[Split Thread] Legislation to restrict access to abortion and contraception - Page 3

Caper · 27th May 2012, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

You say that exactly as a racists would say: "no, blacks are not white". Your premise implicitly assumes the conclusion just as much as the racist's premise assumes the conclusion. Your argument relies on special circumstances just like the racist's. For the racist the special circumstance is color of skin. For you it's human genetics. It begs the question in that the premise you are trying to establish is implied in the premise that the brain activity is of that of an organism with human genetics. We are trying to decide if it is human. You simply assume that it is.

I'm not trying to exclude anyone or anything. I'm showing you how and why your argument is inconsistent. Just as it was inconsistent to argue that blacks were not the same as whites and therefore not deserving of rights is just as arbitrary to declare that animals are not the same as people and therefore not deserving of rights. You are special pleading (arguing a special circumstance). Your premise is begging the question. You are inconsistent.

And I'm demonstrating why your argument is inconsistent. You want to arbitrarily use brain activity to justify your bias. According to you brain activity is only meaningful if it's the brain activity of a person (when being human is what we are trying to establish). It also is appealing to a special circumstance (being human).

I'm sorry but your logic has consequences. You are engaging in special pleading. You say brain activity is important but only if it is the brain activity of a human being. That's inconsistent and it is begging the question.

I'm sorry but you really didn't. You are in fact appealing to a special circumstance. You are saying brain activity is important but only if it is the brain activity of a human being. Fallacious.

I'm arguing and you are not addressing my argument. You are automatically gainsaying.

Ok then.... I'm special pleading... strap on the handcuffs and haul me away.

Doesn't change anything though. Hamsters and monkeys aren't people... don't get the rights of people.

I make Special rules for people..... because I'm a people.

Caper · 27th May 2012, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

So when do you draw the line? Viability outside the womb seems like a pretty good place to me, but that keeps getting earlier and earlier in the pregnancy.

His position goes something like this.... if it isn't smarter then a hamster... you can kill it.

Caper · 27th May 2012, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm arguing and you are not addressing my argument. You are automatically gainsaying.

No... I'm throwing it out. I hear what you say.... basically something like ....fetus's can't do what a hamster can... so if you are going to protect a fetus... you must also protect the hamster to be consistent.

I am saying no. No I don't. Hamsters don't apply... because they are hamsters.

You say I am displaying a bias against hamsters.... sure... I'll agree. They are not my species... I have a bias against hamsters.

Sooooo..... if you put an infant and a hamster in a maze... and the hamster gets through the maze and the infant sits at the start of the maze and craps on the maze.... I don't care. It's a hamster.

RandFan · 27th May 2012, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

His position goes something like this.... if it isn't smarter then a hamster... you can kill it.

Caper, you have been cordial in your discussion. Please don't start making straw men argument.

Caper · 27th May 2012, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Caper, you have been cordial in your discussion. Please don't start making straw men argument.

Apologies. It's 2:30 am here in Nova Scotia and I have to work at 7am. I worked an OT night shift and my sleeping patterns are all out of whack.... I'm going to bed.

RandFan · 27th May 2012, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

So when do you draw the line? Viability outside the womb seems like a pretty good place to me, but that keeps getting earlier and earlier in the pregnancy.

I'm fine if it goes all the way to conception. If you can safely remove the zygote or blastocyst without harming the mother and the the zygote or blastocyst can survive then I'm more than happy to go there. Let me know when we get there.

RandFan · 27th May 2012, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

Ok then.... I'm special pleading... strap on the handcuffs and haul me away.

Doesn't change anything though. Hamsters and monkeys aren't people... don't get the rights of people.

I make Special rules for people..... because I'm a people.

Let's see if we can get off this merry-go-round. Can you explain why you think any amount of brain activity confers something special to a fetus?

Quote:

Hamsters don't apply... because they are hamsters.

What would you say to someone who declared that blacks don't apply because they are black?

Caper · 28th May 2012, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

What would you say to someone who declared that blacks don't apply because they are black?

I would say.... you are not getting my vote.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Let's see if we can get off this merry-go-round. Can you explain why you think any amount of brain activity confers something special to a fetus?

Maybe it doesn't. I don't know what your point is. Well I actually, I think I do. You're going to try and get me with the hamster thing again. But that's not going to get us very far. So again. The fact that a hamster is more capable then a 16 week old fetus and a newborn infant means ZERO to me. Nothing. I have already admitted that I am biased against hamsters..... not blacks... but hamsters. Not only that.... I think it is perfectly ok for humans to be biased against hamsters, regardless how fast they can do a maze.

So at the end of the day... you just want to come in and say "well a hamster can do this too", so now you have to demand we save all hamsters to be consistent. I completely and utterly disagree. I see absolutely nothing wrong with choosing the less mentally capable human (infant) over the more capable hamster. That's the merry go round were on and I'm not jumping off to save a hamster.

RandFan · 28th May 2012, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

I would say.... you are not getting my vote.

That's not exactly compelling. We would not have gotten rid of slavery and segregation if we could not persuade with reason and valid argument. Blacks are thinking feeling human beings just as whites are. If whites value their freedom then they ought to realize that blacks also value their freedom and will suffer as a result.

