Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Views on abortion

beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 10:52:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My view on abortion is that all women should be allowed to have an abortion at any stage in pregnancy. It is obviously better to avoid the pregnancy if possible and have the abortion at the earliest opportunity if that Is the desired scenario. No one should be forced to give birth to a child they don't want. Ultimately unborn babies have lower intelligence then animals such as sheep and cattle and are unaware of their situation and suffer no real distress during an abortion.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 3:59:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 11:17:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
I am ardently against abortions except for life threatening cases.

Why? Do you care about the welfare of children and families?
To believe is to know nothing.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 9:59:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 3:59:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 11:17:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
I am ardently against abortions except for life threatening cases.

Why? Do you care about the welfare of children and families?

Why not? Did you care about the welfare of unborn children?
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.
LordHelm
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy. Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.
LordHelm
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 3:42:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 3:59:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 11:17:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
I am ardently against abortions except for life threatening cases.

Why? Do you care about the welfare of children and families?

I notice you questioned his stance, but not the OP's.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 4:51:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy. Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.

And just what makes human life so special. What trait is so important that only humans have.
LordHelm
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 5:08:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 4:51:13 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy. Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.

And just what makes human life so special. What trait is so important that only humans have.

It's not about being special. It's about Human Rights. Or do you think we should abolish all rights because we aren't special? If anything, it's a case to make 'human rights' universal to all animals, not a case to exclude the human fetus from having them.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 10:40:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy.
How is the defining characteristic of our time relevant to ethical questions? Science won't tell you whether a sense of consciousness is a morally relevant criteria.

Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.
And this life has equal standing to that of an adult human because why? Because science tells you it is a human life?
You throw in a bunch of hidden non-scientific assumptions, like that all human life has an unalienable right to life and claim science has the answers.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:37:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 9:59:24 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 9/22/2015 3:59:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 11:17:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
I am ardently against abortions except for life threatening cases.

Why? Do you care about the welfare of children and families?

Why not? Did you care about the welfare of unborn children?

An unborn child is exactly that... unborn. You want to force women into having children regardless of whether they are ready or not or. You'd rather call them a murderer than respect their right to choose when they feel they are ready to bring a child into this world and be the best mother they can be and give their child the best life possible. How dare you!?
To believe is to know nothing.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 2:19:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:37:10 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/22/2015 9:59:24 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 9/22/2015 3:59:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 9/14/2015 11:17:32 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
I am ardently against abortions except for life threatening cases.

Why? Do you care about the welfare of children and families?

Why not? Did you care about the welfare of unborn children?

An unborn child is exactly that... unborn. You want to force women into having children regardless of whether they are ready or not or. You'd rather call them a murderer than respect their right to choose when they feel they are ready to bring a child into this world and be the best mother they can be and give their child the best life possible. How dare you!?

Once more, adoption is still an option. Do you think the child has any choice in the matter as to whether they are allowed to live or not. The child's right to live outweighs the mother's right to their body. How dare I acknowledge that a child has a right to live!?
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 3:41:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 5:08:52 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/23/2015 4:51:13 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy. Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.

And just what makes human life so special. What trait is so important that only humans have.

It's not about being special. It's about Human Rights. Or do you think we should abolish all rights because we aren't special? If anything, it's a case to make 'human rights' universal to all animals, not a case to exclude the human fetus from having them.

