Abortion

[JA37]

BTW, it almost sounds like you guys are advocating for controlling sex to make it only exist for the purpose of procreation, not recreation.

Not quite. I advocate stop trying to control female sexuality. A woman can do whatever she chooses with her body, and she alone decides. If she wants to enjoy sex with you then good for both of you, but as a man you should be aware that you could be a father as a result of it. Or not. It's her choice.

[1713937706]

1713937706

[1713937706]

1713937706

[1713937706]

1713937706

[1713937706]

1713937706

[1713937706]

1713937706

[Hawker]

So you think its OK to kill mentally handicapped people? And brain damaged soldiers?
[//quote]

If mentally handicapped/brain damaged to the point of being catatonic and unresponsive (basically a vegetable), and if no one else values them (I.e. they have been abandoned into the custody of the state or the street), then yes.If someone else claims them and wants to willingly take care of them for whatever reason (I.e. someone values them), then no.

And newborn babies?  

Newborn babies can feel, and killing them inhumanely would be cruel. If they are abandoned and no one wants them, then painless euthinasia would be OK I guess. I seriously doubt no one would want or care about them though.

Why? Do you believe a hunk of living flesh that has all the physical characteristics of a human being, but none of the brain activity, reasoning, or capability for thought, should be forced on someone, and that someone should be required to support it financially and keep it alive, without possibility of it becoming anything useful in the future? Who would be required to pay for that and why?

Well done on being willing to kill newborn babies.  You've taken your philosophy almost to its logical conclusion.  All you need do now is say its OK to kill people who are stupid, declare anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and it will be perfect.

[Rassah]

So you think its OK to kill mentally handicapped people? And brain damaged soldiers?

If mentally handicapped/brain damaged to the point of being catatonic and unresponsive (basically a vegetable), and if no one else values them (I.e. they have been abandoned into the custody of the state or the street), then yes.If someone else claims them and wants to willingly take care of them for whatever reason (I.e. someone values them), then no.

And newborn babies?  

Newborn babies can feel, and killing them inhumanely would be cruel. If they are abandoned and no one wants them, then painless euthinasia would be OK I guess. I seriously doubt no one would want or care about them though.

Why? Do you believe a hunk of living flesh that has all the physical characteristics of a human being, but none of the brain activity, reasoning, or capability for thought, should be forced on someone, and that someone should be required to support it financially and keep it alive, without possibility of it becoming anything useful in the future? Who would be required to pay for that and why?

Well done on being willing to kill newborn babies.  You've taken your philosophy almost to its logical conclusion.  All you need do now is say its OK to kill people who are stupid, declare anyone who disagrees with you is stupid and it will be perfect.

Heh, nice. Ok, then, ignoring your misapplied slippery slope, why should we value people who are vegetables, or be forced to support people who not only can't support themselves, but don't even have a concept of personhood or self awareness? I mean if the person has no value to their friends and family anymore, why should we as total strangers value them?

I guess if you want to get more specific, the question is what defines a "person?" I noticed that this question, along with my examples of bio human v.s. digital human, was almost completely ignored. Is a person someone who simply has human DNA, or someone capable of self awareness and rational thought? (Or is it something more arbitrary, like something god has given a soul to?) I think that's the rot of the debate and disagreement here. One side values anything with human DNA with "potential" equally, while the other values human life on a scale based on that being's intellectual capacity.

[NghtRppr]

I guess if you want to get more specific, the question is what defines a "person?" I noticed that this question, along with my examples of bio human v.s. digital human, was almost completely ignored. Is a person someone who simply has human DNA, or someone capable of self awareness and rational thought? (Or is it something more arbitrary, like something god has given a soul to?) I think that's the rot of the debate and disagreement here. One side values anything with human DNA with "potential" equally, while the other values human life on a scale based on that being's intellectual capacity.

Human DNA a part of the natural process of life:
  From Single celled Humans all the way to the grave.
  Naturally this definition would exclude your cloning argument as by definition that is not a natural process, it is a mastubatory technological abomination.
  Would exclude Skynet, no Human DNA and not natural process.