Originally Posted by Caper

Maybe it doesn't. I don't know what your point is. Well I actually, I think I do. You're going to try and get me with the hamster thing again. But that's not going to get us very far. So again. The fact that a hamster is more capable then a 16 week old fetus and a newborn infant means ZERO to me. Nothing. I have already admitted that I am biased against hamsters..... not blacks... but hamsters. Not only that.... I think it is perfectly ok for humans to be biased against hamsters, regardless how fast they can do a maze.

So at the end of the day... you just want to come in and say "well a hamster can do this too", so now you have to demand we save all hamsters to be consistent. I completely and utterly disagree. I see absolutely nothing wrong with choosing the less mentally capable human (infant) over the more capable hamster. That's the merry go round were on and I'm not jumping off to save a hamster.

What you agree or disagree with is not salient to the discussion. Your logic has consequences. Both philosophical and real world. I don't give a damn about hamsters. Many women value their reproductive rights. Before you take those away you ought to have a coherent reason for doing so. A bias in favor of an unthinking organism over that of a thinking and feeling woman simply because a fetus possesses human genes isn't compelling justification. It's special pleading. It's begging the question and it's inconsistent.

Human sperm and ovum are living human cells. I'm sure you wouldn't want the govt to declare that the sperm is protected and therefore they have a say in what you do with your body to save the life of the sperm. I would hope to think think that you would argue that sperm cannot think and feel and therefore do not warrant an intrusion into your life. Right?

So, again, can you explain to me why any brain activity in a fetus would justify taking away a woman's rights?

Dcdrac · 28th May 2012, 06:56 AM

We know what will happen if such legislation is passed, women will go to back street abortionists again and death rates will rocket, they will go to countries where abortion rights are upheld and pay for it there, unless of course the state passes a law making it illegal for pregnant women to travel.....

ponderingturtle · 28th May 2012, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Dessi

Unless you think zygotes are more lifelike than dogs, I'd say you have a glaring contradiction in your ethic which makes your objection to killing "living organisms" completely untenable.

And the dog thing is completely untrue. My dad showed that in Vietnam by proving to the locals by raising a local dog like Americans raise dogs. It was a pet and not like their dogs, even though he just took one of their puppies.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

So, again, can you explain to me why any brain activity in a fetus would justify taking away a woman's rights?

It's not just any brain activity. Not a single neuron firing. But they don't have to have the capacity to think about retirement or complete a maze like a hamster can either.

So somewhere... I don't know let say between 16 and 30 weeks.. a fetus has exhibited enough "brain activity" or enough humanity to exhibit protection from the law. I can't tell you exactly what week that is. For a lot of people, it's viability outside the womb. Which is where in the end... I might be. But not necessarily. Tell you the truth I don't know exactly what week that would be.

I find it compelling what a fetus can do at 16 weeks. Your not impressed, because a hamster can run through a maze. But that's ok.... you're definition of when a fetus deserves protection can be different then mine. Both can be consistent.

Maybe you want to wait to take womens rights away at 30 weeks... maybe at 20... maybe not at all. We can have different opinions and still be logically consistent.

ponderingturtle · 28th May 2012, 07:12 AM

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Here is what people want?

Roboramma · 28th May 2012, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Ok then.... I'm special pleading... strap on the handcuffs and haul me away.

Doesn't change anything though. Hamsters and monkeys aren't people... don't get the rights of people.

I make Special rules for people..... because I'm a people.

People often make special rules for those belonging to the same group as them, because they are part of that group. It's not surprising that you would do so as well, though perhaps having knowledge of history it's somewhat disappointing.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

People often make special rules for those belonging to the same group as them, because they are part of that group. It's not surprising that you would do so as well, though perhaps having knowledge of history it's somewhat disappointing.

Ok... maybe we should grant hamsters voting rights.... you know... because I don't want to repeat any pitfalls throughout history.

Roboramma · 28th May 2012, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Ok... maybe we should grant hamsters voting rights.... you know... because I don't want to repeat any pitfalls throughout history.

There are very good reasons not to grant hamsters voting rights. That they aren't part of your in-group is not one of them.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

There are very good reasons not to grant hamsters voting rights. That they aren't part of your in-group is not one of them.

No... no.. that's the reason.

IchabodPlain · 28th May 2012, 09:16 AM

Even for the non-religious minded, abortion ticks a couple boxes which are uncomfortable (at least for myself) to sit with.

First is what MattusMaximus already stated: Potential. Are fetuses fully competent human beings? No. However, they will be. This is unlike hamsters, watermelons, dogs, cats, etc. Who, when their potential is fully realized, will still not have the reasoning ability or moral agency of a human being. You can't simply take a snapshot of a 9mo. old fetus and say that it's the same as killing a dragonfly. Not equivalent. Attempts to do so from an animal rights perspective or otherwise makes one look a bit sociopathic (IMO). The same goes for the mentally handicapped. Being "robbed" (either genetically, or through behaviors of the expectant mother - think crack baby) of one's potential without any action of one's own doing is a tragedy in itself. But they are still human, albeit with their full potential limited by factors outside their control.

Secondly, it isn't about taxonomic distinctions as it is about sanctity. That killing human beings is wrong in itself, and should be something we, as humans, should not do. That isn't to say a blastula is a human being, but that value is something worthy of weighty consideration. That we should seek to be comfortable in our decisions that we are not killing people by performing abortions.

IchabodPlain · 28th May 2012, 09:25 AM

Also, the analogy to racism is pretty damn weak. Black, white, brown, etc are skin colors, and do not change the basic premise that they are all human. Black people can reason and engage in moral questions, the same as any other human, regardless of skin color. The same cannot be said of hamsters.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Even for the non-religious minded, abortion ticks a couple boxes which are uncomfortable (at least for myself) to sit with.