Than why don't every one of your cells have human rights. Each one of them is living and has human DNA. The idea of "human rights" seem to have a whole lot of holes in it. Ultimately rights actually exist for people, not humans, and so far you have offered no evidence that a fetus in its earlier states has the traits needed to qualify as a person.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 3:42:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:52:39 PM, beng100 wrote:
My view on abortion is that all women should be allowed to have an abortion at any stage in pregnancy. It is obviously better to avoid the pregnancy if possible and have the abortion at the earliest opportunity if that Is the desired scenario. No one should be forced to give birth to a child they don't want. Ultimately unborn babies have lower intelligence then animals such as sheep and cattle and are unaware of their situation and suffer no real distress during an abortion.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe in fundamental rights and are in favour of infanticide?
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 4:11:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 3:42:41 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:52:39 PM, beng100 wrote:
My view on abortion is that all women should be allowed to have an abortion at any stage in pregnancy. It is obviously better to avoid the pregnancy if possible and have the abortion at the earliest opportunity if that Is the desired scenario. No one should be forced to give birth to a child they don't want. Ultimately unborn babies have lower intelligence then animals such as sheep and cattle and are unaware of their situation and suffer no real distress during an abortion.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe in fundamental rights and are in favour of infanticide?

What do you mean by fundamental rights? Yes that is true. I do not value the lives of babies as highly as I do adults due to the lack of intelligence of a baby. I believe that in cases where for what ever reason a baby is not wanted it should be put to sleep. In the same manner as an unwanted dog. It is not a nice thing to do but it is often the most practical and economically sensible thing to do. Obviously education, birth control and abortion are better options but to me it does not make sense to keep unwanted babies at great expense to the taxpayer. In the UK the cost of keeping a child in a care home is over 200, 000 pounds a year. I believe this money could be better spent on other things. I do not believe a baby is an intelligent being. It would have no idea it was being put to sleep. In my view this policy would be very effective in developing countries where food shortages and babies dying of starvation and malnutrition is common. It is better to put these individuals out of their misery and help free up food resources for the rest of the population and also reduce the population.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 5:07:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 4:11:02 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:42:41 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:52:39 PM, beng100 wrote:
My view on abortion is that all women should be allowed to have an abortion at any stage in pregnancy. It is obviously better to avoid the pregnancy if possible and have the abortion at the earliest opportunity if that Is the desired scenario. No one should be forced to give birth to a child they don't want. Ultimately unborn babies have lower intelligence then animals such as sheep and cattle and are unaware of their situation and suffer no real distress during an abortion.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe in fundamental rights and are in favour of infanticide?

What do you mean by fundamental rights? Yes that is true. I do not value the lives of babies as highly as I do adults due to the lack of intelligence of a baby. I believe that in cases where for what ever reason a baby is not wanted it should be put to sleep. In the same manner as an unwanted dog. It is not a nice thing to do but it is often the most practical and economically sensible thing to do. Obviously education, birth control and abortion are better options but to me it does not make sense to keep unwanted babies at great expense to the taxpayer. In the UK the cost of keeping a child in a care home is over 200, 000 pounds a year. I believe this money could be better spent on other things. I do not believe a baby is an intelligent being. It would have no idea it was being put to sleep. In my view this policy would be very effective in developing countries where food shortages and babies dying of starvation and malnutrition is common. It is better to put these individuals out of their misery and help free up food resources for the rest of the population and also reduce the population.

So really what you are saying is that you are in favour of slavery. Those who are smarter have a right to enslave and do what they want with the less intelligent. I hope nobody smarter than you decides you do not deserve any rights. lol.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 5:09:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 3:41:31 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:08:52 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/23/2015 4:51:13 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy. Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.

And just what makes human life so special. What trait is so important that only humans have.

It's not about being special. It's about Human Rights. Or do you think we should abolish all rights because we aren't special? If anything, it's a case to make 'human rights' universal to all animals, not a case to exclude the human fetus from having them.

Than why don't every one of your cells have human rights. Each one of them is living and has human DNA. The idea of "human rights" seem to have a whole lot of holes in it. Ultimately rights actually exist for people, not humans, and so far you have offered no evidence that a fetus in its earlier states has the traits needed to qualify as a person.

None of your cells are an organism. You are the organism. However, multicellular organisms do start off as single cell organisms.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 5:26:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 5:09:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:31 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:08:52 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/23/2015 4:51:13 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy. Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.

And just what makes human life so special. What trait is so important that only humans have.