Capability for emotional intelligence is what matters, not what you're made or how you come to be made. A tumor will never be a person. Computers currently can't either. However, that may change and it would be a mistake to deny them rights simply because they are metal and silicon.

[Hawker]

I guess if you want to get more specific, the question is what defines a "person?" I noticed that this question, along with my examples of bio human v.s. digital human, was almost completely ignored. Is a person someone who simply has human DNA, or someone capable of self awareness and rational thought? (Or is it something more arbitrary, like something god has given a soul to?) I think that's the rot of the debate and disagreement here. One side values anything with human DNA with "potential" equally, while the other values human life on a scale based on that being's intellectual capacity.

You posted your view that killing newborn babies is OK provided no pain is involved. 

Really, how can you expect people to take your ideas seriously if you don't see that shooting babies is a bad thing?

[Rassah]

I guess if you want to get more specific, the question is what defines a "person?" I noticed that this question, along with my examples of bio human v.s. digital human, was almost completely ignored. Is a person someone who simply has human DNA, or someone capable of self awareness and rational thought? (Or is it something more arbitrary, like something god has given a soul to?) I think that's the rot of the debate and disagreement here. One side values anything with human DNA with "potential" equally, while the other values human life on a scale based on that being's intellectual capacity.

Human DNA a part of the natural process of life:
  From Single celled Humans all the way to the grave.
  Naturally this definition would exclude your cloning argument as by definition that is not a natural process, it is a mastubatory technological abomination.
  Would exclude Skynet, no Human DNA and not natural process.

Would exclude the singularity project, where human minds are uploaded to computers to let people live for ever, and intelligent human-animal hybrids, too?

[Rassah]

I guess if you want to get more specific, the question is what defines a "person?" I noticed that this question, along with my examples of bio human v.s. digital human, was almost completely ignored. Is a person someone who simply has human DNA, or someone capable of self awareness and rational thought? (Or is it something more arbitrary, like something god has given a soul to?) I think that's the rot of the debate and disagreement here. One side values anything with human DNA with "potential" equally, while the other values human life on a scale based on that being's intellectual capacity.

You posted your view that killing newborn babies is OK provided no pain is involved.  

Really, how can you expect people to take your ideas seriously if you don't see that shooting babies is a bad thing?

Can you go back and re-read the part I said about others placing value on these people/babies? Like, maybe ten or twenty times until it sinks in? Because all you're saying with this nonsequitir of yours is that you believe that in your society no one cares about babies, and if you found an abandoned one, you'd just ignore it and walk away. Is that what you think? That babies aren't valued, would be left to die if abandoned, and thus we need a government program that forces people to take care of abandoned babies?

Though if you can't answer a complex question like "what defines a person" or "what gives a person value," and have to rely on non issues to divert the question, I understand.

[Hawker]

I guess if you want to get more specific, the question is what defines a "person?" I noticed that this question, along with my examples of bio human v.s. digital human, was almost completely ignored. Is a person someone who simply has human DNA, or someone capable of self awareness and rational thought? (Or is it something more arbitrary, like something god has given a soul to?) I think that's the rot of the debate and disagreement here. One side values anything with human DNA with "potential" equally, while the other values human life on a scale based on that being's intellectual capacity.

You posted your view that killing newborn babies is OK provided no pain is involved.  

Really, how can you expect people to take your ideas seriously if you don't see that shooting babies is a bad thing?

Can you go back and re-read the part I said about others placing value on these people/babies? Like, maybe ten or twenty times until it sinks in? Because all you're saying with this nonsequitir of yours is that you believe that in your society no one cares about babies, and if you found an abandoned one, you'd just ignore it and walk away. Is that what you think? That babies aren't valued, would be left to die if abandoned, and thus we need a government program that forces people to take care of abandoned babies?

Though if you can't answer a complex question like "what defines a person" or "what gives a person value," and have to rely on non issues to divert the question, I understand.

