Republicans succeed in ploy to increase unsafe abortions

Post Reply New Topic

It's completely relevant. LKL is trying to change the subject by bringing up the possible sentience of other organisms and suggesting that definitions of sentience necessarily means we have to give them the same rights, privileges, and respect as human beings. While I agree that the world around us deserves our respect and protection, we have no compulsion to protect other creatures the same way we are compelled to protect ourselves and each other.

I have no need to prove the existence of the soul. I know that I have a soul and that's enough for me. I'm not all that concerned whether others believe it or not. If you don't like that souls exist, then that's your business. But if you're trying to convince me that souls don't exist when I myself AM a living soul, then you need to provide "extraordinary evidence" to show what I know exists doesn't exist. Your statement "...so let's assume it doesn't exist" seems to arise from circular reasoning.

How so?

Your reasoning of, 'I know souls exists therefore they exist' seems more circular to me.

I can't claim to know something if there's nothing to know.

Besides, I never said that. I merely said I have no need to prove to myself or anybody else that souls exist.

Last edited by AngelRho on 25 Jan 2012, 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

I know unicorns exist on the planet Venus.

You don't know that.

I know it about as much as you know that souls exist.

EDIT: for the purpose of this argument, you do, imo need to prove that there is a good reason why abortion is murder. You either have to prove the sentience of the foetus, or that it has a soul. Otherwise, what are you murdering exactly? Human cells, not a human being.
Once you lose that argument, you get out the 'potential human' one. Then I say, 'potential is not actual'...so then you go back to one of your other arguments. So the debate goes on and on and on and goes nowhere.

Souls don't exist because I think I know they exist. They exist whether I know they do or not. In order to know something, it has to actually be true. I am in possession of my own self-awareness, my consciousness, my personality, my individuality apart from other human beings--I am aware of a certain ME-ness that no one else has. That's all the evidence anyone needs to prove that they have a soul. I don't know "why" I exist or "how" I came into being, but I just "am." You've suggested that I'm reasoning backwards, and such is not the case. But I do know I exist and am aware of the nature of my existence. This is a true statement. Therefore, I do know that I exist as a living soul.

Saying you "know" that unicorns exist on the planet Venus may or may not be true based on the experiences you've had. I don't know that unicorns exist on Venus or Earth or anywhere else in the universe. Maybe they really do exist. Maybe they do not. First of all, have you actually observed this to be true? Is it within the realm of possibility?

Think about the film Avatar. The planet that the human antagonists are invading is made up of a poisonous atmosphere in which human beings can't possibly survive very long without protection. Yet in the fictional world humans have the means to observe some fantastical phenomena and interact with civilizations on that world. Venus has been observed to have an acidic atmosphere which is highly reactive to the metallic probes we might attempt to land on the surface, and that also makes manned missions since human flesh would melt right off once exposed to the elements. Therefore unicorns, IF we assume that unicorns are consistent with organic life, cannot possibly exist on Venus. IF unicorns can exist at all, they cannot survive as organic life as we know it. They would have to be some kind of extremophile or a form of inorganic life. We do not know, nor have we the means to know, whether either case lies within the realm of possibility. So either we can't know unicorns exist on Venus because it is untrue that unicorns exist at all (you cannot know something to be true if it is false), or we can't know unicorns exist on Venus because we lack the means to know.

To claim that you know something like that when no one else has observed it or reported it is to claim you have some means of insight foreign to everyone else. You would do well to document your findings in a peer-reviewed journal so the rest of the world can share in your knowledge.

The soul, on the other hand, is something we have the means to infer from personal observation and experience. It is a knowable thing. To people who have no trouble accepting spirituality the soul is not a profound thing.

...

I don't think you do have to prove sentience of the fetus. I think all you have to do is prove that it's a human being. And that's a no-brainer. If it came from living human cells and possesses a human genome (which it probably does unless the genetic material is somehow artificially replaced), it's human. And if it is wrong to kill a human being, it's just as wrong to kill a human fetus.

And I would say it's always wrong. I even think killing in self-defense is wrong under the usual circumstances--the decision to kill hinges on whether the defender understands the choices he has. Where I live, you can kill a trespasser. But you're going to run into difficulties justifying killing someone in broad daylight when it's easier to assess exactly what threat you're facing. Even at night under cover of darkness when you cannot assess the threat, you can still give warning and give the intruder a chance to escape. If the guy runs, he is no threat, therefore you let him run. But if you give warning and are still made to believe that an intruder is still a threat to your life, your family, and/or your property, wail away and pray for a clean shot.

And that's why I think it's so important that given the facts that we are aware that a baby is growing, it most likely will grow until it is big enough for birth, that no means exists for carrying that baby to term such that both the baby and the mother can possibly survive, then the mother doesn't have any real choices, does she? You're still destroying a human being. It's horrible. But that's the sad reality and hard choices have to be made. And a woman choosing to save herself ought to carry no further guilt. I view rape the same way--it's not her fault she got pregnant, ergo it's not her fault that a human being is destroyed in an abortion procedure. It's a tough choice to make--to kill another human being, but call it what it is. If she shows mercy and brings the baby to term, good for her. If she terminates the tiny life growing in her, terminate the guy who raped her also, and if there is a question as to the charges are, the answer is "murder."

Now, will this ever be a reality in western society in the near future? Probably not. I just think it's the ideal justice in those situations, and I disagree with fellow Christians who say abortion should be completely outlawed, and I mean for every situation. I just happen to believe that actual circumstances that justify killing a human being are extremely rare. Any time you deliberately cause the loss of life or threaten the loss of life, what you do or plan to do ought to be done to you, and you have no one to blame but yourself. If you are shown mercy when you don't deserve it, then you are blessed as is the person who shows you mercy.