It's not about being special. It's about Human Rights. Or do you think we should abolish all rights because we aren't special? If anything, it's a case to make 'human rights' universal to all animals, not a case to exclude the human fetus from having them.

Than why don't every one of your cells have human rights. Each one of them is living and has human DNA. The idea of "human rights" seem to have a whole lot of holes in it. Ultimately rights actually exist for people, not humans, and so far you have offered no evidence that a fetus in its earlier states has the traits needed to qualify as a person.

None of your cells are an organism. You are the organism. However, multicellular organisms do start off as single cell organisms.

They're still living and possess human DNA. Also I don't think I've heard what you think gives an organism rights.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 6:00:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 5:26:42 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:09:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:31 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:08:52 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/23/2015 4:51:13 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy. Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.

And just what makes human life so special. What trait is so important that only humans have.

It's not about being special. It's about Human Rights. Or do you think we should abolish all rights because we aren't special? If anything, it's a case to make 'human rights' universal to all animals, not a case to exclude the human fetus from having them.

Than why don't every one of your cells have human rights. Each one of them is living and has human DNA. The idea of "human rights" seem to have a whole lot of holes in it. Ultimately rights actually exist for people, not humans, and so far you have offered no evidence that a fetus in its earlier states has the traits needed to qualify as a person.

None of your cells are an organism. You are the organism. However, multicellular organisms do start off as single cell organisms.

They're still living and possess human DNA. Also I don't think I've heard what you think gives an organism rights.

Hey if you can show me another cell that has a normative ability to develop into an adult of the species, I will cede the argument.

A person is a substance of a rational nature that maintains its identity through change.

The nature of every human being is one of rationality regardless of the "accidents" that enable that inherent rationality to be actualized. Thus personhood is not a subset of humanity, but rather a superset of humanity.

This is why we have a understanding of inalienable rights. One's rationality is not bestowed, but rather revealed. In the same way rights are not granted, but are rather intrinsic to the organism.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 8:00:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 5:07:24 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 4:11:02 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:42:41 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:52:39 PM, beng100 wrote:
My view on abortion is that all women should be allowed to have an abortion at any stage in pregnancy. It is obviously better to avoid the pregnancy if possible and have the abortion at the earliest opportunity if that Is the desired scenario. No one should be forced to give birth to a child they don't want. Ultimately unborn babies have lower intelligence then animals such as sheep and cattle and are unaware of their situation and suffer no real distress during an abortion.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe in fundamental rights and are in favour of infanticide?

What do you mean by fundamental rights? Yes that is true. I do not value the lives of babies as highly as I do adults due to the lack of intelligence of a baby. I believe that in cases where for what ever reason a baby is not wanted it should be put to sleep. In the same manner as an unwanted dog. It is not a nice thing to do but it is often the most practical and economically sensible thing to do. Obviously education, birth control and abortion are better options but to me it does not make sense to keep unwanted babies at great expense to the taxpayer. In the UK the cost of keeping a child in a care home is over 200, 000 pounds a year. I believe this money could be better spent on other things. I do not believe a baby is an intelligent being. It would have no idea it was being put to sleep. In my view this policy would be very effective in developing countries where food shortages and babies dying of starvation and malnutrition is common. It is better to put these individuals out of their misery and help free up food resources for the rest of the population and also reduce the population.

So really what you are saying is that you are in favour of slavery. Those who are smarter have a right to enslave and do what they want with the less intelligent. I hope nobody smarter than you decides you do not deserve any rights. lol.

No I am not in favour of slavery. I strongly object to it. How did my post make you think that? Who did I propose to enslave? I am suggesting euthanasia for a human that in an early stage of development is less advanced then an adult animal. I am suggesting if parents do not want a baby they can choose to have it peacefully put too sleep. This to me is more rational then the child suffering abuse, malnutrition, starvation, disease, neglect and an absence of anybody to care for it. The baby is not intelligent enough to understand what life is, what death is or any other major issue in relation to its existence. An adult dog can legally be put down. It is considerably more intelligent than a 1 year old child.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 9:50:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 6:00:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:26:42 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:09:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:31 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:08:52 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/23/2015 4:51:13 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy. Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.