First is what MattusMaximus already stated: Potential. Are fetuses fully competent human beings? No. However, they will be. This is unlike hamsters, watermelons, dogs, cats, etc. Who, when their potential is fully realized, will still not have the reasoning ability or moral agency of a human being. You can't simply take a snapshot of a 9mo. old fetus and say that it's the same as killing a dragonfly. Not equivalent. Attempts to do so from an animal rights perspective or otherwise makes one look a bit sociopathic (IMO). The same goes for the mentally handicapped. Being "robbed" (either genetically, or through behaviors of the expectant mother - think crack baby) of one's potential without any action of one's own doing is a tragedy in itself. But they are still human, albeit with their full potential limited by factors outside their control.

Secondly, it isn't about taxonomic distinctions as it is about sanctity. That killing human beings is wrong in itself, and should be something we, as humans, should not do. That isn't to say a blastula is a human being, but that value is something worthy of weighty consideration. That we should seek to be comfortable in our decisions that we are not killing people by performing abortions.

I am not sure if your position is the same as mine... partly because I am still not sure what my position is.

But that is an excellent post. 100% agree.

RandFan · 28th May 2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

It's not just any brain activity. Not a single neuron firing. But they don't have to have the capacity to think about retirement or complete a maze like a hamster can either.

So somewhere... I don't know let say between 16 and 30 weeks.. a fetus has exhibited enough "brain activity" or enough humanity to exhibit protection from the law. I can't tell you exactly what week that is. For a lot of people, it's viability outside the womb. Which is where in the end... I might be. But not necessarily. Tell you the truth I don't know exactly what week that would be.

I find it compelling what a fetus can do at 16 weeks. Your not impressed, because a hamster can run through a maze. But that's ok.... you're definition of when a fetus deserves protection can be different then mine. Both can be consistent.

Maybe you want to wait to take womens rights away at 30 weeks... maybe at 20... maybe not at all. We can have different opinions and still be logically consistent.

No. Your position is by definition inconsistent. That's not a slight. But it's not debatable either. You claim that the biological responses from one organism is compelling but not another. There is is a word for that, inconsistent.

We can disagree Caper but I cannot simply pretend that treating two different organisms differently for arbitrary reasons isn't inconsistency.

RandFan · 28th May 2012, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Ok... maybe we should grant hamsters voting rights.... you know... because I don't want to repeat any pitfalls throughout history.

An unborn fetus without self awareness is not capable of making such decisions. You keep equating a fetus prior to viability with a child. They are not the same. And BTW: Children cannot vote because they lack the mental capacity to understand the issues.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

No. Your position is by definition inconsistent. That's not a slight. But it's not debatable either. You claim that the biological responses from one organism is compelling but not another. There is is a word for that, inconsistent.

Oh no. It's perfectly consistent. I don't consider a hamster... because it is a hamster... perfectly 100% consistent.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

An unborn fetus without self awareness is not capable of making such decisions. You keep equating a fetus prior to viability with a child. They are not the same. And BTW: Children cannot vote because they lack the mental capacity to understand the issues.

No they are not. But both may meet my criteria for legal protection... but not hamsters.

AvalonXQ · 28th May 2012, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

No. Your position is by definition inconsistent. That's not a slight. But it's not debatable either.

Sure it is. The debate comes right here:

Quote:

We can disagree Caper but I cannot simply pretend that treating two different organisms differently for arbitrary reasons isn't inconsistency.

It's your assertion that his reasons are "arbitrary" that underlies your assertion that his position is inconsistent.

Treating humans and nonhuman animals differently is certainly not arbitrary.

RandFan · 28th May 2012, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

Oh no. It's perfectly consistent. I don't consider a hamster... because it is a hamster... perfectly 100% consistent.

Racists don't consider blacks because they are black. Your statement is tautological and presumptive. It doesn't establish a proposition beyond your arbitrary beliefs and it doesn't advance the discussion. Can we try to do that? Move the discussion forward? That you are biased in favor of one organism and not the other isn't logically valid argument.

So, there's an argument about brain activity and you have acknowledged that it is in some way important. But you don't say how or why. Could you explain?

Originally Posted by Caper

No they are not. But both may meet my criteria for legal protection... but not hamsters.

And a fetus that is not self aware? Other than special pleading is there any basis for your position?

RandFan · 28th May 2012, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Sure it is.

No it's not. It's a simple statement of fact.

Quote:

It's your assertion that his reasons are "arbitrary"...

Given that organism (A) is identical in function with organism (B) treating one differently for arbitrary reasons is by definition arbitrary.

Quote:

Treating humans and nonhuman animals differently is certainly not arbitrary.

That's either a straw man or it is begging the question. The proposition that we are trying to establish is whether or not a fetus without self awareness is a human being. You are in effect saying, yes, it is a human being because it is a human being. Do you see the problem here?

gnome · 28th May 2012, 12:06 PM

An interesting question as long as we're tackling the logical and scientific issues largely isolated from the religious standpoint.

If it a fertilized egg is worthy of state protection, would it then follow that if we are capable of rescuing fertilized eggs that fail to implant, that we should do so in order to save lives?

Caper · 28th May 2012, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

An interesting question as long as we're tackling the logical and scientific issues largely isolated from the religious standpoint.

