Page 4 of 5 [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,141
Location: Reading, England

05 Nov 2014, 6:07 pm

Jacoby wrote:

I would describe your views as bigoted and irrational, you respect the all living things except humans? You don't respect human life if you put it on the level of an animal. You call it a clump of cells when this child is clearly alive, of course I care more about human life than I do a pig or an ape.

The first sentence is clearly a straw man, indeed it contradicts what I said about respecting persons. The vast, vast, vast majority of humans are persons, including those who need 24 hour care. The unborn are not. Arguably newborns are not. Some people in the advanced stages of degenerative illness might not be.

You might describe my views as bigoted and irrational. They might be bigoted, but I'd argue not. They're certainly not irrational, because I have provided a rational argument.

Clumps of cells are alive by definition, but few people believe that all clumps of cells must be conserved and if they did they'd be fighting an uphill battle. The cells in your cheeks are dying all the time, they're undoubtedly alive, should you stop chewing or be accused of murder?

You care more about human life than pigs or apes? To some extent that is fair enough, the vast majority of humans are more intelligent than most apes or pigs. It becomes bigoted when you value all humans - specifically embryos - ahead of adult chimpanzees and pigs.

Again, in the past some people chose race as a dividing line. Slave owners thought that black people were less human and less worthy of life. They had no rational reason for thinking this, they just preferred people who were more like them.
Jacoby wrote:

Human life is human life, I dislike this notion of personhood because that implies that some humans aren't people and you could extend that logic to other groups.

Again, this is no more true of my position than it is of your position or the positions of genocidal maniacs. We all feel some life should be protected more than others. Hitler chose race as a dividing line, you choose species, we choose intelligence (and we set a very low threshold which would include practically all humans.

Which is less dangerous: using common descent to decide who has a right to life, or saying "anyone who is aware of their existence has a right to life, no questions asked"?



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

05 Nov 2014, 6:45 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I was conceived out of wedlock, my parents got married largely because of this and had 3 more children. They made their life together because they felt obligated to support their children to the best of their abilities. These are the values I come from and I am thankful for them because I would not exist or at least would of had a much harder life otherwise.


I was born in wedlock. My parents split up when I was four (in retrospect I believe it was because of the difficulties of dealing with an autistic child.) My father never gave my mother any money to support me during my childhood and I rarely saw him. As I have never experienced anything that has made my life worth living, I would have been fine with them aborting me.

My point in relating this is that both stories are irrelevant. These are two stories amid ... I don't know how many people are on the planet now, but it must be an inconceivable number when you try to think of them all individually.

It is the mother's choice alone if she brings another child into the multitudes.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

05 Nov 2014, 7:55 pm

let's pretend that a system exists to use a healthy person's body to support a sick person until the latter gets better. The healthy person would be attached to the sick person, and all of the sick person's bodily functions (eating, defecation, urination, breathing, blood circulation, etc) would become the burden of the healthy person's body. A healthy person could consciously volunteer to take on the burden of caring for the sick person with their body, thus saving a life.

Jacoby, do you think that the healthy person should have the right to change his mind if, after 2 months, he discovers that his family is breaking up? Or hat the burden of eating twice as much in order to support the sick person is harming his own children's ability to eat? That the burden of supporting the sick person, even after he or she is detached, would further impact his children negatively? That having a sick person attached is negatively impacting his ability to work and provide for his family, or to go to school and build a better life for his family?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

05 Nov 2014, 9:04 pm

Quite a few replies so sorry if miss any points you guys want me to answer. I understand that pregnancy as a lot of effects on one's health but as far as dependency goes an infant is even more dependent than an unborn one, there are not many people that consider it okay to kill babies but they do definitely exist. I find the idea quit abhorrent. I shared what I shared because I just wanted you guys to understand where I am coming from, obviously it might not be very relevant or interesting to you but hopefully it will clear up how you see my viewpoint a bit. Do you think I believe what I do because I hate women or think that I am a religious zealot?