And just what makes human life so special. What trait is so important that only humans have.

It's not about being special. It's about Human Rights. Or do you think we should abolish all rights because we aren't special? If anything, it's a case to make 'human rights' universal to all animals, not a case to exclude the human fetus from having them.

Than why don't every one of your cells have human rights. Each one of them is living and has human DNA. The idea of "human rights" seem to have a whole lot of holes in it. Ultimately rights actually exist for people, not humans, and so far you have offered no evidence that a fetus in its earlier states has the traits needed to qualify as a person.

None of your cells are an organism. You are the organism. However, multicellular organisms do start off as single cell organisms.

They're still living and possess human DNA. Also I don't think I've heard what you think gives an organism rights.

Hey if you can show me another cell that has a normative ability to develop into an adult of the species, I will cede the argument.

A person is a substance of a rational nature that maintains its identity through change.

The nature of every human being is one of rationality regardless of the "accidents" that enable that inherent rationality to be actualized. Thus personhood is not a subset of humanity, but rather a superset of humanity.

This is why we have a understanding of inalienable rights. One's rationality is not bestowed, but rather revealed. In the same way rights are not granted, but are rather intrinsic to the organism.

You and I appear to have very different views on personhood. For one thing mine is based clearly on what an individual has. Also humans are not the only inherently rational organisms, many animals base their decisions on their instinct, previous experience, and observations.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 10:01:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 6:00:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Hey if you can show me another cell that has a normative ability
What in Christ's name is a normative ability?

to develop into an adult of the species, I will cede the argument.

A person is a substance of a rational nature that maintains its identity through change.
So we conclude that the fetus is not a person.

The nature of every human being is one of rationality
Tay-Sachs-Syndrome disagrees.

regardless of the "accidents" that enable that inherent rationality to be actualized.
On what basis do you make this generalization?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 10:46:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 8:00:25 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:07:24 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 4:11:02 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:42:41 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:52:39 PM, beng100 wrote:
My view on abortion is that all women should be allowed to have an abortion at any stage in pregnancy. It is obviously better to avoid the pregnancy if possible and have the abortion at the earliest opportunity if that Is the desired scenario. No one should be forced to give birth to a child they don't want. Ultimately unborn babies have lower intelligence then animals such as sheep and cattle and are unaware of their situation and suffer no real distress during an abortion.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe in fundamental rights and are in favour of infanticide?

What do you mean by fundamental rights? Yes that is true. I do not value the lives of babies as highly as I do adults due to the lack of intelligence of a baby. I believe that in cases where for what ever reason a baby is not wanted it should be put to sleep. In the same manner as an unwanted dog. It is not a nice thing to do but it is often the most practical and economically sensible thing to do. Obviously education, birth control and abortion are better options but to me it does not make sense to keep unwanted babies at great expense to the taxpayer. In the UK the cost of keeping a child in a care home is over 200, 000 pounds a year. I believe this money could be better spent on other things. I do not believe a baby is an intelligent being. It would have no idea it was being put to sleep. In my view this policy would be very effective in developing countries where food shortages and babies dying of starvation and malnutrition is common. It is better to put these individuals out of their misery and help free up food resources for the rest of the population and also reduce the population.

So really what you are saying is that you are in favour of slavery. Those who are smarter have a right to enslave and do what they want with the less intelligent. I hope nobody smarter than you decides you do not deserve any rights. lol.

No I am not in favour of slavery. I strongly object to it. How did my post make you think that? Who did I propose to enslave? I am suggesting euthanasia for a human that in an early stage of development is less advanced then an adult animal. I am suggesting if parents do not want a baby they can choose to have it peacefully put too sleep. This to me is more rational then the child suffering abuse, malnutrition, starvation, disease, neglect and an absence of anybody to care for it. The baby is not intelligent enough to understand what life is, what death is or any other major issue in relation to its existence. An adult dog can legally be put down. It is considerably more intelligent than a 1 year old child.