If it a fertilized egg is worthy of state protection, would it then follow that if we are capable of rescuing fertilized eggs that fail to implant, that we should do so in order to save lives?

No to the first question... so I don't consider the others.

Well... you may get into some sticky situations in some cases. If a pregnant mothers gets beaten and loses her 3 week old (whatever) and that is of value to her..... then there may be extra punishment and such. But I don't think it's the same thing.

AvalonXQ · 28th May 2012, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The proposition that we are trying to establish is whether or not a fetus without self awareness is a human being.

And it is perfectly reasonable to require, as one of the features necessary for something to fit the definition of "human being", that the organism in question is human.

Pointing out that other creatures may excede the mental capacities of particular human organisms doesn't negate the possibility that those organisms are human beings, or open up the possibility that those other creatures are human beings.

As an easy analogy, consider the term "race car". We may decide that vehicle speed is important in deciding whether or not a vehicle is a race car, or at least we may care that race cars are fast -- that may be one of the reasons we value them. Nonetheless, a Boeing jet airplane is not a "race car" even if it is faster than some (or all) race cars... because it's not a car at all.

RandFan · 28th May 2012, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

And it is perfectly reasonable to require, as one of the features necessary for something to fit the definition of "human being", that the organism in question is human.

Conceded. That in and of itself does not justify calling it a human being. A zygote is human. A zygote is not a human being.

Quote:

Pointing out that other creatures may excede the mental capacities of particular human organisms doesn't negate the possibility that those organisms are human beings, or open up the possibility that those other creatures are human beings.

Entirely irrelevant. Aside from special pleading. What is the basis for protecting a human organism that is not self aware?

Quote:

As an easy analogy, consider the term "race car". We may decide that vehicle speed is important in deciding whether or not a vehicle is a race car, or at least we may care that race cars are fast -- that may be one of the reasons we value them. Nonetheless, a Boeing jet airplane is not a "race car" even if it is faster than some (or all) race cars... because it's not a car at all.

Not relevant. We are trying to establish whether an organism is a human being to warrant protection. It's been conceded that a blastocyst is not a human being. So, human genetics isn't sufficient. What is? You could argue a circulatory system. But circulatory systems are not what make humans unique to warrant rights. Other animals have circulatory systems. Self awareness and moral agency constitute a rational basis for rights. These are not arbitrary and do not require ad hoc special pleading. Self awareness and moral agency are foundational for moral reasoning.

Using simple brain activity as your metric requires special pleading because other forms of life have brain activity.

Q: Is a zygote a human being?
A: No, it has no brain activity.
Q: Is a hamster a human being?
A: No, it has no human genetics.

Your argument is this: human genetics + simple brain activity = a human organism. Thing is, other than resorting to special pleading you can't say why.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Your argument is this: human genetics + simple brain activity = a human organism. Thing is, other than resorting to special pleading you can't say why.

I can say why... It's a hamster.... If that's special pleading.... well then in this case... all hail special pleading!!

RandFan · 28th May 2012, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

I can say why... It's a hamster....

A racist can say why a person is white.

Quote:

If that's special pleading.... well then in this case... all hail special pleading!!

Fallacious is as fallacious does I guess. As long as you understand why special pleading is inconsistent then all power to you my friend.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Not relevant. We are trying to establish whether an organism is a human being to warrant protection. It's been conceded that a blastocyst is not a human being. So, human genetics isn't sufficient. What is? You could argue a circulatory system. But circulatory systems are not what make humans unique to warrant rights. Other animals have circulatory systems. Self awareness and moral agency constitute a rational basis for rights.

And that it's not a hamster. And the reason why hamsters don't get equivalent rights of a human... is because they are hamsters. That's why. It's an absolute perfect reason.... they are hamsters. And that's why it's also really not special pleading. Because not extending human rights to a hamster, because it is a hamster... in an excellent, perfectly accepted reason as to why to not accept the hamster. I categorically reject your assertion that not extending human rights to a hamster because it is hamster is not adequate justification to deny the hamster those rights.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

A racist can say why a person is white.

and the racist would be wrong.... I would be right. Is there a point to this?

RandFan · 28th May 2012, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

And that it's not a hamster. And the reason why hamsters don't get equivalent rights of a human... is because they are hamsters.

The reason why blacks don't get equivalent rights of whites... is because they are not white.

Quote:

That's why. It's an absolute perfect reason....

Uh, no. It's circular logic. That is never perfect nor reasonable.

Quote:

...they are hamsters. And that's why it's also really not special pleading. Because not extending human rights to a hamster, because it is a hamster... in an excellent, perfectly accepted reason as to why to not accept the hamster. I categorically reject your assertion that not extending human rights to a hamster because it is hamster is not adequate justification to deny the hamster those rights.

Just as racists reject the assertion that not extending human rights to blacks because blacks are not whites is adequate justification.

Your logic is circular.

RandFan · 28th May 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

and the racist would be wrong.... I would be right. Is there a point to this?

Whites are white because of the amount of melatonin in the skin is wrong? Really?

Caper · 28th May 2012, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Whites are white because of the amount of melatonin in the skin is wrong? Really?

Oh ok... misread. I guess your post didn't have any point then.

Caper · 28th May 2012, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The reason why blacks don't get equivalent rights of whites... is because they are not white.

Well if that's the platform you are running on, you don't get my vote.