It doesn't matter how many people do or don't value the baby's life.  Its not right to kill it. 

[Rassah]

Can you go back and re-read the part I said about others placing value on these people/babies? Like, maybe ten or twenty times until it sinks in? Because all you're saying with this nonsequitir of yours is that you believe that in your society no one cares about babies, and if you found an abandoned one, you'd just ignore it and walk away. Is that what you think? That babies aren't valued, would be left to die if abandoned, and thus we need a government program that forces people to take care of abandoned babies?

Though if you can't answer a complex question like "what defines a person" or "what gives a person value," and have to rely on non issues to divert the question, I understand.

It doesn't matter how many people do or don't value the baby's life.  Its not right to kill it. 

It's not right to abandon it to it's own death, either. Can you tell me why you feel that way though? What is it about the baby you value or are concerned about? Just compassion like one you would feel for an adult stuck on a deserted island, or something else?

[Hawker]

Can you go back and re-read the part I said about others placing value on these people/babies? Like, maybe ten or twenty times until it sinks in? Because all you're saying with this nonsequitir of yours is that you believe that in your society no one cares about babies, and if you found an abandoned one, you'd just ignore it and walk away. Is that what you think? That babies aren't valued, would be left to die if abandoned, and thus we need a government program that forces people to take care of abandoned babies?

Though if you can't answer a complex question like "what defines a person" or "what gives a person value," and have to rely on non issues to divert the question, I understand.

It doesn't matter how many people do or don't value the baby's life.  Its not right to kill it. 

It's not right to abandon it to it's own death, either. Can you tell me why you feel that way though? What is it about the baby you value or are concerned about? Just compassion like one you would feel for an adult stuck on a deserted island, or something else?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Women do abandon their babies.  That's the nature of post natal depression.  For someone else to come along, find that baby and feel entitled to kill it is a repulsive idea.  You may as well say he can eat it afterwards as it's just meat.  Swift made that "Modest Proposal" over 200 years ago as a satire. 

[Rassah]

Can you go back and re-read the part I said about others placing value on these people/babies? Like, maybe ten or twenty times until it sinks in? Because all you're saying with this nonsequitir of yours is that you believe that in your society no one cares about babies, and if you found an abandoned one, you'd just ignore it and walk away. Is that what you think? That babies aren't valued, would be left to die if abandoned, and thus we need a government program that forces people to take care of abandoned babies?

Though if you can't answer a complex question like "what defines a person" or "what gives a person value," and have to rely on non issues to divert the question, I understand.

It doesn't matter how many people do or don't value the baby's life.  Its not right to kill it.  

It's not right to abandon it to it's own death, either. Can you tell me why you feel that way though? What is it about the baby you value or are concerned about? Just compassion like one you would feel for an adult stuck on a deserted island, or something else?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Women do abandon their babies.  That's the nature of post natal depression.  For someone else to come along, find that baby and feel entitled to kill it is a repulsive idea.  You may as well say he can eat it afterwards as it's just meat.  Swift made that "Modest Proposal" over 200 years ago as a satire.  

I'm hearing a lot about feelings, "not right," societal norms, and "that's the way it is" from you, on this and the other thread, but practically zero reasons for why, besides that you feel that way. Can't you even tell me why a newborn's or a vegitative state's life is worth something? Or a fetus, if we stick with abortion? I can't discuss this with you if all your reasons are based on just how you feel about it.

[Hawker]

Can you go back and re-read the part I said about others placing value on these people/babies? Like, maybe ten or twenty times until it sinks in? Because all you're saying with this nonsequitir of yours is that you believe that in your society no one cares about babies, and if you found an abandoned one, you'd just ignore it and walk away. Is that what you think? That babies aren't valued, would be left to die if abandoned, and thus we need a government program that forces people to take care of abandoned babies?

Though if you can't answer a complex question like "what defines a person" or "what gives a person value," and have to rely on non issues to divert the question, I understand.

It doesn't matter how many people do or don't value the baby's life.  Its not right to kill it.  