You are claiming the right to kill another human being without trial and without them having attacked you. That mean you own that person's rights. If you own someone else's rights that person is effectively your slave.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 10:51:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 9:50:39 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:00:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:26:42 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:09:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:31 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:08:52 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/23/2015 4:51:13 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy. Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.

And just what makes human life so special. What trait is so important that only humans have.

It's not about being special. It's about Human Rights. Or do you think we should abolish all rights because we aren't special? If anything, it's a case to make 'human rights' universal to all animals, not a case to exclude the human fetus from having them.

Than why don't every one of your cells have human rights. Each one of them is living and has human DNA. The idea of "human rights" seem to have a whole lot of holes in it. Ultimately rights actually exist for people, not humans, and so far you have offered no evidence that a fetus in its earlier states has the traits needed to qualify as a person.

None of your cells are an organism. You are the organism. However, multicellular organisms do start off as single cell organisms.

They're still living and possess human DNA. Also I don't think I've heard what you think gives an organism rights.

Hey if you can show me another cell that has a normative ability to develop into an adult of the species, I will cede the argument.

A person is a substance of a rational nature that maintains its identity through change.

The nature of every human being is one of rationality regardless of the "accidents" that enable that inherent rationality to be actualized. Thus personhood is not a subset of humanity, but rather a superset of humanity.

This is why we have a understanding of inalienable rights. One's rationality is not bestowed, but rather revealed. In the same way rights are not granted, but are rather intrinsic to the organism.

You and I appear to have very different views on personhood. For one thing mine is based clearly on what an individual has. Also humans are not the only inherently rational organisms, many animals base their decisions on their instinct, previous experience, and observations.

And yet we do not equate them as persons. Every individual has a rational nature-this is not something that changes it is intrinsic to our race. Our ability to exercise that ability can vary by a large variety of factors.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:25:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 10:46:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 8:00:25 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:07:24 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 4:11:02 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:42:41 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:52:39 PM, beng100 wrote:
My view on abortion is that all women should be allowed to have an abortion at any stage in pregnancy. It is obviously better to avoid the pregnancy if possible and have the abortion at the earliest opportunity if that Is the desired scenario. No one should be forced to give birth to a child they don't want. Ultimately unborn babies have lower intelligence then animals such as sheep and cattle and are unaware of their situation and suffer no real distress during an abortion.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe in fundamental rights and are in favour of infanticide?

What do you mean by fundamental rights? Yes that is true. I do not value the lives of babies as highly as I do adults due to the lack of intelligence of a baby. I believe that in cases where for what ever reason a baby is not wanted it should be put to sleep. In the same manner as an unwanted dog. It is not a nice thing to do but it is often the most practical and economically sensible thing to do. Obviously education, birth control and abortion are better options but to me it does not make sense to keep unwanted babies at great expense to the taxpayer. In the UK the cost of keeping a child in a care home is over 200, 000 pounds a year. I believe this money could be better spent on other things. I do not believe a baby is an intelligent being. It would have no idea it was being put to sleep. In my view this policy would be very effective in developing countries where food shortages and babies dying of starvation and malnutrition is common. It is better to put these individuals out of their misery and help free up food resources for the rest of the population and also reduce the population.

So really what you are saying is that you are in favour of slavery. Those who are smarter have a right to enslave and do what they want with the less intelligent. I hope nobody smarter than you decides you do not deserve any rights. lol.

No I am not in favour of slavery. I strongly object to it. How did my post make you think that? Who did I propose to enslave? I am suggesting euthanasia for a human that in an early stage of development is less advanced then an adult animal. I am suggesting if parents do not want a baby they can choose to have it peacefully put too sleep. This to me is more rational then the child suffering abuse, malnutrition, starvation, disease, neglect and an absence of anybody to care for it. The baby is not intelligent enough to understand what life is, what death is or any other major issue in relation to its existence. An adult dog can legally be put down. It is considerably more intelligent than a 1 year old child.