All of which is just so much, "angels and pinheads."

We have justified killing human beings on a wide number of grounds for as long as systems of law have existed. We have permitted:

- the use of deadly force to punish crime
- the use of deadly force by armed forces to project national interests
- the use of deadly force by peace officers to protect proportionate to immediate threats to public peace and order
- the use of deadly force to defend against a proportionate threat to one's self or others
- the withholding life-saving or life-preserving care

Further, we excuse killing human beings in a number of circumstances. People die in motor vehicle accidents every day in circumstances in which none of the individuals involved are criminally liable. "Pilot error," may be a cause of death in aircraft accidents, but it is not the same thing as misconduct or negligence on the part of a pilot that would warrant criminal sanction.

Human life is important, and it deserves the strong protection of the law. But no one should deceive themselves into believing that the protection of human life is universal. Exceptions abound, and there are reasons--good and bad--to support why those exceptions exist. To complain that abortion involves killing a human being (which I readily admit) is not sufficient to distinguish it from all the other ways in which we kill human beings, or allow human beings to die, without legal impediment.

Excuse me...

Not to get off subject, but AngelRho had said that the atmosphere of Venus would cause flesh to melt off....
Well, are we talking like Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom faces melting off here?


-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

THIS.

We may disagree on the extent to which abortion is allowable under the law or should be made available, but we fundamentally otherwise agree. Thank you.

@Kraichgauer: That would be awesome!! ! I'm not a NASA scientist or any other kind of scientist, but I have an intense fascination with astronomy that is at odds with my imbecilic comprehension of mathematics. Nevertheless, there is good evidence that the atmosphere of Venus is composed of sulfuric acid. I'm not one to say whether unicorns live on Venus, but being a planet named for a beautiful goddess, it stands to reason that beautiful women might be able to survive there, particularly Dolly Parton/Cher/Pamela Anderson types along with other silicone-based life forms.

We're talking about sentience and sapience, species non-specific. You asked how I would define sentience, and talked about cells responding to their environment.

As a vegetarian, I take issue with the idea that 'no one' thinks twice about killing animals for food (or for any other reason). I would destroy a million frozen human embryos before I deliberately killed one healthy (born) dog. It's true that we give our own species some preference, but what makes people people is not the mere presence of human genotype, but the presence of human phenotype: we are different from other animals because of our ability to recognize and interact with other humans, and our level of thinking. Even an average child with down's syndrome can think better than than a chimpanzee, and can love and interact with his or her family. a zef can do none of those things until the 3rd trimester.

@91: yes, those arguments tend to appear; what of it? Likewise, the anti-abortion side tends to come up with variations on 'she should have to pay for having sex,' 'it's women's place to have kids,' 'she wouldn't have an abortion if she knew what was really going on,' she was coerced into an abortion,' 'abortion causes depression/disease,' and other denials of adult women's personal agency; or 'it can feel pain,' 'it's a person,' 'it's a baby,''it has a heartbeat,' and other elevations of the zef's status. The fact that we don't feel each other's arguments bear weight does not illigimize those arguments.

I did acknowledge that there are those who would take issue with taking any kind of animal life, and it wasn't my intention to offend vegetarians. My point still stands though, if poorly worded: Humans who eat meat take no issue with destroying a living being for various purposes, be it protection or for food. Humans generally protect human life. There should be no distinction between a developing embryo or a senile old woman.

My initial instinct over your eagerness to destroy frozen human embryos is to overreact as to why you'd prefer to protect non-human life over human life, but honestly I'm ambivalent when it comes to the issue of frozen embryos. The most important issue is that of responsibility. The human body naturally discards embryos and no one ever knows about it. I think that the responsibility for the unborn begins at implantation rather than fertilization because only at that point can an embryo sustain itself. Human life is human life regardless of its stage of development, and thus the "phenotype" argument is false. However, my opinion about frozen embryos is that crosses into what I feel are dangerous unknowns. They cannot sustain themselves outside the womb, beyond a certain point development ends, and thus I'm not sure that we do have a responsibility to protect them. On the other hand, they are still human life forms even if development is halted. So this is something I can't make up my mind about. I'd personally rather err on the side of safety here. As one of my favorite teachers back in the day used to say, "When in doubt, don't." Take that how you will.

We might strongly disapprove of it but we spare the emotional acrobatics typical of the left.


There’s your reality and then there’s our reality. Ours is based on practicality and good horse sense whilst yours is based on wishes, illusion, and naivety....

Really? You spare emotional acrobatics? "Oh heavens don't ever do anything with my money but fund the military! The world is ending! Iran is going to nuke us! We need more bombs!"

The thing is, Republican reality doesn't really... well... work. The philosophy (both sides of guilty of this to an extent) of less tax for the corporations to make more money is utter bull. It's doesn't work, it has never worked, it will never work. And yet it still gets promoted as a good thing. Lowering taxes in general leads to ONE thing, less government revenue, more government debt, and then you end up like America is now, ready to fall so China can take over.

Again, that's YOUR reality.
Nuff said.....

{snip quote nest}

You barely acknowleged the fact, while dismissing those who make that choice as 'no one.'


And those humans have no call to question anyone who kills any being up to and equal to the setience/sapience level of whatever beings they are killing for food, on the grounds of sentience.


Having worked with a lot of senile old people (including my grandfather, before he died), I find this offensive. No zef before the third trimester is worth a little old lady who can laugh and fight and reminisce.


The fact that you disagree with it does not make it false. What I value about humans is the human phenotype, not the human DNA. What makes that phenotype special, in comparison to other species on the planet, is the level of sapience specific to humans alone and the sentience common to all feeling beings. Zefs have neither of these things, and thus I give them very little respect. The reason I would protect the dog rather than the embryos is because the dog can suffer and love, and the embryos cannot.