fetus or the same fetus at 90 years old both look the same and human under a microscope. You see I'm not categorising anything, the opposite if anything.

You have to logically explain why that distinction is greater than that between a developing fetus and a fully grown human. You can't just take it as a self-evident fact because on the whole most people will agree with you.

If bringing chimps into the argument is the last ounce of ammo you guys have, I may as well start the victory celebrations.

Not at all, I still claim there's greater good done by allowing abortions to be performed, i.e. as a whole our society is happier. This line of argumentation is merely to point out to you the problem with saying there's no difference between a fetus and a fully grown human.

 

[bshoc]

You have to logically explain why that distinction is greater than that between a developing fetus and a fully grown human. You can't just take it as a self-evident fact because on the whole most people will agree with you.

I already have, I'm not going to elaborate on something as stupid as to why the life of a rat is less relevant than the life of a human, from the human perspective. For all purposes most people should be capable of that on their own.

Not at all, I still claim there's greater good done by allowing abortions to be performed, i.e. as a whole our society is happier. This line of argumentation is merely to point out to you the problem with saying there's no difference between a fetus and a fully grown human.

Then you're wrong, death is the greatest unhappiness of all. There is no way right to life should be dependant upon "experience." There is also no such thing as social utility.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I already have, I'm not going to elaborate on something as stupid as to why the life of a rat is less relevant than the life of a human, from the human perspective. For all purposes most people should be capable of that on their own.

You said the law says so, we pointed out the law also says a fetus is not a human life. You then proceeded to say 'which would you kill?' which doesn't even begin to satisfy the question.

Then you're wrong, death is the greatest unhappiness of all.

Not when you were never conscious enough to know of life. But you must understand, painlessness is not the reason to kill a fetus, it's merely that there's less of a reason not to kill it.

There is also no such thing as social utility.

Sorry I think you might have misconstrued my 'as a whole our society is happier' thing. Essentially I'm merely saying that if everyone in society was asked "How happy would you be under choice A? (keeping abortion the same)" we'd end up with a result whereby by far (due to stronger preferences on the side of choice A) people are happier with keeping abortion as it is and thus we should leave it.

The only issue with it imo should be disagreement over what makes people happy.

 

[KFunk]

Why do I have to waste time adressing moronic crap like this?

If you were given a gun and forced to choose between shooting a chimp or shooting a human child, which would you shoot?

I already have, I'm not going to elaborate on something as stupid as to why the life of a rat is less relevant than the life of a human, from the human perspective. For all purposes most people should be capable of that on their own.

Would you rather know that you aborted a human child or a chimp?

Would you rather shoot dead a human or a chimp?

Those two questions make that whole line of though irrelevant, you can make the distinction between human and chimp, however the DNA of a fetus or the same fetus at 90 years old both look the same and human under a microscope. You see I'm not categorising anything, the opposite if anything.

Let me provide you with an argument which is analogous to the third quotation. If you had taken part in a debate over black rights in US in the 17th century you could feasibly have presented the following 'rhetorical question' argument:

Would you rather know that you aborted a white child or a black child?

Would you rather shoot dead a white child or a black child?

The prejudices of the time may well have caused many in the audience to agree with your assertion that it would be absurd to value the life of a black child over that of a white one. However, over time we have been able to eradicate some of this unfounded bigotry from our belief systems, with the result being that in the 21st century most of the people in the room would consider you to be morally bankrupt. To quote NTB, what existed in the past was an "artificial distinction" between the worth of whites and the worth of blacks.

In the 21st we are still not free of such beliefs, we still face racism and of course homophobia. However, more insidious than these is speciesism. The notion that humans are vastly superior and of greater worth than other animal species is one which is deeply entrenched in our thinking. This kind of attitude is perpetuated by such things as religious dogma and the way in which we are taught to relate to animals. From a young age we are generally shown that animals are 'of use' to us - they serve us as pets, 'work horses', entertainment, food and so on. The indoctrination goes on and speciest attitudes prevail.

I hope that through the american slave analogy you can reach some understanding as to why I do not think you should shrug off the human-animal comparison as some mere absurdity. I think it is an important issue to address because I believe that it has the potential to shed a lot of light on the nature of human worth.

 

[*Minka*]

Here is a theroretical question that I think makes a point. And it is purely hypothetical, so spare me the 'oh you could do both' ramblings.

You are in a room that catches on fire. In the room are three two year old babies and about 20 fertilized embryos waiting to be implanted. You only have time to run and save either the embryos or the kids and get out of the room.

Which do you save?

The kids, who are actually living, human beings, or the clumps of cells?

 

[bshoc]

Here is a theroretical question that I think makes a point. And it is purely hypothetical, so spare me the 'oh you could do both' ramblings.

You are in a room that catches on fire. In the room are three two year old babies and about 20 fertilized embryos waiting to be implanted. You only have time to run and save either the embryos or the kids and get out of the room.

Which do you save?

The kids, who are actually living, human beings, or the clumps of cells?

Those 20 fertilized embryos shouldn't be outside a mothers body in the first place, both the embryos and babies are clumps of cells, and both are living human beings. In any case the abortion debate would be far less heated if abortion was limited to 7 days from conception (ie. embryos) ..

 

[bshoc]

Let me provide you with an argument which is analogous to the third quotation. If you had taken part in a debate over black rights in US in the 17th century you could feasibly have presented the following 'rhetorical question' argument:

Would you rather know that you aborted a white child or a black child?

Would you rather shoot dead a white child or a black child?

The prejudices of the time may well have caused many in the audience to agree with your assertion that it would be absurd to value the life of a black child over that of a white one. However, over time we have been able to eradicate some of this unfounded bigotry from our belief systems, with the result being that in the 21st century most of the people in the room would consider you to be morally bankrupt. To quote NTB, what existed in the past was an "artificial distinction" between the worth of whites and the worth of blacks.

In the 21st we are still not free of such beliefs, we still face racism and of course homophobia.

Like it or not both homophobia and racism do on occasion serve legitimate purpose, they are a natural component of national unity and moral compass no matter how horrid you may consider them to be, without distinction society would crumble. That and racism and homophobia are just meaningless catchphrases used by leftists against their opponents everytime awful things like gay marriage are rejected by the mainstream populace.

In any case this has nothing to do with the debate.

However, more insidious than these is speciesism. The notion that humans are vastly superior and of greater worth than other animal species is one which is deeply entrenched in our thinking. This kind of attitude is perpetuated by such things as religious dogma and the way in which we are taught to relate to animals. From a young age we are generally shown that animals are 'of use' to us - they serve us as pets, 'work horses', entertainment, food and so on. The indoctrination goes on and speciest attitudes prevail.

No, we are superior because of our ability to reason, create society and scientific knowledge which allows us untold superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom.

I hope that through the american slave analogy you can reach some understanding as to why I do not think you should shrug off the human-animal comparison as some mere absurdity. I think it is an important issue to address because I believe that it has the potential to shed a lot of light on the nature of human worth.

No, no it doesen't, whilst it may be an interesting line of thought to pursue in a philosophy class, its not applicable to any sort of reasonable or realistic debate on the topic.

 

[KFunk]

Like it or not both homophobia and racism do on occasion serve legitimate purpose, they are a natural component of national unity and moral compass no matter how horrid you may consider them to be, without distinction society would crumble. That and racism and homophobia are just meaningless catchphrases used by leftists against their opponents everytime awful things like gay marriage are rejected by the mainstream populace.

Here we will have to agree to disagree because I do not believe that homophobia and racism serve legitimate purposes. There is no good reason why we can't seek unity on the basis of our being human rather than through race and sexuality. Even if you see bigotry as a tool which stabilises society (I would be suprised if that is the case) this does not make it 'right' or justified. Racism and homophobia are forms of descrimination based on the arbitrary factors of race and sexuality. What line of reasoning allows you to support doctrines which deny equal consideration to people because they have dark skin or prefer relationships with the same sex ("no matter how horrid you may consider them to be")?

No, we are superior because of our ability to reason, create society and scientific knowledge which allows us untold superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom.

Yes, humans are more intelligent and have a superior capacity for scientific reasoning. But dolphins are better at swimming, phytoplankton support the global ecosystem (whereas we destroy it), and cheetahs are far more fleet of foot than we are. Yes, we have the ability to subordinate the animal kingdom to our will via means of technology, but why should this then translate into our having a right to do so? If you admit such arguments then you reach conclusions like "powerful humans should be allowed to kill weaker ones, because they are able to". The point I wish to make is that intelligence is an arbitrary criteria we use to judge superiority because it suits us, by placing us at the top. It's like when colonial powers compared themselves to less developed nations and declared themselves superior on technological grounds without bringing in comparisons of things like culture and social justice. Why not declare dolphins superior for their speed underwater, or bats for their hearing, or eagles for their sight? Sure, these animals lack our intellect, but why should that then deny them all moral worth??

No, no it doesen't, whilst it may be an interesting line of thought to pursue in a philosophy class, its not applicable to any sort of reasonable or realistic debate on the topic.

Then why are there a lot of reasonable people in the world who agree with me? Those in favour of animal liberation are not all irrational. Respect for non-human species only remains a 'matter for the philosophy class' because greater society is generally left unaware as to how we cause animals to suffer and unaware of the way they have been indoctrinated with speciest views. That thousands of animals suffer intense pain daily for our benefit is no mere fantasy, left to be hypothesised by armchair philosophers, it is a cold hard truth which we shy away from because it's easier to live in a shroud of ignorance.

 

[*Minka*]

Those 20 fertilized embryos shouldn't be outside a mothers body in the first place, both the embryos and babies are clumps of cells, and both are living human beings. In any case the abortion debate would be far less heated if abortion was limited to 7 days from conception (ie. embryos) ..

It is called IVF and secondly, the point is that the babies are living human beings while the fertilized embryos are not. They are yet to reach the point of viability and are not yet human heings.

Secondly, 7 days after conception is not even enough time for a woman to miss her period and know that she is pregnant, so there is no way that would ever happen.

You didn't answer my question. Could it be because I have made a valid point?

 

[*Minka*]

Like it or not both homophobia and racism do on occasion serve legitimate purpose, they are a natural component of national unity and moral compass no matter how horrid you may consider them to be, without distinction society would crumble. That and racism and homophobia are just meaningless catchphrases used by leftists against their opponents everytime awful things like gay marriage are rejected by the mainstream populace.

You really are fucking stupoid you know that? To even suggest that Racism can serve a legitimate purpose and that racism should be the basis of national unity. Three of my brothers are DEAD because of Racism. They were killed in a war fueled by racist nationalism, I saw one of them die with my own fucking eyes as a small child. Don't you even DARE try and tell me that racism is a meaningless word because it cost me my brothers and my uncle you asswipe. As for having a purpose? You make me fucking sick.

Go to hell.

 

[bshoc]

It is called IVF and secondly, the point is that the babies are living human beings while the fertilized embryos are not. They are yet to reach the point of viability and are not yet human heings.

Secondly, 7 days after conception is not even enough time for a woman to miss her period and know that she is pregnant, so there is no way that would ever happen.

You didn't answer my question. Could it be because I have made a valid point?

You really are fucking stupoid you know that? To even suggest that Racism can serve a legitimate purpose and that racism should be the basis of national unity. Three of my brothers are DEAD because of Racism. They were killed in a war fueled by racist nationalism, I saw one of them die with my own fucking eyes as a small child. Don't you even DARE try and tell me that racism is a meaningless word because it cost me my brothers and my uncle you asswipe. As for having a purpose? You make me fucking sick.

Go to hell.

Let me get this straight, first you endorse abortion, disrespecting life, as a simple birth control method and how great it is, then you bitch on about how bad disrespect of life is from your experiences as a child. If you have no problem about arbtrary slaughter of people based on stage of devolpment, you have no right to bitch about arbitrary slaugher based on race either. You either find inherit value in human life or you dont, anything else, like your preaching, is hypocrisy. "This body is mine so I'm going to kill you because I dont want/like you," "This land is mine so I'm going to kill you because I don't want/like you," its the same logic in different context.

And I'll again repeat my point, race (and its natural derivative racism) are the natural basis for a peaceful nation, people define themselves not only on what they are but also on what they are not. Aside from the civil war you're talking about, race has forged a pretty peaceful society for Croats, Serbs etc. They are now mostly safe within their own borders because they are of one race in each. Its left wing idiots like Tito and the Socialists/Communist who tried to force integration/multiculturalism (failed concepts) onto clearly defined nations, and fostered and bred hatred and loathing by forcing a bunch of different peoples who didn't like each other to live together. Same thing happned in the USSR among other places and will happen (eventually) anywhere else where there are too many people of different nationalities being forced to co-exist in one territory, history isn't short on examples.