You are claiming the right to kill another human being without trial and without them having attacked you. That mean you own that person's rights. If you own someone else's rights that person is effectively your slave.

I think a baby belongs to its parents yes. It is incapable of doing anything for itself due to its low levels of physical and mental development and intelligence. The parents/ guardians have to do everything for it. It is not capable of any form of complex cognitive thought. Why do you value such a primitive undeveloped animal more than a mammal of average intelligence like a sheep. An adult sheep is capable of feeding and looking after itself, walking, communicating with other sheep, sensing danger, learning where to find food and rearing its young. Sheep are regularly slaughtered. An unwanted baby must be reared up, at the tax payers expense in all cases. To me this is not a particularly sensible approach.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:25:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 10:01:57 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:00:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Hey if you can show me another cell that has a normative ability
What in Christ's name is a normative ability?

The natural normal ability to develop. So a zygote in the environment(s) it is supposed to be in will naturally grow into an adult over time. This normative development could be adversely affected by things like genetic errors, developmental errors, being crushed by an asteroid falling from space...

The natural and desired progression of a zygote is to develop the organism through to adulthood - thus a normative ability to accomplish this.

A skin cell can be manipulated and have its DNA inserted into an evacuated ovum in order to create a clone. This doesn't mean that a skin cell has a normative means of developing into an adult of the species because it has to be heavily and artificially manipulated to do so.

to develop into an adult of the species, I will cede the argument.

A person is a substance of a rational nature that maintains its identity through change.
So we conclude that the fetus is not a person.

lol. I expected better of you Fkkize.

The nature of every human being is one of rationality
Tay-Sachs-Syndrome disagrees.

You are completely missing the argument. Our substance is a rational one. The fact that the "accidents" of development can adversely affect that doesn't mean that the person was not oriented towards rationality.

regardless of the "accidents" that enable that inherent rationality to be actualized.
On what basis do you make this generalization?

Observation. Rationality is not something that randomly happens in humans. It is not like you have 2 identical twins and only have a random chance that both of them will be "rational" creatures (rational being a simple way of distancing humanity from animals for this discussion). It is something that is inherent to humanity. It requires that something go wrong for it not to develop - genetic disease, premature death, etc...

Thus every human is fundamentally a rational creature (even the Kardashians) regardless of their ability to exercise that rationality at particular points of their lives.
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 11:46:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 10:51:07 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 9:50:39 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:00:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:26:42 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:09:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:31 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 5:08:52 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/23/2015 4:51:13 AM, komododragon8 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 3:41:45 AM, LordHelm wrote:
At 9/22/2015 10:22:02 PM, komododragon8 wrote:
If your going to value the life of a fetus before it develops any sense of consciousness than you would also have to value the life of countless organisms which we kill daily. Say goodbye to rat traps, lice and fungus killing cremes, and sports hunting. We even experiment on organisms with far larger and more developed brains than your average aborted fetus. While an abortion ban could be justified later in the pregnancy (where very few abortions even take place), abortions before that time should be fully legal and safe.

Human life =/= a rat's life.
Also, a sense of consciousness is meaningless. This is an age of science, not philosophy. Life is defined by four Characteristics that a fetus, at conception (or at least by week 2) has. Therefore, abortion is the ending of a human life long before the end of the first trimester.

And just what makes human life so special. What trait is so important that only humans have.

It's not about being special. It's about Human Rights. Or do you think we should abolish all rights because we aren't special? If anything, it's a case to make 'human rights' universal to all animals, not a case to exclude the human fetus from having them.

Than why don't every one of your cells have human rights. Each one of them is living and has human DNA. The idea of "human rights" seem to have a whole lot of holes in it. Ultimately rights actually exist for people, not humans, and so far you have offered no evidence that a fetus in its earlier states has the traits needed to qualify as a person.