It's not right to abandon it to it's own death, either. Can you tell me why you feel that way though? What is it about the baby you value or are concerned about? Just compassion like one you would feel for an adult stuck on a deserted island, or something else?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Women do abandon their babies.  That's the nature of post natal depression.  For someone else to come along, find that baby and feel entitled to kill it is a repulsive idea.  You may as well say he can eat it afterwards as it's just meat.  Swift made that "Modest Proposal" over 200 years ago as a satire.  

I'm hearing a lot about feelings, "not right," societal norms, and "that's the way it is" from you, on this and the other thread, but practically zero reasons for why, besides that you feel that way. Can't you even tell me why a newborn's or a vegitative state's life is worth something? Or a fetus, if we stick with abortion? I can't discuss this with you if all your reasons are based on just how you feel about it.

Then you can't discuss it.  All morals are based on feelings.

[Rassah]

I'm hearing a lot about feelings, "not right," societal norms, and "that's the way it is" from you, on this and the other thread, but practically zero reasons for why, besides that you feel that way. Can't you even tell me why a newborn's or a vegitative state's life is worth something? Or a fetus, if we stick with abortion? I can't discuss this with you if all your reasons are based on just how you feel about it.

Then you can't discuss it.  All morals are based on feelings.

Really? I'm sure the bible thumpers/PinkiePies, libertarians/objectivists, and ethics professors/philosophers will all vehemently disagree with you.
So, did your moral feelings come from what your parents and society taught you, or did they sprung up from your genetic code, like a duck's urge to fly south for the winter?

[Hawker]

I'm hearing a lot about feelings, "not right," societal norms, and "that's the way it is" from you, on this and the other thread, but practically zero reasons for why, besides that you feel that way. Can't you even tell me why a newborn's or a vegitative state's life is worth something? Or a fetus, if we stick with abortion? I can't discuss this with you if all your reasons are based on just how you feel about it.

Then you can't discuss it.  All morals are based on feelings.

Really? I'm sure the bible thumpers/PinkiePies, libertarians/objectivists, and ethics professors/philosophers will all vehemently disagree with you.
So, did your moral feelings come from what your parents and society taught you, or did they sprung up from your genetic code, like a duck's urge to fly south for the winter?

Does it matter?  Even if you believe your morals come from a fairy in the sky, you will want to act on them.  I find your idea that if a baby is abandoned, then you have a right to kill it, ugly. If you did it, I would happily have you locked up for murder.  The fact that I am not religious makes no real odds - I don't want to live in a world where baby killers are normal.

[Rassah]

Does it matter?  Even if you believe your morals come from a fairy in the sky, you will want to act on them.  I find your idea that if a baby is abandoned, then you have a right to kill it, ugly. If you did it, I would happily have you locked up for murder.  The fact that I am not religious makes no real odds - I don't want to live in a world where baby killers are normal.

My "idea" is that if a baby, or an adult in a vegitative/catatonic state, is not valued by anyone else, be it their parents, a random stranger, or society in general, then their life is quite literally not worth anything. I gave no indication on what I personally would think or do if i found an abandoned baby. For the record, I would care, and would likely take it to the police or the hospital.
My morals come from my own ability to reason, specifically that I value myself first and foremost, believe others are likewise capable of valuing themselves, and that I don't want to do harm to others since I wouldn't want them to do harm to me. It's that "respect other's property" and "keep your word" thing I'm sure you've seen on here often. Everything stems from that. Because a fetus, or a braindead human, can not even comprehend the meaning of value or property (theirs, others', or their own body's), I don't see why they have a need to have any rights, or why the idea of rights would even be relevant to them. And while I don't advocate going around and killing them, I don't see a reason for anyone else to take care of them, unless they have some personal worth to someone who "owns" them. An abandoned baby might still have some personal worth to someone else out there. Frozen test tube embryos might, too, though I don't see anti-abortion groups buying expensive cryofreezers and addopting the thousands of them enmasse.
I hope that somewhat explains my position.

[Hawker]

Does it matter?  Even if you believe your morals come from a fairy in the sky, you will want to act on them.  I find your idea that if a baby is abandoned, then you have a right to kill it, ugly. If you did it, I would happily have you locked up for murder.  The fact that I am not religious makes no real odds - I don't want to live in a world where baby killers are normal.

My "idea" is that if a baby, or an adult in a vegitative/catatonic state, is not valued by anyone else, be it their parents, a random stranger, or society in general, then their life is quite literally not worth anything. I gave no indication on what I personally would think or do if i found an abandoned baby. For the record, I would care, and would likely take it to the police or the hospital.
My morals come from my own ability to reason, specifically that I value myself first and foremost, believe others are likewise capable of valuing themselves, and that I don't want to do harm to others since I wouldn't want them to do harm to me. It's that "respect other's property" and "keep your word" thing I'm sure you've seen on here often. Everything stems from that. Because a fetus, or a braindead human, can not even comprehend the meaning of value or property (theirs, others', or their own body's), I don't see why they have a need to have any rights, or why the idea of rights would even be relevant to them. And while I don't advocate going around and killing them, I don't see a reason for anyone else to take care of them, unless they have some personal worth to someone who "owns" them. An abandoned baby might still have some personal worth to someone else out there. Frozen test tube embryos might, too, though I don't see anti-abortion groups buying expensive cryofreezers and addopting the thousands of them enmasse.
I hope that somewhat explains my position.

It explains that you personally would not kill the baby but that if someone else does, that person should not be punished.

[Rassah]

It explains that you personally would not kill the baby but that if someone else does, that person should not be punished.

Assuming we are talking about a brand new newborn with no prior experiences, my having no personal attachment or interest in that baby, I would be shocked at the act, but no, I would not personally punish them. That baby was not worth enough to me to go to the trouble of punishing its killers, and not being valued by its parents/owners perhaps may be better off not having existed.

Can you tell me what your purpose for punishing that killer would be? Not the feely "why," but for what result.

[Rassah]

It sounds to me and no offense is meant by this if I am wrong.... but it does sound to me like your definition of rights extends only to those who can express their desire for rights.

That's... actually fairly accurate, I guess. I would even extend that to animals, where, although I don't mind the idea of eating meat, if some cow kicks the crap out of a farmer who trying to butcher it, I'd say that's an example of the thing asserting it's rights, and to leave the thing alone (the idea of "destroying" animals that attacked humans always bothered me for some reason, too).
Regarding children, until they rebel and can say otherwise, they're still the "property" of their parents and family, so just killing them would still be infringing on someone else's rights. Likewise if a state orphanage or a total stranger claimed that right.

[Hawker]

It explains that you personally would not kill the baby but that if someone else does, that person should not be punished.

Assuming we are talking about a brand new newbor with no prior experiences, my having no personal attachment or interest in that baby, I would be shocked at the act, but no, I would not personally punish them. That baby was not worth enough to me to go to the trouble of punishing its killers, and not being valued by its parents/owners perhaps may be better off not having existed.

Can you tell me what your purpose for punishing that killer would be? Not the feely why, but for what result.

I'm not sure why I'd want to.  If you haven't worked out the value of human life, why would I waste the time?

[Rassah]

It explains that you personally would not kill the baby but that if someone else does, that person should not be punished.

Assuming we are talking about a brand new newbor with no prior experiences, my having no personal attachment or interest in that baby, I would be shocked at the act, but no, I would not personally punish them. That baby was not worth enough to me to go to the trouble of punishing its killers, and not being valued by its parents/owners perhaps may be better off not having existed.

Can you tell me what your purpose for punishing that killer would be? Not the feely why, but for what result.

I'm not sure why I'd want to.  If you haven't worked out the value of human life, why would I waste the time?

The reason I am asking is because I want to know if you have "worked out" the value of human life. So far you've only ever said that it's valuable. I've yet to ever hear you say why. If you can tell me why it's valuable, then maybe you can tell me why abortion, or euthinising braindead people is wrong.