@LKL, I don't accept your analogy since that healthy person didn't literally create that sick one. I believe you are obligated to take care of your own, you child will grow and hopefully one day take care you. It doesn't always work out there way but I believe in obligation and responsibility towards one's family at least to the bare minimum of preserving life. I am not perfect person, no one is but doesn't mean you have to fall into the trap of moral relativism. To me, abortion is murder and it's the murder of the most vulnerable and voiceless persons there can be. I can't in good conscious support it even tho I can see why it might the easy or I guess maybe even logical decision based on certain factors, it doesn't matter if one might be better off when you're dealing with a life here.

I believe sanctity of life of human beings, I distinguish us over that of animals but doesn't I put no value on them either. There is a difference and people take precedence but I certainly don't want to see animals be senselessly killed and tortured. The more cognitive the animal the more you can see yourself in it, I watched the documentary 'Blackfish' which really changed my opinion on the subject since you can see that these animals feel and perceive in ways very similarly to people. I don't know if I'd say I necessarily believe in all that entails in the concept of animal rights since they're not analogous with people but I do recognize their are certain boundaries that should be respected, I feel I have a reverence for all living things.



Last edited by Jacoby on 06 Nov 2014, 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

05 Nov 2014, 9:31 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Quite a few replies so sorry if miss any points you guys want me to answer. I understand that pregnancy as a lot of effects on one's health but as far as dependency goes an infant is even more dependent than an unborn one, there are not many people that consider it okay to kill babies but they do definitely exist. I find the idea quit abhorrent. I shared what I shared because I just wanted you guys to understand where I am coming from, obviously it might be very relevant or interesting to you but hopefully it will clear up how you see my viewpoint a bit. Do you think I believe what I do because I hate women or think that I am a religious zealot


It's great that you have embraced these values in your life and it seems to be working for you. But why do you think it is valid to extrapolate from this that everyone should behave in keeping with your beliefs?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

05 Nov 2014, 9:42 pm

androbot01 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Quite a few replies so sorry if miss any points you guys want me to answer. I understand that pregnancy as a lot of effects on one's health but as far as dependency goes an infant is even more dependent than an unborn one, there are not many people that consider it okay to kill babies but they do definitely exist. I find the idea quit abhorrent. I shared what I shared because I just wanted you guys to understand where I am coming from, obviously it might be very relevant or interesting to you but hopefully it will clear up how you see my viewpoint a bit. Do you think I believe what I do because I hate women or think that I am a religious zealot


It's great that you have embraced these values in your life and it seems to be working for you. But why do you think it is valid to extrapolate from this that everyone should behave in keeping with your beliefs?


I don't see it forcing my beliefs or value system on others, I see it as protecting life. I consider myself a libertarian and consider myself pretty cognizant of not infringing on others but protecting our rights is the legitimate function of the state and the right to life being the most basic fundamental of them.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

05 Nov 2014, 10:04 pm

Jacoby wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
It's great that you have embraced these values in your life and it seems to be working for you. But why do you think it is valid to extrapolate from this that everyone should behave in keeping with your beliefs?


I don't see it forcing my beliefs or value system on others, I see it as protecting life. I consider myself a libertarian and consider myself pretty cognizant of not infringing on others but protecting our rights is the legitimate function of the state and the right to life being the most basic fundamental of them.


So am I right to assume that you do support the right to bodily autonomy, but you think the right to life trumps it? Even though there is no way the baby could live outside the womb, it's potential life as a viable human, trumps her bodily autonomy?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

05 Nov 2014, 10:24 pm

androbot01 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
It's great that you have embraced these values in your life and it seems to be working for you. But why do you think it is valid to extrapolate from this that everyone should behave in keeping with your beliefs?


I don't see it forcing my beliefs or value system on others, I see it as protecting life. I consider myself a libertarian and consider myself pretty cognizant of not infringing on others but protecting our rights is the legitimate function of the state and the right to life being the most basic fundamental of them.