None of your cells are an organism. You are the organism. However, multicellular organisms do start off as single cell organisms.

They're still living and possess human DNA. Also I don't think I've heard what you think gives an organism rights.

Hey if you can show me another cell that has a normative ability to develop into an adult of the species, I will cede the argument.

A person is a substance of a rational nature that maintains its identity through change.

The nature of every human being is one of rationality regardless of the "accidents" that enable that inherent rationality to be actualized. Thus personhood is not a subset of humanity, but rather a superset of humanity.

This is why we have a understanding of inalienable rights. One's rationality is not bestowed, but rather revealed. In the same way rights are not granted, but are rather intrinsic to the organism.

You and I appear to have very different views on personhood. For one thing mine is based clearly on what an individual has. Also humans are not the only inherently rational organisms, many animals base their decisions on their instinct, previous experience, and observations.

And yet we do not equate them as persons. Every individual has a rational nature-this is not something that changes it is intrinsic to our race. Our ability to exercise that ability can vary by a large variety of factors.

It actually changes a lot, fetuses as I've said do not have brains large enough to interpret facts and brain dead people have lost that ability but can still be kept alive with machines. Sure developed humans have it, but thats what gives them their rights. Fetuses don't have rationality, therefore they do not get rights.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:43:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 11:25:51 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/23/2015 10:01:57 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:00:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:

Hey if you can show me another cell that has a normative ability
What in Christ's name is a normative ability?

The natural normal ability to develop. So a zygote in the environment(s) it is supposed to be in will naturally grow into an adult over time. This normative development could be adversely affected by things like genetic errors, developmental errors, being crushed by an asteroid falling from space...
From which you cannot conclude that a zygote or a fetus is rational. What you can conclude is that at some later point it is rational. Making it not an argument from equal moral status, but from potential.

The natural and desired progression of a zygote is to develop the organism through to adulthood - thus a normative ability to accomplish this.
A zygote desires nothing. You presuppose a crazy Aristotelian metaphysics, which I do not accept.

A skin cell can be manipulated and have its DNA inserted into an evacuated ovum in order to create a clone. This doesn't mean that a skin cell has a normative means of developing into an adult of the species because it has to be heavily and artificially manipulated to do so.

to develop into an adult of the species, I will cede the argument.

A person is a substance of a rational nature that maintains its identity through change.
So we conclude that the fetus is not a person.

lol. I expected better of you Fkkize.
I didn't.

The nature of every human being is one of rationality
Tay-Sachs-Syndrome disagrees.

You are completely missing the argument. Our substance is a rational one. The fact that the "accidents" of development can adversely affect that doesn't mean that the person was not oriented towards rationality.
A fetus is not directed towards anything. What it does can be fully accounted for in terms of causal explanations, no need to invoke some teleology.

regardless of the "accidents" that enable that inherent rationality to be actualized.
On what basis do you make this generalization?

Observation. Rationality is not something that randomly happens in humans.
So far you have been arguing for intersubjectivity. I have yet to see a valid inference to rationality being an objective feature of humanity.

It is not like you have 2 identical twins and only have a random chance that both of them will be "rational" creatures
Which would be impossible anyway, as they supposedly are qualitatively identical.

(rational being a simple way of distancing humanity from animals for this discussion).
To which I do not agree, but Ok.

It is something that is inherent to humanity. It requires that something go wrong for it not to develop - genetic disease, premature death, etc...

Thus every human is fundamentally a rational creature (even the Kardashians) regardless of their ability to exercise that rationality at particular points of their lives.

To recap:
- You are making an argument from the potential, not the actual.
- You assume a distinct metaphysics and teleology, without arguing for them.
- You infer objetivity from intersubjecctivity.
- And most importantly, nowhere have you expressed why anyone should think rationality is a morally relevant property.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic