Imagine the benefits: Two squawking heads on one fat body. This would require removing Olbermann's head (don't worry, he won't miss it) and implanting it on Chris Matthews, next to his existing head, since his body is fatter and therefore more capable of surviving the procedure and hosting the newly implanted noggin.
Science can do this! So why not? Answer: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Planned Parenthood founder and unabashed racist Margaret Sanger is proof of that.
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda GordonIf this racist eugenicist had had her way, a President Barack Obama would not have been possible. Regardless, the caring, benevolent, intellectually superior Democratic party continues to support the morbid organization she founded.
Robert George and Eric Cohen have written a short critique on the ethical issues surrounding President Obama's stem cell policy:
The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science. It is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity.For those who believe in the highest ideals of deliberative democracy, and those who believe we mistreat the most vulnerable human lives at our own moral peril, Mr. Obama's claim of "taking politics out of science" should be lamented, not celebrated.
They also shine the light on another fact left out of the swooning press accounts of President Obama delivering us out of the Bushian Dark Ages and back into the enlightened age of Science:
Inexplicably -- apart from political motivations -- Mr. Obama revoked not only the Bush restrictions on embryo destructive research funding, but also the 2007 executive order that encourages the National Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem cells.There have been promising advances in the non-embryo-destructive area, but liberals are uninterested. Meanwhile, the only thing the vaunted embryo-destroying stem cells have done lately is cause brain and spinal tumors. But we can't let that get in the way of a feel-good news story about the destruction of human life.
Yes, science is capable of many things. No matter how entertaining the thought of an Al FrankenMoore's Monster may be, or a million man conservative army of Ted Nugent and Chuck Norris clones, led by a staff of General Ronald Reagan clones, some things are better left alone.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664280083277765.html
http://newsok.com/more-hype-than-promise-in-stem-cell-policy-switch/article/3351820
http://health.usnews.com/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/03/04/why-embryonic-stem-cells-are-obsolete.html
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/stemcelltumor.html
http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
47 comments:
Nancy Reagan actually supports this, and it's not exactly equivical to cloning for head transplanting. It's something scientists do to help cure diseases (save lives). If any party is inethical in all of this...?
or* head transplanting.
This is one of the stupidest non-issues you've ever brought up.
So, if we could save ten lives by killing you, that would be okay then, eh?
After all, it's the same thing isn't it? I'm just moving the cutoff date a little further to the right.
The reasoning that it is acceptable to kill a gestationally 3 month old can just as easily be applied to a 3 month old... after all, it lacks the intellectual and emotional developmental qualities that make it human doesn't it? It doesn't reason or talk does it? Does it dream? At what developmental age do dreams start? Feeling? Emotions?
If suddenly we discovered a cure for cancer in some unknown cell structure in two-month old brains, that would provide enough "medicine" to cure three people would it then be acceptable to harvest them? I mean... it would be saving lives and all.
Abortion with or without religion is morally and ethically wrong. You can not define a specific point at which an embryo suddenly and magically becomes a human being. You stand side by side on the same moral ground as Dr Joseph Mengele. The fact is that the vast majority of embryos, if not killed will become human beings... how many Einsteins, Ghandis, and Obama's have we killed?
You're comparing Obama and Einstein to piles of goo?
It's not the same thing. One is a full grown person, the other are piles of goo.
3 month old could be killed (ethically) speaking. Aquinas thought that humans did not become ensouled until well after birth.
Just because you can't point to a specific date at which an embryo becomes a human (well after it's finished being an embryo) that doesn't mean that all embryos should always be treated like humans.
I don't know exactly when my shift started. Does that mean I shouldn't be paid for the whole day I worked.
I would say that until there is definate consciousness, it's okay to abort on it. Whether it's in the womb or not is irrelevant. You might not like it, but there is no such ethical objection to my reasoning.
It would be okay to kill me if ten lives could be saved. I'd consider that a nobel reason to die. That's aside from the point though. Abortion isn't murder.
This is such a ridiculous issue. Like gay marriage. I don't so much mind the fiscal-conservatism, but these social issues are, first off, anti-libertarian, and more importantly, stupid, non-issues.