So am I right to assume that you do support the right to bodily autonomy, but you think the right to life trumps it? Even though there is no way the baby could live outside the womb, it's potential life as a viable human, trumps her bodily autonomy?


I don't oppose the concept of bodily autonomy, the right to life is the most fundamental right tho yes. Dependency doesn't end at birth, as I said in the previous post an newborn infant is for all intents and purposes more dependent than before birth. Most people in general are dependent on others for survival on some level.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 17,576
Location: I'm right here

05 Nov 2014, 11:49 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Quite a few replies so sorry if miss any points you guys want me to answer. I understand that pregnancy as a lot of effects on one's health but as far as dependency goes an infant is even more dependent than an unborn one, there are not many people that consider it okay to kill babies but they do definitely exist. I find the idea quit abhorrent. I shared what I shared because I just wanted you guys to understand where I am coming from, obviously it might not be very relevant or interesting to you but hopefully it will clear up how you see my viewpoint a bit. Do you think I believe what I do because I hate women or think that I am a religious zealot?


I'm uncertain your motivations, you haven't used devolved into the open slut-shaming that usually accompanies the she had sex, she deserves to be punished with an unwanted pregnancy argument. Whether that's because you reject that logic or just are choosing to be careful with your words can't really be determined. Not all anti-choicers adopt the position due to religious views and you haven't mentioned 'God' among your reasons so I never made any assumptions as to your religious views.

Whether or not you believe yourself to hate women you are, in effect, making their interests subservient to those of an unwanted entity occupying their bodies. This can't be described as anything but anti-woman whether or not it's consciously motivated by misogyny. You don't have to be a rabid woman-hater to take a position that dehumanizes women. Allowing the state to overrule their interest in their own body by forcing them to allow another being to use their body against their will can't possibly avoid dehumanizing those effected.

No person under any circumstances would have rights similar to those you propose a fetus has; the right, in effect, to enslave the owner of the body hosting it until the pregnancy reaches term or naturally miscarries.

I believe you're entitled to use lethal force to resist someone attempting to enslave you if required.

Jacoby wrote:
I believe sanctity of life of human beings, I distinguish us over that of animals but doesn't I put no value on them either. There is a difference and people take precedence but I certainly don't want to see animals be senselessly killed and tortured. The cognitive the animal to more you can see yourself in it, I watched the documentary 'Blackfish' which really changed my opinion on the subject since you can see that these animals feel and perceive in ways very similarly to people. I don't know if I'd say I necessarily believe in all that entails in the concept of animal rights since they're not analogous with people but I do recognize their are certain boundaries that should be respected, I feel have a reverence for all living things.


People use the animal analogy to try to demonstrate the differences in intellectual ability and self-awareness between a fetus and born humans, but a more reasonable analogy is to the HeLa culture. HeLa is undeniably human tissue. HeLa is undeniably an independent entity from all other living humans. HeLa is undeniably a non-person. An embryo or early stage fetus is much more comparable to HeLa than to a newborn baby.

Unrelated, when I went to elementary school my elementary school was a Catholic school. I was brainwashed into accepting the anti-choice position and understand their arguments and reasoning inside and out. They ignore the question of autonomy by arguing your body belongs to God. Since I've never really believed in the concept of deities this was never a sound argument to me, even when I accepted their conclusions. When I was 16 I had a girlfriend who had become pregnant at the age of 11. Clearly an abortion was required. The girl was tormented mercilessly for the rest of her elementary and high school career until she left the province upon graduation. She'd be tormented by people screaming 'baby killer' or slut-shaming her. They made her life miserable. All of a sudden I saw the end result of anti-choice beliefs, they elevate the value of an unwanted pregnancy over the value of the person carrying it. I've held essentially the same views I hold now since then.

If you sincerely accept the concept of bodily autonomy and believe the woman has at least an equal degree of ownership over her body as the fetus does, there's only one morally sound stance to take on the position of the legality of abortion.