27th May 2012, 10:17 PM	#81
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan You say that exactly as a racists would say: "no, blacks are not white". Your premise implicitly assumes the conclusion just as much as the racist's premise assumes the conclusion. Your argument relies on special circumstances just like the racist's. For the racist the special circumstance is color of skin. For you it's human genetics. It begs the question in that the premise you are trying to establish is implied in the premise that the brain activity is of that of an organism with human genetics. We are trying to decide if it is human. You simply assume that it is. I'm not trying to exclude anyone or anything. I'm showing you how and why your argument is inconsistent. Just as it was inconsistent to argue that blacks were not the same as whites and therefore not deserving of rights is just as arbitrary to declare that animals are not the same as people and therefore not deserving of rights. You are special pleading (arguing a special circumstance). Your premise is begging the question. You are inconsistent. And I'm demonstrating why your argument is inconsistent. You want to arbitrarily use brain activity to justify your bias. According to you brain activity is only meaningful if it's the brain activity of a person (when being human is what we are trying to establish). It also is appealing to a special circumstance (being human). I'm sorry but your logic has consequences. You are engaging in special pleading. You say brain activity is important but only if it is the brain activity of a human being. That's inconsistent and it is begging the question. I'm sorry but you really didn't. You are in fact appealing to a special circumstance. You are saying brain activity is important but only if it is the brain activity of a human being. Fallacious. I'm arguing and you are not addressing my argument. You are automatically gainsaying. Ok then.... I'm special pleading... strap on the handcuffs and haul me away. Doesn't change anything though. Hamsters and monkeys aren't people... don't get the rights of people. I make Special rules for people..... because I'm a people.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

27th May 2012, 10:19 PM	#82
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by Brainster So when do you draw the line? Viability outside the womb seems like a pretty good place to me, but that keeps getting earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. His position goes something like this.... if it isn't smarter then a hamster... you can kill it.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

27th May 2012, 10:26 PM	#83
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm arguing and you are not addressing my argument. You are automatically gainsaying. No... I'm throwing it out. I hear what you say.... basically something like ....fetus's can't do what a hamster can... so if you are going to protect a fetus... you must also protect the hamster to be consistent. I am saying no. No I don't. Hamsters don't apply... because they are hamsters. You say I am displaying a bias against hamsters.... sure... I'll agree. They are not my species... I have a bias against hamsters. Sooooo..... if you put an infant and a hamster in a maze... and the hamster gets through the maze and the infant sits at the start of the maze and craps on the maze.... I don't care. It's a hamster.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Last edited by Caper; 27th May 2012 at 10:28 PM.

27th May 2012, 10:28 PM	#84
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by Caper His position goes something like this.... if it isn't smarter then a hamster... you can kill it. Caper, you have been cordial in your discussion. Please don't start making straw men argument.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

27th May 2012, 10:30 PM	#85
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan Caper, you have been cordial in your discussion. Please don't start making straw men argument. Apologies. It's 2:30 am here in Nova Scotia and I have to work at 7am. I worked an OT night shift and my sleeping patterns are all out of whack.... I'm going to bed.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Last edited by Caper; 27th May 2012 at 10:32 PM.

27th May 2012, 10:31 PM	#86
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by Brainster So when do you draw the line? Viability outside the womb seems like a pretty good place to me, but that keeps getting earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. I'm fine if it goes all the way to conception. If you can safely remove the zygote or blastocyst without harming the mother and the the zygote or blastocyst can survive then I'm more than happy to go there. Let me know when we get there.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

27th May 2012, 10:45 PM	#87
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by Caper Ok then.... I'm special pleading... strap on the handcuffs and haul me away. Doesn't change anything though. Hamsters and monkeys aren't people... don't get the rights of people. I make Special rules for people..... because I'm a people. Let's see if we can get off this merry-go-round. Can you explain why you think any amount of brain activity confers something special to a fetus? Quote: Hamsters don't apply... because they are hamsters. What would you say to someone who declared that blacks don't apply because they are black?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 27th May 2012 at 10:46 PM.

28th May 2012, 03:10 AM	#88
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan What would you say to someone who declared that blacks don't apply because they are black? I would say.... you are not getting my vote.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

28th May 2012, 03:19 AM	#89
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan Let's see if we can get off this merry-go-round. Can you explain why you think any amount of brain activity confers something special to a fetus? Maybe it doesn't. I don't know what your point is. Well I actually, I think I do. You're going to try and get me with the hamster thing again. But that's not going to get us very far. So again. The fact that a hamster is more capable then a 16 week old fetus and a newborn infant means ZERO to me. Nothing. I have already admitted that I am biased against hamsters..... not blacks... but hamsters. Not only that.... I think it is perfectly ok for humans to be biased against hamsters, regardless how fast they can do a maze. So at the end of the day... you just want to come in and say "well a hamster can do this too", so now you have to demand we save all hamsters to be consistent. I completely and utterly disagree. I see absolutely nothing wrong with choosing the less mentally capable human (infant) over the more capable hamster. That's the merry go round were on and I'm not jumping off to save a hamster.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Last edited by Caper; 28th May 2012 at 03:23 AM.

28th May 2012, 05:48 AM	#90
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by Caper I would say.... you are not getting my vote. That's not exactly compelling. We would not have gotten rid of slavery and segregation if we could not persuade with reason and valid argument. Blacks are thinking feeling human beings just as whites are. If whites value their freedom then they ought to realize that blacks also value their freedom and will suffer as a result. Originally Posted by Caper Maybe it doesn't. I don't know what your point is. Well I actually, I think I do. You're going to try and get me with the hamster thing again. But that's not going to get us very far. So again. The fact that a hamster is more capable then a 16 week old fetus and a newborn infant means ZERO to me. Nothing. I have already admitted that I am biased against hamsters..... not blacks... but hamsters. Not only that.... I think it is perfectly ok for humans to be biased against hamsters, regardless how fast they can do a maze. So at the end of the day... you just want to come in and say "well a hamster can do this too", so now you have to demand we save all hamsters to be consistent. I completely and utterly disagree. I see absolutely nothing wrong with choosing the less mentally capable human (infant) over the more capable hamster. That's the merry go round were on and I'm not jumping off to save a hamster. What you agree or disagree with is not salient to the discussion. Your logic has consequences. Both philosophical and real world. I don't give a damn about hamsters. Many women value their reproductive rights. Before you take those away you ought to have a coherent reason for doing so. A bias in favor of an unthinking organism over that of a thinking and feeling woman simply because a fetus possesses human genes isn't compelling justification. It's special pleading. It's begging the question and it's inconsistent. Human sperm and ovum are living human cells. I'm sure you wouldn't want the govt to declare that the sperm is protected and therefore they have a say in what you do with your body to save the life of the sperm. I would hope to think think that you would argue that sperm cannot think and feel and therefore do not warrant an intrusion into your life. Right? So, again, can you explain to me why any brain activity in a fetus would justify taking away a woman's rights?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 28th May 2012 at 06:05 AM.

28th May 2012, 06:56 AM	#91
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,666	We know what will happen if such legislation is passed, women will go to back street abortionists again and death rates will rocket, they will go to countries where abortion rights are upheld and pay for it there, unless of course the state passes a law making it illegal for pregnant women to travel.....
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,666	Last edited by Dcdrac; 28th May 2012 at 08:00 AM.

28th May 2012, 07:05 AM	#92
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by Dessi Unless you think zygotes are more lifelike than dogs, I'd say you have a glaring contradiction in your ethic which makes your objection to killing "living organisms" completely untenable. And the dog thing is completely untrue. My dad showed that in Vietnam by proving to the locals by raising a local dog like Americans raise dogs. It was a pet and not like their dogs, even though he just took one of their puppies.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

28th May 2012, 07:10 AM	#93
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan So, again, can you explain to me why any brain activity in a fetus would justify taking away a woman's rights? It's not just any brain activity. Not a single neuron firing. But they don't have to have the capacity to think about retirement or complete a maze like a hamster can either. So somewhere... I don't know let say between 16 and 30 weeks.. a fetus has exhibited enough "brain activity" or enough humanity to exhibit protection from the law. I can't tell you exactly what week that is. For a lot of people, it's viability outside the womb. Which is where in the end... I might be. But not necessarily. Tell you the truth I don't know exactly what week that would be. I find it compelling what a fetus can do at 16 weeks. Your not impressed, because a hamster can run through a maze. But that's ok.... you're definition of when a fetus deserves protection can be different then mine. Both can be consistent. Maybe you want to wait to take womens rights away at 30 weeks... maybe at 20... maybe not at all. We can have different opinions and still be logically consistent.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

28th May 2012, 07:25 AM	#95
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,094	Originally Posted by Caper Ok then.... I'm special pleading... strap on the handcuffs and haul me away. Doesn't change anything though. Hamsters and monkeys aren't people... don't get the rights of people. I make Special rules for people..... because I'm a people. People often make special rules for those belonging to the same group as them, because they are part of that group. It's not surprising that you would do so as well, though perhaps having knowledge of history it's somewhat disappointing.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

28th May 2012, 07:41 AM	#96
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by Roboramma People often make special rules for those belonging to the same group as them, because they are part of that group. It's not surprising that you would do so as well, though perhaps having knowledge of history it's somewhat disappointing. Ok... maybe we should grant hamsters voting rights.... you know... because I don't want to repeat any pitfalls throughout history.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

28th May 2012, 07:51 AM	#97
Roboramma Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 7,094	Originally Posted by Caper Ok... maybe we should grant hamsters voting rights.... you know... because I don't want to repeat any pitfalls throughout history. There are very good reasons not to grant hamsters voting rights. That they aren't part of your in-group is not one of them.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

28th May 2012, 08:23 AM	#98
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by Roboramma There are very good reasons not to grant hamsters voting rights. That they aren't part of your in-group is not one of them. No... no.. that's the reason.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

28th May 2012, 09:16 AM	#99
IchabodPlain Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,250	Even for the non-religious minded, abortion ticks a couple boxes which are uncomfortable (at least for myself) to sit with. First is what MattusMaximus already stated: Potential. Are fetuses fully competent human beings? No. However, they will be. This is unlike hamsters, watermelons, dogs, cats, etc. Who, when their potential is fully realized, will still not have the reasoning ability or moral agency of a human being. You can't simply take a snapshot of a 9mo. old fetus and say that it's the same as killing a dragonfly. Not equivalent. Attempts to do so from an animal rights perspective or otherwise makes one look a bit sociopathic (IMO). The same goes for the mentally handicapped. Being "robbed" (either genetically, or through behaviors of the expectant mother - think crack baby) of one's potential without any action of one's own doing is a tragedy in itself. But they are still human, albeit with their full potential limited by factors outside their control. Secondly, it isn't about taxonomic distinctions as it is about sanctity. That killing human beings is wrong in itself, and should be something we, as humans, should not do. That isn't to say a blastula is a human being, but that value is something worthy of weighty consideration. That we should seek to be comfortable in our decisions that we are not killing people by performing abortions.
	__________________ ...and with the joy of responsibility comes the burden of obligation. ~ Hank Hill Last edited by IchabodPlain; 28th May 2012 at 09:18 AM.

28th May 2012, 09:25 AM	#100
IchabodPlain Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,250	Also, the analogy to racism is pretty damn weak. Black, white, brown, etc are skin colors, and do not change the basic premise that they are all human. Black people can reason and engage in moral questions, the same as any other human, regardless of skin color. The same cannot be said of hamsters.
	__________________ ...and with the joy of responsibility comes the burden of obligation. ~ Hank Hill

28th May 2012, 09:42 AM	#101
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by IchabodPlain Even for the non-religious minded, abortion ticks a couple boxes which are uncomfortable (at least for myself) to sit with. First is what MattusMaximus already stated: Potential. Are fetuses fully competent human beings? No. However, they will be. This is unlike hamsters, watermelons, dogs, cats, etc. Who, when their potential is fully realized, will still not have the reasoning ability or moral agency of a human being. You can't simply take a snapshot of a 9mo. old fetus and say that it's the same as killing a dragonfly. Not equivalent. Attempts to do so from an animal rights perspective or otherwise makes one look a bit sociopathic (IMO). The same goes for the mentally handicapped. Being "robbed" (either genetically, or through behaviors of the expectant mother - think crack baby) of one's potential without any action of one's own doing is a tragedy in itself. But they are still human, albeit with their full potential limited by factors outside their control. Secondly, it isn't about taxonomic distinctions as it is about sanctity. That killing human beings is wrong in itself, and should be something we, as humans, should not do. That isn't to say a blastula is a human being, but that value is something worthy of weighty consideration. That we should seek to be comfortable in our decisions that we are not killing people by performing abortions. I am not sure if your position is the same as mine... partly because I am still not sure what my position is. But that is an excellent post. 100% agree.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

28th May 2012, 10:26 AM	#102
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by Caper It's not just any brain activity. Not a single neuron firing. But they don't have to have the capacity to think about retirement or complete a maze like a hamster can either. So somewhere... I don't know let say between 16 and 30 weeks.. a fetus has exhibited enough "brain activity" or enough humanity to exhibit protection from the law. I can't tell you exactly what week that is. For a lot of people, it's viability outside the womb. Which is where in the end... I might be. But not necessarily. Tell you the truth I don't know exactly what week that would be. I find it compelling what a fetus can do at 16 weeks. Your not impressed, because a hamster can run through a maze. But that's ok.... you're definition of when a fetus deserves protection can be different then mine. Both can be consistent. Maybe you want to wait to take womens rights away at 30 weeks... maybe at 20... maybe not at all. We can have different opinions and still be logically consistent. No. Your position is by definition inconsistent. That's not a slight. But it's not debatable either. You claim that the biological responses from one organism is compelling but not another. There is is a word for that, inconsistent. We can disagree Caper but I cannot simply pretend that treating two different organisms differently for arbitrary reasons isn't inconsistency.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

28th May 2012, 10:32 AM	#103
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by Caper Ok... maybe we should grant hamsters voting rights.... you know... because I don't want to repeat any pitfalls throughout history. An unborn fetus without self awareness is not capable of making such decisions. You keep equating a fetus prior to viability with a child. They are not the same. And BTW: Children cannot vote because they lack the mental capacity to understand the issues.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

28th May 2012, 10:55 AM	#104
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan No. Your position is by definition inconsistent. That's not a slight. But it's not debatable either. You claim that the biological responses from one organism is compelling but not another. There is is a word for that, inconsistent. Oh no. It's perfectly consistent. I don't consider a hamster... because it is a hamster... perfectly 100% consistent.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

28th May 2012, 10:56 AM	#105
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan An unborn fetus without self awareness is not capable of making such decisions. You keep equating a fetus prior to viability with a child. They are not the same. And BTW: Children cannot vote because they lack the mental capacity to understand the issues. No they are not. But both may meet my criteria for legal protection... but not hamsters.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

28th May 2012, 11:27 AM	#106
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by RandFan No. Your position is by definition inconsistent. That's not a slight. But it's not debatable either. Sure it is. The debate comes right here: Quote: We can disagree Caper but I cannot simply pretend that treating two different organisms differently for arbitrary reasons isn't inconsistency. It's your assertion that his reasons are "arbitrary" that underlies your assertion that his position is inconsistent. Treating humans and nonhuman animals differently is certainly not arbitrary.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

28th May 2012, 11:32 AM	#107
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by Caper Oh no. It's perfectly consistent. I don't consider a hamster... because it is a hamster... perfectly 100% consistent. Racists don't consider blacks because they are black. Your statement is tautological and presumptive. It doesn't establish a proposition beyond your arbitrary beliefs and it doesn't advance the discussion. Can we try to do that? Move the discussion forward? That you are biased in favor of one organism and not the other isn't logically valid argument. So, there's an argument about brain activity and you have acknowledged that it is in some way important. But you don't say how or why. Could you explain? Originally Posted by Caper No they are not. But both may meet my criteria for legal protection... but not hamsters. And a fetus that is not self aware? Other than special pleading is there any basis for your position?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 28th May 2012 at 11:33 AM.