CP: You've completely ignored the eugenics angle. You (like a Dem apologists) also avert your eyes from Dem obscurantism (non-embryonic stem cell advances).
Stem cells is the surface issue, what is ethical and how should we proceed is the real issue. Just because the President says so doesn't make it right.
Look below the surface! You must be a CNN watcher...
I ignored the eugenics angle because it's completely irrelevant to the issue. Advances in non-embryonic stem-cell research is not a reason not to proceed with other types of stem-cell research, and the ethical issue is only relevant for crazy Christians like yourself.
CP: Nothing personal, but people who think like you filled the ranks of the useful idiots that followed Hitler and every other fascist movement from Asia to the Middle East to Europe over the centuries. For a philosopher, you sure are full of reflexive, non-thinking a priori.
Steve Chapman explains it better than I ever could:
"But one person's dogma is another one's ethical imperative or moral principle. Science can tell us how to build a nuclear weapon. But science can't tell us whether we should use it.
Just because research may be useful in combating disease doesn't mean it's ethically acceptable. The infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment -- in which the federal Public Health Service secretly withheld treatment from infected black men to learn more about the disease -- might have yielded valuable data. But no scientific discovery could possibly have justified it."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/stem_cells_are_not_just_about.html
Can you answer this with a statement that is not intellectually vapid, but actually substantive?
Funny that the Christian right in Germany was among the first organizations to support Hitler, and that abortion has nothing to do with eugenics, but moving on...
There are a lot of bio-ethical questions that are valid and reasonable e.g. is utility of one FULL-GROWN person dieing enough reason to allow them to die?
I know that abortion is an issue to you. All I'm saying is that you're wrong. It's not an issue. You and Finntann compare embryos to full grown people, e.g. Einstein. This is absurd. When a being has about as much life as a tadpole, to compare it ot a human, and the taking of its life to murder is absurd.
Building nuclear power-plants, cloning, etc... these are issues where technology has to come into contact with morality. Abortion and stem-cell research are not at all the same. Chernobyl produced 4000 extra cancer cases to those within close proximity to it. Stem-cell research has resulted in the death of innumerable piles of goo.
There's a difference.
You compare pro-choicers (libertarians) to eugenic supporters and my statements are intellectually vapid??? Ha!
So far I've explained why both abortion and stem-cell research are ethical non-issues, and you have yet to respond with anything except telling me that what I think it dogma is a moral imperative to you. I don't care. You're wrong!
I don't want the president to hault science because you have a crazy christian concern about something stupid. Perhaps evolutionary biologists should be funded equally to creatio scientists as well?
Plus, Nancy Reagan supports stem-cell research. Apparently some Christians can get over some of their irrationality, some of the time.
Oh, Nancy Reagan is for it??? Then so am I!!!!!
How immature. I can't believe you used that line of reasoning twice.
You have explained Nothing, especially not the difference between embryonic research, abortion and cloning.
Also, you are wrong again: Bush did not halt stem cell research, he halted government funding for all but the preexisting lines. This research went on all through the Bush years.
If creating and destroying embryos is OK, why not cloning?
Margaret Sanger, a "progressive" and a racist eugenicist, started Planned Parenthood, an organization that supports itself with for-profit abortions. That is the Democratic Holy Temple.
Do some research instead of merely ingesting liberal garbage propaganda! I'm tired of spoon feeding you.
Well, I mean, wrong again. I'm for cloning, actually. I don't care if a eugenic started an organization. I'm for abortions, not for-profit abortions.
Also, the fact that some Christians, e.g. Aquinas, Reagan, etc... support this is a sign that even in your own religious cult you're dragging your feet. However that was not the crux of my argument.
Why don't you respond to that by the way?
Embryos are piles of goo. Killing them is not the same as killing a full-grown person.
I never said Bush halted stem-cell research. I never even mentiond Bush???
The difference between cloning, embryonic stem cell research and abortion is self evident. They're distinct medical procedures. The ethical difference is that cloning creates human life and abortion and stem cell research destroy potential human life.
Condoms destroy potential human life as well. Just because there is no clear line between human and non-human when it comes to this doesn't mean it should be pushed back all the way.
What liberal propaganda? You're the one coming out with arguments that mirror Rush and O'Reilly's.
Nancy Reagan has come out in support of the research. USA President Reagan was against abortion and beleived that life began at conception. These is no distortion of those facts.
Now, since this is USA politics and canadian then it would be my conclusion it is none of your damn business. Just like Canadian Politics is none of my damn business. I stay down here and you stay up there. OK Idiot?
CP... you are an intellectual midget. At no point, other than when I pointed out that religion was completely irrelevant to the argument, did any one mention God, the Bible, Christianity, or any other religious basis in defense or support of their argument.
You, lacking a rationale argument fall back on calling developing humans "goo" and anyone who oposes their termination "Crazy Christians". For someone who wants to be free of the encumbrances of religion, you resort to it an awful lot in the defense of your arguments.
Here is an interesting argument for you: If someone assaults a pregnant woman, resulting in miscarriage they can be charged with murder...yet if the woman or her doctors actions result in it they can not? You can't cut it both ways, it's either murder or its not. It's either a human being or it's not. And you have not presented any credible evidence supporting your position that an embryo is not human other than to refer to it as "goo".
And by the way, abortion is not a libertarian position... libertarians believe that there should not be victimless crimes, there is a victim in the case of abortion, the unborn human being.
I have never been a complete opponent of abortion, but believe it should be extremely limited.
I don't want to suffer the consequences of my promiscuous behavior is not justification to take a life. It is a banal and sophmoric argument, and last time I checked libertarians were firm advocates of personal responsibility.
Want to argue for abortion rights? Present a rational and intellectual argument as the basis for your defense. Don't resort to dismissive rhetoric, name calling, and holding up Nancy Reagan as the be all and end all of moral judgement... it's absurd.
~Finntann~
"Just because you can't point to a specific date at which an embryo becomes a human (well after it's finished being an embryo) that doesn't mean that all embryos should always be treated like humans."
There are a lot more arguments you have yet to address as well. Thing is, you're the one who has to show that embryos are deserving of the respect we bestow humans. You have not. That you think they're humans is not good enough.
Also, I never mentioned promiscuous behaviour. Aside from which it is irrelevant. Should people not be allowed to patch up drywall they left holes in?
If someone assaults a women and it results in a miscarriage for her they should be charged harshly, but not for murder.
Also, it's not dismissive to refer to goo as goo. It is GOO! Have you seen an embryo? Especially at the early stages. It's a mash up of dna and a bunch of other things that make up GOO! How would you describe the goo as "Bob".
Explain why you think embryos fetuses, etc... deserve to have human rights, and then I'll refute it. Your argument that there is no exact point when an embryo becomes a human was dealt with.
Do you have any other arguments, or should I just mind my own business up here in Canada?
CP: Your appear incapable of addressing the issue at hand.
This piece I wrote does not make a moral pronouncement. It addresses a moral issue and critiques the press and the Obama worshipers for rushing stupidly towards an action without stopping to consider the consequences.
This is a question of medical ethics. Let me know if the words I'm using are too big. I wrote it to spur intelligent debate, not to entertain turgid, incoherent rants against everything religious or conservative.
So stop with the Nancy Reagan, globs of goo, and feeble attempts to put Ronald Reagan and Thomas Aquinis, Thomas Aquinas! on your side. Reagan was anti-abortion and Aquinas was NOT pro-abortion.
http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm
You are either ignorant of these facts or you are deliberately being intellectually dishonest. You're credibility is shot with me. And this has nothing to do with my disagreeing with your positions. It has everything to do with the poor way you express them while immaturely deprecating the reasoned opinions of others.
Once again, this was a critique of a political decision that raises moral and medical ethics questions. This same blitheness has led to eugenics (which has abortion and forced sterilization as its cornerstones) and final solutions.
On a more practical level, China's (and Europe's) young-to-old ratio will soon be financially untenable with too few workers supporting too many old people. And who will care for the elderly? Also, China's male to female ratio is way out of whack; too many young men, which could cause some social problems of regional and maybe global consequence. All because of the one child policy, enforced by abortion and sterilization. China is backing off that policy now, but the imbalance is still there.
Enlightened Europe will be a Muslim continent in two generations, ushering in a new dark ages, all because Europeans won't breed.
This issue has moral and practical consequences because it says much about who we are as a people.
You're right, I didn't address the eugenic problem or the muslims taking over Europe problem. Wonder why?
Aquinas and Augustine were pro-choice. Look it up:
http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm
"In the fifth century a.d., St. Augustine expressed the mainstream view that early abortion required penance only for sexual sin. Eight centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas agreed, saying abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was "ensouled," and ensoulment, he was sure, occurred well after conception. The position that abortion is a serious sin akin to murder and is grounds for excommunication only became established 150 years ago."
But that's aside from the point. The issue of eugenics as a modern problem the world faces is silly.
Abortion can be forced unto people, but as a choice it does not promote eugenics.
What moral consequences? There simply are none. The pragmatic consequences sound like something a 9/11 truffer came up with.
Day 1 a simple DNA test will confirm its humanity.
By three weeks it has a recognizable shape.
By eight weeks it is recognizably human with eyelids, fingernails, heart, lungs, brain, fingers and toes...
After eight weeks it is fully formed and further development is by growth in size.
By all methods of scientific inquiry at all stages of development and within hours of conception, it can be factually demonstrated to be a human being.
You wanted to talk condoms earlier? Sperm is demonstrably not human as it is missing half of the requisite DNA, same for the egg. A blastocyte however contains the full ensemble of DNA that it will carry throughout it's life.
It is also, in most cases, barring outside interference, a fully viable human organism, meaning if unmolested will develop into a fully functioning human being.
You rationalize abortion the same way clansmen rationlized lynching blacks...emotionally. It is "not" human it's subhuman, it is just "goo", it is not my equal intellectually or physically, it is inferior. Despite it's readily demonstrable potential...leave it alone and it will grow into a fully functioning member of our species. 1-week, 1-year, 10-years, 50-years, 100-years... it's all irrelevant, it is a human being.
It may not be as large as you, as intelligent as you, as educated as you... but it can become so, or more so.
Let me posit this: Were there a genetic marker test for Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis...should parents be allowed to thus abort the fetus? A fetus that will eventually lose muscle strength? Develop twitches, atrophy, lose all voluntary neuro-muscular control. Whose frontal lobes will eventually degenerate as his brain turns to "goo" from front to back? A condition for which there is no treatment, a condition which will ultimately require intensive supportive care?
Are you willing to do without the physicist Stephen Hawking or the baseball player, Lou Gehrig? Should we have murdered the philosopher Franz Rosenzweig? American Vice-President Henry Wallace? Mathematician Fokko du Cloux? Writer Roberto Fontanarrosa? Or perhaps Jon Stone, the creator of "Sesame Street"?
Ponder that for awhile.
Looking like a human makes something a human (scientifically!).
That's not factual demonstration of being a human being!
This doesn't have to do with intelligence or race. This has to do with consciousness. Fetuses don't know they exist.
I'm not going the play a "what if..." game with you. You could use that argument against masterbating and wasting sperm as well. Why don't we all make babies all day? How many Einsteins have we been losing?
"It is also, in most cases, barring outside interference, a fully viable human organism, meaning if unmolested will develop into a fully functioning human being."
So you're admitting it isn't human as a fetus. Having eyes and ears does not make something human.
Your arguments are non-sequitars.
A DNA test doesn't confirm that an embryo deserves human rights! That we might potentially be aborting Hawkings is not a logical argument!
My rationalization is not the same as a clansmens. It's just not. Blacks are conscious. So are jews so you don't call me a nazi later on.
Sure... ignore DNA evidence, it's inconvenient, ignore potential, ignore biology. It looks funny, must not be human. Just throw the friggin white hood over your head and be done with it... that is if those nice folks in white hoods will accept you as fully human.
Rationalization of immoral action is a long and dangerous road, just remember, the knife cuts 'both' ways.
You are the one positing that the thing that will grow and eventually emerge from my wifes loins is not human... you f'ing prove it. And don't try trite arguments like "it doesnt think"... because you can't even scientifically demonstrate how you think, feel, or experience... all you can do is point to electrical activity within your brain and say "See!", and to be honest, I haven't really seen much evidence of thought in your argument anyways.
Cheers!
I explained why my argument are dintinct from clan arguements and why abortion is not immoral, so I'm not worried about the knife cutting both ways.
I'm no ignoring DNA evidence. It is irrelevant to deserving human rights. Potential (so does my sperm). Biology (looking like a human being is not biological evidence for deserving human rights.).
You want me to PROVE a negative?! I can't. It's impossible. If you don't believe that embryos have no consciousness despite contrary evidence... what can I say?
Also, embryos are completely dependent on the women. If she kills herself is that really homicide as well? It's not. There is one human, and a fetus that could have BECOME a human.
Also, Silverfiddle, the link you used doesn't say anything about aquinas being pro-life.
Oh...and how do you know it's not conscious? It responds to stimuli, it will turn towards sound. It moves, startles, and there is even scientific evidence that it experiences REM periods while asleep.
The scientific evidence seems stacked against you... you simply allege that it is not human without a single shred of proof.
CP: you are intellectually dishonest or ignorant. Aquinas was not addressing abortion, the "evidence" is only tangential.
St. Augustine lived 1800 years ago. Understanding of medicine and even humanity were not the same as they are today. You have dishonestly tore something from its context and used it as a thin tissue to cover your ignorance and inability to address the issue.
You ignore what contradicts that which you are against and you use your own opinions as a yardstick. Are you sure you're not the accidental product of a union between Nietzsche and Sarte?
What contrary evidence? The fact that you say so? I have seen plenty of evidence in favor of consciousness.
You want to qualify consciousness? That's a real dangerous road... who get's to set the limits? You? Me? Obama and his cronies? I can't carry on a conversation with a three month old... all he does is eat, shit, pee, puke, and wiggle around a bit... is he human? My cat demonstrates more higher level emotional and intellectual activity than a three-month old. The difference is my cat doesn't have potential to be any more than a cat.
The guy in the coma who demonstrates no higher level brain activity isn't human? What about if he wakes up seven years later? Did he have a "non-human" period?
If a thirty year old siamese twin shoots himself in the head, and his twin bleeds out and dies too... is he guilty of murder? What about the mother who drowns her infant in a frigging bathtub? What's the difference? Inside the uterus, outside the uterus... it's still half her DNA...what if she wants her half back?
Inside or outside the uterus is irrelevant. A 3 month old does not deserve human rights either.
Responding to stimuli doesn't make something conscious. Higher level brain activity, awareness of its surroundings, etc... those are qualifiers for consciousness.
I don't know what you mean by the twin analogy. Did the twin shoot both himself and the other twin?
Also, a person in a coma was a person. An embryo never was.
Silverfiddle, I don't care that it was a long time ago, Aquinas and Augustine were pro-choice. Doesn't matter, but I just thought I'd bring it up.
It would seem to me that turning towards a sound would demonstrate to you an awareness of surroundings.
By the twin analogy, I am pointing out that siamese twins, much like a developing baby and it's mother share a common circulatory system. If one twin decides to kill himself and his actions also cause the death of his twin.... has he comitted murder? I mean... He only blew his own brains out... didn't he? (presuming he in no way directly injured his twin, other than through their common circulatory system).
Being previously a person is relevant? Obviously you don't believe in reincarnation...roflmao.
Interesting perspective... three month old's are not entitled to human rights? What if it's your three month old, and I don't like listening to it's wailing in a restaurant...can I kill it? Should I be charged with murder? Or just fined for destroying your personal property?
So at what age does a human qualify for rights?
I've known people (and no, they were not my friends, and fortunately there weren't that many) who wouldn't consider you human... what makes your argument any more rational than theirs.
"" Canadian Pragmatist said...
Inside or outside the uterus is irrelevant. A 3 month old does not deserve human rights either""
Just....Wow.
Canadian pragmatist dishonors and distorts historical figures for his own pleasure.
CanPrag: You and the intellectually lazy person who wrote the article you linked to took St. Augustine out of context.
Indeed, the article mischaracterizes two thousand years of christian thought. Of all people, you should understand the formation of thought that evolves from discussion and analysis.
You remind me of a child scribbling in a calculus book with crayons. You deface what you cannot comprehend, smirking all the while. Are you sure you're not a precocious 6th grader putting one over on us?
These two quotes leave no doubt. In the first, he speaks of the eventual resurrection of an aborted fetus (in this context, a miscarriage. Regardless, he believes a fetus has a soul). In the second, he strongly condemns abortion.
"Hence in the first place arises a question about abortive conceptions, which have indeed been born in the mother's womb, but not so born that they could be born again. For if we shall decide that these are to rise again, we cannot object to any conclusion that may be drawn in regard to those which are fully formed. Now who is there that is not rather disposed to think that unformed abortions perish, like seeds that have never fructified? But who will dare to deny, though he may not dare to affirm, that at the resurrection every defect in the form shall be supplied, and that thus the perfection which time would have brought shall not be wanting, any more than the blemishes which time did bring shall be present: so that the nature shall neither want anything suitable and in harmony with it that length of days would have added, nor be debased by the presence of anything of an opposite kind that length of days has added; but that what is not yet complete shall be completed, just as what has been injured shall be renewed.
-Enchiridion 23.85.4
"Therefore brothers, you see how perverse they are and hastening wickedness, who are immature, they seek abortion of the conception before the birth; they are those who tell us, "I do not see that which you say must be believed."
- Sermon 126, line 12
Aquinas was conducting a philosophical discussion of moral issues, not defending abortion. I can see how a simple mind too lazy to read it all and put it in context could misunderstand.
Religious scholars dismiss out of hand your ridiculous claim. I would explain it to you but I'd be wasting my time. You have proven yourself incapable of understanding it.
CanPrag commits historical vandalism and grossly defames great men. This is not the first time he has done so. I have caught him at it numerous times now and corrected him on various historical and biblical points.
Make you points, CanPrag, but don't besmirch the reputations of those who came before you.
The article I read may have taken Aquinas out of context. Although the things you quoted don't exactly clear up Aquinas' and Augustines' positions on abortion...
Nevertheless, I think the twin, should and would only be considered culpable for his own death, also, the fetus is not another person. The other twin is.
The three month old not deserving human rights is a progressive position. Peter Singer writes more about that. http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm
He's a utilitarian. That it would garner a "wow" response only says something about you anonymous, not the position.
I don't know exactly what age, but I think it is more than safe to say that during the nine-months it is in the womb (on life support) killing it should not be considered a crime e.g. homicide (so long as the mother made the decision, etc...).
I believe in human rights, equality, etc... I just don't think a fetus qualifies for those rights. My dog is more deserving of rights than your wifes fetus.
Responding to stimuli proves that the being is alive. Terry Schiavo responded to stimuli well after she was dead. She was a vegetable (as they say). A fetus is at about the same level of consciosuness. Granted, Schiavo could never become a living person again, and the fetus will and could become a person... It's just not reasonable to give potential humans the same rights as humans (in the present).
I know it's not a popular stance to believe that a mentally handicapped infant's mother should still be allowed to euthanize it well after birth, but Singr defends that position, and I'd have to agree with him on it.
I'm also for euthanasia, capital punishment (assuming it deters crime and does not cost the justice system too much), suicide, assisted-suicide, etc...
You can't control how you come into the world, but you can control how you leave it. I respect people who commit suicide much more than those who leave it to random chance, completely out of anyones control.
Abortion, however, doesn't have anything to do with that. I just don't think fetuses (feti?) are deserving of human rights. I'm for animals rights (they're afterall, sentient beings). Fetuses are not. They organisms (goo). If in the latter stages it is shown that they develop nerves and are able to feel pain, maybe I'd change my mind about late term abortions, but until then... I'm not too worried. I had part of my dick cut of when I was a baby. I don't remember it, nevertheless remember it hurting.
CP- YOUR DAMN IDIOT AND I HAVE A FREIND THAT CAME OUT OF COMA THAT WORKED WITH MY WIFE. HE WAS IN IT FOR 5 YEARS AND HE WAS A HUMAN. YOUR DAMN IDIOT. HUMAN FORMATION START WITH AT FERILIZATION AND ENDS WHEN THE CELLS DIE-BIRTH AND THEN DEATH. IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY YOU GOT SCREWED UP DAMN CANADIAN BASTARD.
YOU BETTER TAKE A DEEP LOOK INSIDE OF YOU AND FIND OUT WHERE YOU STAND. I CAN SEE A GUY THAT LISTENS TO THE NEWS AND BELEIVES EVERYTHING THEY HERE AND SEE. DUDE GROW UP AND FIND YOU WON OPINION!!! KEEP YOUR SCREWED UP LIBERALTICS IN CANADA.
YOUR INVITE IS STILL OPEN!
Thanks Ron from throwing some reality back into the theoretical discussion.
It's east to talk about how this fetus or that comatose person isn't really a person anymore, until it hits you personally.
I understand that there is an emotional attachment people have to their children, and even their potential children. I'm not being delicate here because I'm typing on a key-pad. I can't see your reactions to my statements to know when to parce my words, etc...
However, this is not a dangerous discussion. So far abortion has been legal in Canada for a long time (since before I was born), and they haven't even gotten the ball rolling on euthanasia yet!
As far as some sort of culture of death or denegration of all life... I'm not denegrating human beings by not considering lower level life forms human.
Your murder points are all valid excpet that none of them deal with fetuses. Fetuses are not human. DNA, etc... does not make something human.
What do we have that other animals do not?
______, ____, ____ makes us human. Fetuses do not have ______, ___, ___. The reason they don't deserve animal rights is because they are not sentient.
And, I want to address two of your main points:
1."I am not arguing from the point of sentience, I am arguing from the point of potential."
I've explained why this argument doesn't work. Potential is all around us. It isn't murder because you've killed potential future life, it's murder because you killed a HUMAN (not potential human). Fetuses are not human. A 110 year old who is gonna die tomarrow can still be murdered because he/she IS human.
2. Singer and I are not being arrogant or elevating ourselves or animals above or below anyone or anything. Animal rights means that the animal is considered (in some way) when making ethical decisions. Without animal rights, animals are treated like mere things (if they're not things... how can you argue they don't deserve consideration?). I'm not equating my dog to a 2 year old. A two year old with fetal alcohol syndrome, severe mental retardation, etc...? I'd have to think about it.
Also, neither are we nor the gov't deciding anything. We are simply wanting for other people to have the right to make their own decisions.
That's liberty. If that's not libertarianism, than I don't know what is. Responsibility and liberty can be completely mutually exclusive. Not saying that's a good way to go, but liberty is just that. Liberty to make smart and dumb choices, and try and fix those dumb choices with more dumb choices.
Ron:
I wouldn't pull life support on someone in a coma (unless they asked for it prior to the coma occuring).
phew...
If you think that there is a series of enormous holocausts going on everywhere abortion is legal than I don't know what to say.
What makes us human? Sentience... not only sentience... Intellect... not merely an intellect... and the list goes on; and it's not a single thing, but a combination of things. But if you can identify a SINGLE meaningful! human characteristic (not shared with other animals) to a fetus, than the ball will be rolling again.
"I understand that there is an emotional attachment people have to their children"
Is this your heroic Nietzschean aloofness on display?
I will grant that your criteria for destroying life is logically coherent, which is easy to do when unencumbered by morality.
As long as you submit yourself to the Kantian categorical imperative that you should also be euthanized if, God forbid, you should fall down at a construction site, crack your head and go into a deep coma.
Finally, you keep throwing the term "libertarian" out there. A libertarian who believes life begins at conception would not countenance abortion. That would be more of an anarchist-libertarian view.
Also, although my religion holds that suicide and euthanasia are grave sins, I don't know that we should wholesale make them illegal.
I have posted a new article on this topic, so if anyone wants to discuss further, jump in over there.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.