Jacoby wrote:
I don't oppose the concept of bodily autonomy, the right to life is the most fundamental right tho yes. Dependency doesn't end at birth, as I said in the previous post an newborn infant is for all intents and purposes more dependent than before birth. Most people in general are dependent on others for survival on some level.


The nature of the dependency changes at birth. Born children occupy no one's body. The two are not directly analogous.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,141
Location: Reading, England

06 Nov 2014, 8:00 am

Jacoby wrote:
I believe sanctity of life of human beings, I distinguish us over that of animals but doesn't I put no value on them either. There is a difference and people take precedence but I certainly don't want to see animals be senselessly killed and tortured. The cognitive the animal to more you can see yourself in it, I watched the documentary 'Blackfish' which really changed my opinion on the subject since you can see that these animals feel and perceive in ways very similarly to people. I don't know if I'd say I necessarily believe in all that entails in the concept of animal rights since they're not analogous with people but I do recognize their are certain boundaries that should be respected, I feel have a reverence for all living things.

Sure thing :)

I strongly believe cognitive function is more important than common descent. I think killing a human is wrong because we want to stay alive so very much, we make plans for our future, we have an awareness of our continuing future. But it's the humanity that is important, not the human DNA. The unborn do not have humanity.

I do think basing the value of life on common descent is immoral and irrational, and once you get away from common descent there isn't any reason to value an embryo above bacteria, or a foetus above a chicken. I'm clearly not going to convince you though.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,715

06 Nov 2014, 12:05 pm

It CAN be amusing AT TIMES to watch human beings pontificate, yes pontificate, their dominance among other animals simply because they have abilities to talk AND WRITE.

Truly complex language and cognitive empathy is all that separates HUMANS from other animals and is the core basis for HUMAN'S complex written languages and cultures, along with religions that say humans have a RIGHT to dominate all other animals and the earth that holds those animals lives.

The truth is all things are connected and when imbalances in the interdependent relationship of all things, aka GOD come, bad things happen.

It's not hard to see that, at least from 'mid-space' traveling back from the moon, seeing how the imbalance of strength in the virus of human cultures, which are NOT virus as human alone, are a cancer on this earth, and this is not by purview of fundamentalist religious folks, this is by purview of scientists and astronauts the same.

Many fundamentalist religious folks find joy in raping and pillaging the earth THAT is our home and lifeblood TOO.

In the big scheme of things, abortion is truly a blessing to GOD, nah, not the made up GOD of man, the TRUE GOD of Mother Nature that only holds balance and survival in 'esteem'. That's just a metaphor by the way, GOD is not man, alone, with anthropomorphic feelings alone, obviously, it would seem, for folks with eyes and ears, that CAN see and hear THAT.

So in reality per the balance of all there is, a bacterium, a fetus, or an Einstein all hold the same value for balance and life.

There are no differences in life, but life.

Killing a cat, a human, a HUMAN FETUS, or an ant tilling the soil for plants, is no different in the big scheme of things of Mother Nature True aka GOD.

But truly humans are out of control, so abortion, is just another one of Mother Nature's true tools to take care of Mother Nature True's 'sense' of balance.

Balance is truth.

Everything, and I do mean everything else, that humans have illusions for are just that:

Illusion and:

Blabbering Pontification, including me of course, as no animal is excluded in True Mother Nature's
"Children's" ignorance of simply how IT ALL works together as ONE.

There are enough humans, more than enough, but humans have empathy, and 'real' humans per the empathic type do not 'NORMALLY' want to see a fetus killed as a fetus is a human, and no other species, and that is just Zoology 101.

Only humans are 'smart' enough to put qualifications on the VALUE of their own species or other species based on intelligence, and characteristics like talking and seeing oneself in the mirror as self.

That part is what leads to the cancer of culture destroying the earth and other species in a slow and tortuous death, not the empathy part, alone, that all social animals share to some degree, as what we describe as humanity as an empathic species, not the other stuff alone.

In much smaller human groups where resources are abundant enough, and sharing not collecting is key for survival, the child is the prize, not the virus. The cooperation of people, not technology, moreover, is what makes survival possible. Nor is culture a virus either, when in balance with Mother Nature True aka GOD. Those are the TRULY SMART HUMANS, the ones who SIMPLY LIVE in BALANCE.

The meek WILL INHERIT the earth, per balance, that part never changes.

Ask a roach OR DRAGONFLY, and IT won't have to give you the answer. ITs mere existence IS the answer:

Survival in balance.

So far roaches AND DRAGONFLIES are truly smarter than humans as far as the most important skill of life, survival goes.

Will humans last as long as roaches OR DRAGONFLIES:

Certainly NOT LIKELY, when viewed from 'mid-space', per the BIG PICTURE VIEW.

But ROACHES and dragonflies are humble enough, to likely still, inherit the earth.

So go-ahead step on them, OR SWAT THEM, they already have a 'plan'.

Meanwhile humans pontificate on whether it is right or wrong to kill their own.

But GOD already knows better, Mother Nature TRUE 'says', go ahead, please do ABORT, you are making problems here and ARE WEARING OUT YOUR WELCOME.

THAT PART IS CLEAR TO SEE FROM 'MID-SPACE' FOR SURE.

ARE HUMANS SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE THAT PART OUT:

I HOPE they are as an idealist, but as a realist, again, the answer is growing clearer from 'Mid-Space', and once again that's for sure:

OUR SURVIVAL AS ANIMALS/HUMANS, FETUS OR NOT, IS LARGELY UP TO US, AT THIS POINT, AT LEAST.

IT'S as simple as BALANCE, but WE MAKE IT SO DAM HARD TO DO.

All in JUST my opinion, of course, with a BIG TOOTHY GRIN, why not...:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Nov 2014, 11:32 pm

Jacoby wrote:
...as far as dependency goes an infant is even more dependent than an unborn one...

This is not correcct for two important reasons: first, an infant is breathing on its own, digesting on its own, circulating blood on its own, etc. It does not constantly require the equivalent of a heart/lung machine in order to survive. Second, an infant is transferable, weras a zef is not. The work of caring for an infant can be spread across many people, while a zef can only be cared for by one.

Quote:
@LKL, I don't accept your analogy since that healthy person didn't literally create that sick one.

What about adoption?
Wrt. the analogy, what if the two individuals were in fact related by blood? What if it was a father and son?
Quote:
it's the murder of the most vulnerable and voiceless persons there can be. I can't in good conscious support it even tho I can see why it might the easy or I guess maybe even logical decision based on certain factors, it doesn't matter if one might be better off when you're dealing with a life here.

How do you define 'person,' and why does it matter whether it's alive? As Aghogday points out, lots of living chickens are killed every day and we don't bat an eye, and those chickens probably felt more fear and pain than the 90% or more of embryos that are aborted in the first trimester.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

07 Nov 2014, 5:05 am

If people want fewer abortions, a better policy would be to educate people, lift them out of povery and make sure everyone has access to contraception. People mostly base their position on abortion along religious lines anyway. The debate gets resolved when the majority of people are no longer religious.



anthropic_principle
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 23 Jul 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 300

07 Nov 2014, 6:42 am

Being pro-life is being against the ACTIVE killing of human life in the form of a fetus (murder).
I'm not murdering anyone by keeping my organs to myself.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,141
Location: Reading, England

07 Nov 2014, 8:21 am

anthropic_principle wrote:
Being pro-life is being against the ACTIVE killing of human life in the form of a fetus (murder).
I'm not murdering anyone by keeping my organs to myself.

Then assume you wake up and find yourself attached to another person. Disconnecting will kill them. Do you have a duty to remain attached, no matter how much you are inconvenienced?



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Nov 2014, 10:47 pm

Conservatives believe that the abortion problem can be solved by building more prisons. The real solution is too make abortion obsolete. In the future
If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy she has the fetus transplanted into an artificial womb.