Is this our future? - Page 6

rivrrat · #51 (**permalink**) 08-24-2012, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

I'm sorry you don't see how personhood arguments put a knife to your own throat RR.

Why should i be concerned about animals when it's this hard to get people to be concerned about human beings RR?

Human beings ARE animals. I'm asking you what makes humans so special - to the exclusion of all other animals - that you feel they deserve such protections? Can you not answer the question?

rivrrat · #52 (**permalink**) 08-24-2012, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

nothing has stopped other types of murder or rape, war, child abuse, theft etc etc. doesn't mean we make it legal.

And if all people murdered, raped, abused children, etc, and those things were a benefit to society and the individuals you might have a point. As it is, you don't. For milleniums birth control and abortions have been legal and acceptable. There are no amount of laws that will stop them from happening en masse. Women will not be relegated to breeding chattel.

mr. wonder · #53 (**permalink**) 08-24-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Human beings ARE animals. I'm asking you what makes humans so special - to the exclusion of all other animals - that you feel they deserve such protections? Can you not answer the question?

From purely secular and atheistic point of view i can't say that ANYthing or ANYBODY is special. Or that any should be protected AT all. There is nothing sacred the whole universe is all a bunch or random accidents and the laws protecting woman and child are evolutionary constructs that have no real meaning or value outside of fleeting individual physical urges, emotional sentiments or subjective notions.

But as a someone who understands that we all were created by God and that Man was made in the image of God and given rule over the animals. I can say with some clarity, Yes, humans have a place above animals who we are given charge over.

Do you have any hard reasons based in facts why we should treat anything well River? Why I should treat you well even?

rivrrat · #54 (**permalink**) 08-24-2012, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

From purely secular and atheistic point of view i can't say that ANYthing or ANYBODY is special. Or that any should be protected AT all. There is nothing sacred the whole universe is all a bunch or random accidents and the laws protecting woman and child are evolutionary constructs that have no real meaning or value outside of fleeting individual physical urges, emotional sentiments or subjective notions.

But as a someone who understands that we all were created by God and that Man was made in the image of God and given rule over the animals. I can say with some clarity, Yes, humans have a place above animals who we are given charge over.

Ah. So your opinion is based solely in mythology and not science.

My opinion is based on science and facts.

Quote:

Do you have any hard reasons based in facts why we should treat anything well River?

Because it benefits us to do so. Sentient and sapient beings that have thoughts and feelings should be treated with empathy, sympathy and compassion. It benefits all of us to do so. It does not, however, benefit anyone to give roaches and flies the same consideration. Similarly, it doesn't benefit anyone to give a human zygote, embryo or early term fetus the same consideration since they are not even capable of as much thought and feeling as a roach is.

Quote:

Why I should treat you well even?

You shouldn't unless you want to. I sure as **** don't expect you to.

mr. wonder · #55 (**permalink**) 08-24-2012, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Ah. So your opinion is based solely in mythology and not science.

My opinion is based on science and facts.

Because it benefits us to do so. Sentient and sapient beings that have thoughts and feelings should be treated with empathy, sympathy and compassion. It benefits all of us to do so. It does not, however, benefit anyone to give roaches and flies the same consideration. Similarly, it doesn't benefit anyone to give a human zygote, embryo or early term fetus the same consideration since they are not even capable of as much thought and feeling as a roach is.

You shouldn't unless you want to. I sure as **** don't expect you to.

Who is "Us". why do i care about "us" as you define it?
"SHOULD" be treated kindly, that's science? Sounds like Mom.
"benefits" anyone. It surely benefits the roaches and the flies.
they may be evolutionarily better suited to survive than we are. Scientifically speaking River. Why shouldn't we just kill ourselves for there benefit if we are basing it on what creature might Benefit.

Look river your argument is based on thin air. there's NO scientific reason why Humans should benefit over any other creature. including plants or microobes. and there's nothing to say that even those SHOULD survive. you hanging pegs in mid air River not on Science. And i think if you take the time to really consider if there is a God you might be pleasantly surprised. and find a reason to give a damn beyond personal survival and current popular cultural norms.

mr. wonder · #56 (**permalink**) 08-24-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Wonder

Why I should treat you well even?

You shouldn't unless you want to. I sure as **** don't expect you to.

But scientifically i should, maybe? No.

rivrrat · #57 (**permalink**) 08-24-2012, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

Who is "Us". why do i care about "us" as you define it?

Individuals.

Quote:

"SHOULD" be treated kindly, that's science?

Yes, because it benefits us to do so. We all only do what benefits us.

Quote:

"benefits" anyone. It surely benefits the roaches and the flies.

But they are not sentient and sapient.

Quote:

they may be evolutionarily better suited to survive than we are.

Only in certain conditions. And if that's the case, then they will survive where we will not.

Quote:

Scientifically speaking River. Why shouldn't we just kill ourselves for there benefit if we are basing it on what creature might Benefit.

Because that makes no ****ing sense.

Quote:

Look river your argument is based on thin air.

No, it's based on science.

Quote:

there's NO scientific reason why Humans should benefit over any other creature.

only over some creatures.

Quote:

including plants or microobes. and there's nothing to say that even those SHOULD survive.

Nope, there isn't. And?

Quote:

you hanging pegs in mid air River not on Science.

Sorry, but brains and how they work is based in science. Not mythology.

Quote:

And i think if you take the time to really consider if there is a God you might be pleasantly surprised. and find a reason to give a damn beyond personal survival and current popular cultural norms.

Been there, done that. You are free to believe in your fairies, gnomes, unicorns, goddesses and whatever other mythological creatures you choose to. But there's no reason at all for you to impose your odd beliefs upon the rest of us.

Don't think abortion and birth control is morally right based on what your mythology tells you? Don't use birth control and don't have an abortion. It's really pretty simple.

rivrrat · #58 (**permalink**) 08-24-2012, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

But scientifically i should, maybe? No.

Only if it benefits you to do so. That's the only reason we do anything.

mr. wonder · #59 (**permalink**) 08-24-2012, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Individuals.

Yes, because it benefits us to do so. We all only do what benefits us.

But they are not sentient and sapient.

Only in certain conditions. And if that's the case, then they will survive where we will not.

Because that makes no ****ing sense.

So and?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

No, it's based on science.

only over some creatures.

Nope, there isn't. And?

Sorry, but brains and how they work is based in science. Not mythology.

How the brain works is based on... well on how it works. Science can only attempt to explain it, which it has yet a far piece to go to do. Much of the explanations are still based on opinions, speculations and guessitmate of things in the deep untestable past. THEN often crossing into the metaphysical mind body ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Been there, done that. You are free to believe in your fairies, gnomes, unicorns, goddesses and whatever other mythological creatures you choose to. But there's no reason at all for you to impose your odd beliefs upon the rest of us.

Sorry you've so far missed God. and where looking for mythological creatures instead.

But i've based my postion here on scientific facts which you agree with. that the product of conception is a Human being.

you want to impose your speculations of what is defined personhood on the rest of us.

Personhood has no fixed definition. Sentient? There's not even are solid definition of what that is, much less why IT should be a standard for the protection of life INSTEAD of the Clear BIOLOGICAL FACT of Humanity river.

personhood is a nomans land that anyone can define and redefine at will, based on "science" political science, social science, eco science, economic science or complete nonsense.

infanticide is ALready being justified using the idea of "persons" by so called medical ethicist.

Quote:

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. "

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

ABSTRACT
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not
have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing
that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the
same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that
both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)
adoption is not always in the best interest of actual
people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth
abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all
the cases where abortion is, including cases where the
newborn is not disabled.

….
CONCLUSIONS
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for
the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an
abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of
the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has
any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the
same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the
killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of
a newborn.
Two considerations need to be added.
First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment
at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and
we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be
necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In
cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for nonmedical
reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on
the neurological development of newborns, which is something
neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good
alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best
option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if
a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something
went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or
psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the
offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then
people should be given the chance of not being forced to do
something they cannot afford.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...perts-say.html

"person" is as subjective a legal term as has ever been created. It's not fixed in anything and certainly not "science" it primarily a political tool.

rivrrat · #60 (**permalink**) 08-25-2012, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. wonder

So and?

How the brain works is based on... well on how it works. Science can only attempt to explain it, which it has yet a far piece to go to do. Much of the explanations are still based on opinions, speculations and guessitmate of things in the deep untestable past. THEN often crossing into the metaphysical mind body ideas.

Sorry you've so far missed God. and where looking for mythological creatures instead.

But i've based my postion here on scientific facts which you agree with. that the product of conception is a Human being.

you want to impose your speculations of what is defined personhood on the rest of us.

Personhood has no fixed definition. Sentient? There's not even are solid definition of what that is, much less why IT should be a standard for the protection of life INSTEAD of the Clear BIOLOGICAL FACT of Humanity river.

personhood is a nomans land that anyone can define and redefine at will, based on "science" political science, social science, eco science, economic science or complete nonsense.

infanticide is ALready being justified using the idea of "persons" by so called medical ethicist.

"person" is as subjective a legal term as has ever been created. It's not fixed in anything and certainly not "science" it primarily a political tool.

The biological fact is that an zygote, embryo, and early fetus can't think and can't feel. It's physically impossible. Those are the facts. They have less cognitive function than a gnat. They are nothing special and certainly not worth any protections. Unless of course you want to protect gnats too. You can sit and argue about personhood all you ****ing want to, but it doesn't change those biological facts. What makes humans and other sentient and sapient creatures special is our thoughts and feelings and cognitive abilities, and those things don't exist for zygote, embryo, and early fetus. Scientific fact. Not mythology.

And defining 'person' as simply 'human' is disgusting, IMO. It ignores all other creatures that have similar characteristics and implies that nothing other than human could be a person. That's an insult to persons. Person is FAR more than a species.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rivrrat For This Useful Post:
1069, off the porch