The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
08-11-2016, 12:39 PM
#6503
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
Depending upon the time elapsed since fertilization, either a zygote or an embryo.
Aside from the timescale, this argument isn't much different from saying that if you kill a fish, that's murder, because the fish may, over time, evolve into a conscious and possibly humanoid life form.
Aside from the timescale, this argument isn't much different from saying that if you kill a fish, that's murder, because the fish may, over time, evolve into a conscious and possibly humanoid life form.
Reply
0
0
08-11-2016, 12:54 PM
#6505
Aside from the timescale, this argument isn't much different from saying that if you kill a fish, that's murder, because the fish may, over time, evolve into a conscious and possibly humanoid life form.
Reply
0
0
08-11-2016, 02:03 PM
#6506
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
Reply
0
0
08-11-2016, 02:16 PM
#6507
Absolutely. But an elephant embryo is not the same as an elephant.
That's just semantic / technical details. If the end result of either course is a sentient life, then the process by which it is reached is unimportant. The only meaningful difference is that one process occurs on a human-observable timescale, while the other takes a bit longer. Otherwise, we're no longer talking about the politics of abortion and have moved on to a metaphysical discussion about what is the nature of consciousness.
That's just semantic / technical details. If the end result of either course is a sentient life, then the process by which it is reached is unimportant. The only meaningful difference is that one process occurs on a human-observable timescale, while the other takes a bit longer. Otherwise, we're no longer talking about the politics of abortion and have moved on to a metaphysical discussion about what is the nature of consciousness.
So let's return to your statement:
Of course not. Neither is a child the same as an adult, nor is a fetus the same as a toddler. You're objecting to an argument that no one is making. My argument does not rely on an exact identical relationship between all forms of human life. I only need to demonstrate that it fulfills the necessary and sufficient conditions to be considered a human life.
Reply
0
0
08-11-2016, 02:30 PM
#6510
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
You seem to be arguing that a fertilized human egg is indistinguishable from a fully-formed living human, insofar as their intrinsic value as well as the liberties and protections which ought to be afforded to either.
I'm objecting to that argument, and providing illustrations of why it is fallacious.
I'm objecting to that argument, and providing illustrations of why it is fallacious.
Reply
0
0
08-11-2016, 03:09 PM
#6514
I can argue that both a Toyota Camry and Pontiac Aztec fulfill the necessary and sufficient criteria to be considered "cars" without arguing that one is indistinguishable from the other.
Reply
0
0
08-11-2016, 03:15 PM
#6516
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
Read the full context before you cherry-pick what to reply to. I said "indistinguishable (...), insofar as their intrinsic value as well as the liberties and protections which ought to be afforded to either."
I can't tell whether you're deliberately trying to annoy me...
Reply
0
0
08-11-2016, 03:19 PM
#6517
I'm growing tired of this argument.
Read the full context before you cherry-pick what to reply to. I said "indistinguishable (...), insofar as their intrinsic value as well as the liberties and protections which ought to be afforded to either."
I can't tell whether you're deliberately trying to annoy me...
Read the full context before you cherry-pick what to reply to. I said "indistinguishable (...), insofar as their intrinsic value as well as the liberties and protections which ought to be afforded to either."
I can't tell whether you're deliberately trying to annoy me...
I'm trying to determine the necessary and sufficient conditions or criteria for "a human life". All of your objections are moving to second and third level conclusions because you don't like the implications of accepting my definition, rather than actually objecting to anything about the definition itself. I'm not interested in yelling arguments back and forth about our conclusions if we can't even agree on how to define the terms.
Reply
0
0
08-11-2016, 04:32 PM
#6519
"Murder" is the intentional killing of a person by another person who society deems is not qualified to make the decision on whether or not a person's life should end.
If we defined "Murder" to simply be the killing of another person or deciding upon another person's death, then every single juror which selected the death penalty, or executioner who pushed the button, is, by that definition, a murderer. Similarly, since the judicial system which caused that murder is an extension of "the people", then "we the people" are all murderers.
Who, may I ask you, is more qualified than the mother of an unborn child to decide whether or not that unborn child should live? You?
Only a single person has ever known that child, and pro-lifers would suggest that they are better qualified than she to decide the life of that child.
Once a child is actually born, new people get to interact with that child, and suddenly it becomes less clear who has the right to decide whether that child should have life or not - that would tell me that the actual birth of a live child might be the first point in life that one could argue that abortion should no longer be allowed.
A second consideration: while a fetus may feel pain, that fetus will never remember the pain. If the fetus can't remember the pain, what proof does it have that it actually felt the pain? If you are knocked unconscious, cut open, slightly woke up and squirmed in pain, sewn back together, and completely healed before you ever fully regained consciousness, never having the memory of the pain, then were you ever really in pain?
Third: Murder trials - no murder trial has ever helped the murdered. We don't hold murder trials in order to help the murdered. It might be argued that a secondary effect of murder trials is to reduce the occurrence of murders, but historically speaking, you're more likely to be acquitted by a murder trial than by a lynch mob or vigilante - so I can't really argue that murder trials reduce the occurrence of murders. We do hold murder trials to find guilty and punish the murderer, but it's not because of the effect that the murderer had on the murdered, but rather it's the effect that the murderer has on society; most directly those who are impacted by the loss of the murdered- family, friends, acquaintances, etc, and secondarily for good order among we the people (life is far less uncertain when known murderers are either dead or in jail, which promotes positive societal outcomes when compared with the alternative of feuds or feudalism.) Basically, murder trials are held for the benefit of those whose lives are negatively impacted by murderers, and not for the benefit of the murdered. If, then, we are of the opinion that abortion is murder, and so we were to hold a murder trial, who would be the expected beneficiary of said murder trial? Only two lives were negatively impacted by the murder; the child and the mother, and we can't help the child.
Other considerations are that perhaps the mother should be able to make the decision until birth, then the primary caregivers should be able to make the decision until the child can actually comprehend what death is in the first place - of course this would lead to the potential for 27th trimester abortions, so maybe that's not a good thing. Of course, if you are to believe historians, there were some time periods and cultures where post-birth abortion (a.k.a. infanticide) was a regular practice. Does that make them all murderers? Their societies didn't seem to think so.
Back around the circle - we, as a "civil first world country" place far too much value on a human life, and as I mentioned earlier, human life is far too easily created for a society, not engulfed by religion, to worry about.
If we are to believe in God, then perhaps we are to also believe in fate. If we do believe in fate, then the fate of aborted fetuses must be known to God at the time of conception. If the fate of an embryo were "abortion", then God simply would not provide that embryo with a soul, because if souls are as valuable as they say, then it is far to valuable to grant a soul to a body which is to be ended anyways.
Also, as homo-sapiens, our infant mortality rate is down over the last millenium, perhaps abortions are Gods way of ending the lives that he couldn't find the right soul for? It used to be that all he had to do was infect an infant with a disease...
If we defined "Murder" to simply be the killing of another person or deciding upon another person's death, then every single juror which selected the death penalty, or executioner who pushed the button, is, by that definition, a murderer. Similarly, since the judicial system which caused that murder is an extension of "the people", then "we the people" are all murderers.
Who, may I ask you, is more qualified than the mother of an unborn child to decide whether or not that unborn child should live? You?
Only a single person has ever known that child, and pro-lifers would suggest that they are better qualified than she to decide the life of that child.
Once a child is actually born, new people get to interact with that child, and suddenly it becomes less clear who has the right to decide whether that child should have life or not - that would tell me that the actual birth of a live child might be the first point in life that one could argue that abortion should no longer be allowed.
A second consideration: while a fetus may feel pain, that fetus will never remember the pain. If the fetus can't remember the pain, what proof does it have that it actually felt the pain? If you are knocked unconscious, cut open, slightly woke up and squirmed in pain, sewn back together, and completely healed before you ever fully regained consciousness, never having the memory of the pain, then were you ever really in pain?
Third: Murder trials - no murder trial has ever helped the murdered. We don't hold murder trials in order to help the murdered. It might be argued that a secondary effect of murder trials is to reduce the occurrence of murders, but historically speaking, you're more likely to be acquitted by a murder trial than by a lynch mob or vigilante - so I can't really argue that murder trials reduce the occurrence of murders. We do hold murder trials to find guilty and punish the murderer, but it's not because of the effect that the murderer had on the murdered, but rather it's the effect that the murderer has on society; most directly those who are impacted by the loss of the murdered- family, friends, acquaintances, etc, and secondarily for good order among we the people (life is far less uncertain when known murderers are either dead or in jail, which promotes positive societal outcomes when compared with the alternative of feuds or feudalism.) Basically, murder trials are held for the benefit of those whose lives are negatively impacted by murderers, and not for the benefit of the murdered. If, then, we are of the opinion that abortion is murder, and so we were to hold a murder trial, who would be the expected beneficiary of said murder trial? Only two lives were negatively impacted by the murder; the child and the mother, and we can't help the child.
Other considerations are that perhaps the mother should be able to make the decision until birth, then the primary caregivers should be able to make the decision until the child can actually comprehend what death is in the first place - of course this would lead to the potential for 27th trimester abortions, so maybe that's not a good thing. Of course, if you are to believe historians, there were some time periods and cultures where post-birth abortion (a.k.a. infanticide) was a regular practice. Does that make them all murderers? Their societies didn't seem to think so.
Back around the circle - we, as a "civil first world country" place far too much value on a human life, and as I mentioned earlier, human life is far too easily created for a society, not engulfed by religion, to worry about.
If we are to believe in God, then perhaps we are to also believe in fate. If we do believe in fate, then the fate of aborted fetuses must be known to God at the time of conception. If the fate of an embryo were "abortion", then God simply would not provide that embryo with a soul, because if souls are as valuable as they say, then it is far to valuable to grant a soul to a body which is to be ended anyways.
Also, as homo-sapiens, our infant mortality rate is down over the last millenium, perhaps abortions are Gods way of ending the lives that he couldn't find the right soul for? It used to be that all he had to do was infect an infant with a disease...
Reply
0
0