28th May 2012, 11:37 AM	#108
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Sure it is. No it's not. It's a simple statement of fact. Quote: It's your assertion that his reasons are "arbitrary"... Given that organism (A) is identical in function with organism (B) treating one differently for arbitrary reasons is by definition arbitrary. Quote: Treating humans and nonhuman animals differently is certainly not arbitrary. That's either a straw man or it is begging the question. The proposition that we are trying to establish is whether or not a fetus without self awareness is a human being. You are in effect saying, yes, it is a human being because it is a human being. Do you see the problem here?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 28th May 2012 at 12:07 PM.

28th May 2012, 12:06 PM	#109
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	An interesting question as long as we're tackling the logical and scientific issues largely isolated from the religious standpoint. If it a fertilized egg is worthy of state protection, would it then follow that if we are capable of rescuing fertilized eggs that fail to implant, that we should do so in order to save lives?
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

28th May 2012, 12:17 PM	#110
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by gnome An interesting question as long as we're tackling the logical and scientific issues largely isolated from the religious standpoint. If it a fertilized egg is worthy of state protection, would it then follow that if we are capable of rescuing fertilized eggs that fail to implant, that we should do so in order to save lives? No to the first question... so I don't consider the others. Well... you may get into some sticky situations in some cases. If a pregnant mothers gets beaten and loses her 3 week old (whatever) and that is of value to her..... then there may be extra punishment and such. But I don't think it's the same thing.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Last edited by Caper; 28th May 2012 at 12:19 PM.

28th May 2012, 12:17 PM	#111
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by RandFan The proposition that we are trying to establish is whether or not a fetus without self awareness is a human being. And it is perfectly reasonable to require, as one of the features necessary for something to fit the definition of "human being", that the organism in question is human. Pointing out that other creatures may excede the mental capacities of particular human organisms doesn't negate the possibility that those organisms are human beings, or open up the possibility that those other creatures are human beings. As an easy analogy, consider the term "race car". We may decide that vehicle speed is important in deciding whether or not a vehicle is a race car, or at least we may care that race cars are fast -- that may be one of the reasons we value them. Nonetheless, a Boeing jet airplane is not a "race car" even if it is faster than some (or all) race cars... because it's not a car at all.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

28th May 2012, 12:41 PM	#112
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ And it is perfectly reasonable to require, as one of the features necessary for something to fit the definition of "human being", that the organism in question is human. Conceded. That in and of itself does not justify calling it a human being. A zygote is human. A zygote is not a human being. Quote: Pointing out that other creatures may excede the mental capacities of particular human organisms doesn't negate the possibility that those organisms are human beings, or open up the possibility that those other creatures are human beings. Entirely irrelevant. Aside from special pleading. What is the basis for protecting a human organism that is not self aware? Quote: As an easy analogy, consider the term "race car". We may decide that vehicle speed is important in deciding whether or not a vehicle is a race car, or at least we may care that race cars are fast -- that may be one of the reasons we value them. Nonetheless, a Boeing jet airplane is not a "race car" even if it is faster than some (or all) race cars... because it's not a car at all. Not relevant. We are trying to establish whether an organism is a human being to warrant protection. It's been conceded that a blastocyst is not a human being. So, human genetics isn't sufficient. What is? You could argue a circulatory system. But circulatory systems are not what make humans unique to warrant rights. Other animals have circulatory systems. Self awareness and moral agency constitute a rational basis for rights. These are not arbitrary and do not require ad hoc special pleading. Self awareness and moral agency are foundational for moral reasoning. Using simple brain activity as your metric requires special pleading because other forms of life have brain activity. Q: Is a zygote a human being? A: No, it has no brain activity. Q: Is a hamster a human being? A: No, it has no human genetics. Your argument is this: human genetics + simple brain activity = a human organism. Thing is, other than resorting to special pleading you can't say why.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 28th May 2012 at 12:44 PM.

28th May 2012, 12:53 PM	#113
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan Your argument is this: human genetics + simple brain activity = a human organism. Thing is, other than resorting to special pleading you can't say why. I can say why... It's a hamster.... If that's special pleading.... well then in this case... all hail special pleading!!
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

28th May 2012, 01:00 PM	#114
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,128	Originally Posted by Caper I can say why... It's a hamster.... A racist can say why a person is white. Quote: If that's special pleading.... well then in this case... all hail special pleading!! Fallacious is as fallacious does I guess. As long as you understand why special pleading is inconsistent then all power to you my friend.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

28th May 2012, 01:01 PM	#115
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan Not relevant. We are trying to establish whether an organism is a human being to warrant protection. It's been conceded that a blastocyst is not a human being. So, human genetics isn't sufficient. What is? You could argue a circulatory system. But circulatory systems are not what make humans unique to warrant rights. Other animals have circulatory systems. Self awareness and moral agency constitute a rational basis for rights. And that it's not a hamster. And the reason why hamsters don't get equivalent rights of a human... is because they are hamsters. That's why. It's an absolute perfect reason.... they are hamsters. And that's why it's also really not special pleading. Because not extending human rights to a hamster, because it is a hamster... in an excellent, perfectly accepted reason as to why to not accept the hamster. I categorically reject your assertion that not extending human rights to a hamster because it is hamster is not adequate justification to deny the hamster those rights.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

28th May 2012, 01:03 PM	#116
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	Originally Posted by RandFan A racist can say why a person is white. and the racist would be wrong.... I would be right. Is there a point to this?
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946