 

[*Minka*]

Let me get this straight, first you endorse abortion, disrespecting life, as a simple birth control method and how great it is, then you bitch on about how bad disrespect of life is from your experiences as a child. If you have no problem about arbtrary slaughter of people based on stage of devolpment, you have no right to bitch about arbitrary slaugher based on race either. You either find inherit value in human life or you dont, anything else, like your preaching, is hypocrisy. "This body is mine so I'm going to kill you because I dont want/like you," "This land is mine so I'm going to kill you because I don't want/like you," its the same logic in different context.

And I'll again repeat my point, race (and its natural derivative racism) are the natural basis for a peaceful nation, people define themselves not only on what they are but also on what they are not. Aside from the civil war you're talking about, race has forged a pretty peaceful society for Croats, Serbs etc. They are now mostly safe within their own borders because they are of one race in each. Its left wing idiots like Tito and the Socialists/Communist who tried to force integration/multiculturalism (failed concepts) onto clearly defined nations, and fostered and bred hatred and loathing by forcing a bunch of different peoples who didn't like each other to live together. Same thing happned in the USSR among other places and will happen (eventually) anywhere else where there are too many people of different nationalities being forced to co-exist in one territory, history isn't short on examples.

It is no hypocrisy in my opinion - racism and war kills people. People who are viable, alive and living while abortion merely removes a bunch of cells which is only potential life from the uterus. To me, a five week old fetus does not warrent the same protection levels as a viable, living human. I don't believe it is a slaughter of a person as it is not a human being until the point of viability, and lets face it, most abortions occur well before this point unless it is an abortion of health reasons or the fetus is very disabled. It IS the woman's body and as such, she has the right to do whatever she chooses with her pregnancy.

And you still didn't answer my question!

Don;t tell me, you'd take the babies over a pile of frozen embryos. Guess that a bunch of fertalized eggs are not humans after all.

 

[ElGronko]

Bshoc, please respond to Kfunk's post, specifically this part:

Yes, humans are more intelligent and have a superior capacity for scientific reasoning. But dolphins are better at swimming, phytoplankton support the global ecosystem (whereas we destroy it), and cheetahs are far more fleet of foot than we are. Yes, we have the ability to subordinate the animal kingdom to our will via means of technology, but why should this then translate into our having a right to do so? If you admit such arguments then you reach conclusions like "powerful humans should be allowed to kill weaker ones, because they are able to". The point I wish to make is that intelligence is an arbitrary criteria we use to judge superiority because it suits us, by placing us at the top. It's like when colonial powers compared themselves to less developed nations and declared themselves superior on technological grounds without bringing in comparisons of things like culture and social justice. Why not declare dolphins superior for their speed underwater, or bats for their hearing, or eagles for their sight? Sure, these animals lack our intellect, but why should that then deny them all moral worth??

The notion of life is when one is not dead (duhh). When that life is taken away we have been killed.

What is the difference in taking away that essence of life from a human, than from an animal?

it is exactly the same thing. The existence of a life is terminated. Why does one warrant a greater value of worth to be placed on it?

Before you answer that please respond thoroughly to Kfunks points.

 

[*Minka*]

Don't confuse race with religion, mang.

Actually, it had nothing to do with Religion dick.

And discrimination is discrimination - regardless of the basis.

 

[HotShot]

Actually, it had nothing to do with Religion dick.

And discrimination is discrimination - regardless of the basis.

Spot on.

But discrimination must exist - just depends on how we treat it.

Anyway,

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Don't confuse race with religion, mang.

Yeah, you are far more likely to know why her brothers were killed than she is.

 

[veridis]

race attempts to claim a biological basis, thats a long way from being a proper biological distinction.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

race attempts to claim a biological basis, thats a long way from being a proper biological distinction.

How about

Race is a set of skin-deep physical differences between people determined in a biological manner whilst religion is a set of beliefs one can choose whether to hold or not