Abortion

[memvola]

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.

Rassah, where is the maxim here? Either I don't get what you say, or it is a tautology. The world is, and has to be, exactly like the way you describe anyway... So, if a lot of people care enough for unborn babies to punish who commit abortion, you'd be OK with it as well, is that correct?

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

Will to power.

[1714972959]

1714972959

[1714972959]

1714972959

[1714972959]

1714972959

[1714972959]

1714972959

[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.

Rassah, where is the maxim here? Either I don't get what you say, or it is a tautology. The world is, and has to be, exactly like the way you describe anyway... So, if a lot of people care enough for unborn babies to punish who commit abortion, you'd be OK with it as well, is that correct?

Excellent! Thank you for that reply! I love people who think through things and ask the right questions.
Yes, I would, but that is not what I see in the world. There are a lot of people claiming to value the sanctity of life, wanting to make abortion illegal, and wanting to force the mother to carry the baby to term, yet there are way too few people willing to adopt unwanted children, willing to promise to adopt or support an unwilling mother's child, willing to volunteer to have the fetus transplanted to carry it to term themselves (even if not an option now, I'm very sure this will still be true if it is available soon), and willing to adopt and take care of viable frozen embryos. It's the rank hypocricy that steps on other's rights while proclaiming false beliefs and morals that bothers me I guess. If we lived in a world where abortion was not necesary, because anti-abortion people actually cared enough to do these things, this wouldn't be an issue. As it stands, they are just trying to impose their own view on what should be considered valuable on others who don't hold their values.

[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?

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.

You have it backwards.  We already value life and someone who kills a newborn baby will be punished.  If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reason why allowing people to kill babies is a good thing. 

[NghtRppr]

You have it backwards.  We already value life and someone who kills a newborn baby will be punished.  If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reason why allowing people to kill babies is a good thing.

The status quo is not the default position. You have to provide an argument just like everyone else. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner we can actually make progress in these arguments.

[Hawker]

You have it backwards.  We already value life and someone who kills a newborn baby will be punished.  If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reason why allowing people to kill babies is a good thing.

The status quo is not the default position. You have to provide an argument just like everyone else. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner we can actually make progress in these arguments.

If you are OK with someone killing newborn babies that have done him no harm, there is no reason not to be OK with him going on to kill anyone else he chooses.  Call it the NAP or Golden Rule or simple self-preservation as you may be his next target.

[NghtRppr]

You have it backwards.  We already value life and someone who kills a newborn baby will be punished.  If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reason why allowing people to kill babies is a good thing.

The status quo is not the default position. You have to provide an argument just like everyone else. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner we can actually make progress in these arguments.

If you are OK with someone killing newborn babies that have done him no harm, there is no reason not to be OK with him going on to kill anyone else he chooses.  Call it the NAP or Golden Rule or simple self-preservation as you may be his next target.

I'm not OK with it but I'm sick of you and FirstAscent never making any arguments, only demanding everyone do your homework for you.

[Hawker]

If one is OK with someone killing newborn babies that have done him no harm, there is no reason not to be OK with him going on to kill anyone else he chooses.  Call it the NAP or Golden Rule or simple self-preservation as one's own self may be his next target.

The "you" was not directed at you b2c but intended as a generic alternative to "one" which only the Queen (and now me) uses

[Rassah]

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.

You have it backwards.  We already value life and someone who kills a newborn baby will be punished.  If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reason why allowing people to kill babies is a good thing.  

So what you're saying is that you value human life, and are OK with the way things are now, but have NO IDEA why?
Or, even better: We already don't value life at the fetal stage. If the mother willingly kills her fetus, she will not be punished. If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reasons why allowing people to kill fetuses is a bad thing  

If one is OK with someone killing newborn babies that have done him no harm, there is no reason not to be OK with him going on to kill anyone else he chooses.  Call it the NAP or Golden Rule or simple self-preservation as one's own self may be his next target.

You do know that there is a difference between a fetus, a newborn, a child or adult with experiences, and a braindead vegetable, right? Or are they all equally valuable to you simply because they all contain the same proteins wrapped around the same DNA? (In which case I assume you would believe it is ok to kill people who had their brains uploaded to a computer for whatever reason (illness, age, etc), since they are not people?)

[Hawker]

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.

You have it backwards.  We already value life and someone who kills a newborn baby will be punished.  If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reason why allowing people to kill babies is a good thing.  

So what you're saying is that you value human life, and are OK with the way things are now, but have NO IDEA why?
Or, even better: We already don't value life at the fetal stage. If the mother willingly kills her fetus, she will not be punished. If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reasons why allowing people to kill fetuses is a bad thing  

If one is OK with someone killing newborn babies that have done him no harm, there is no reason not to be OK with him going on to kill anyone else he chooses.  Call it the NAP or Golden Rule or simple self-preservation as one's own self may be his next target.

You do know that there is a difference between a fetus, a newborn, a child or adult with experiences, and a braindead vegetable, right? Or are they all equally valuable to you simply because they all contain the same proteins wrapped around the same DNA? (In which case I assume you would believe it is ok to kill people who had their brains uploaded to a computer for whatever reason (illness, age, etc), since they are not people?)

My principle is you should not kill anyone except when under danger of violence from that person.  If you have a better one, lets hear it. 

[FredericBastiat]

For some controversial topics, sometimes it's easier to work your way backwards.

Given that we're assuming no incidental or intentional aggression, I ask the following:

Should you kill a 50 year old? No.
Should you kill a 10 year old? No.
Should you kill a 1 year old? No.
Should you kill a newborn? No.

Should you kill the unborn? This is where people seem to think there is a distinction. I have a difficult time seeing how anybody can get to 50 if they can't get past the womb. Everybody knows that the fetus is extremely dependent on the mother for it's survival (and no, you know it's not the same as a cancerous tumor).

The same could be said for somebody who has invited me into their house and then changed their mind. You ask me to leave and show me the door, fine. Let's now suppose I sustain an injury (i.e. paralyzed, broken neck) and any near future or momentary intervention could result in my death (I need specialized medical assistance). If I'm incapable of leaving, can you justify killing me?

Or perhaps another scenario: I'm originally invited in your house, or I was unceremoniously dumped in your house while unconscious by a criminal, and you ask me to leave, but the only way out is thru the 2nd story window. I refuse to leave due to safety issues, or I'm unaware (momentarily unconscious). Can you justify throwing me out the window?

And perhaps last, but certainly not least, let's suppose I'm in your house and I'm on life support, but to leave I must abandon my life support to be evicted. Can you evict, if by doing so, it results in my death?

To wit, should my unintentional occupancy, now turned trespass, rise to the level of lethal force due to circumstantial physical duress beyond my control?

[Rassah]

My principle is you should not kill anyone except when under danger of violence from that person.  If you have a better one, lets hear it. 

You have yet to define "anyone," which is what I have been asking you from the very beginning. Why is one clump of cells a someone, and another clump of cells a clump of cells?

[Rassah]

Given that we're assuming no incidental or intentional aggression, I ask the following:

Should you kill a 50 year old? No.

But we do this all the time to comatose people on life support  

The same could be said for somebody who has invited me into their house and then changed their mind. You ask me to leave and show me the door, fine. Let's now suppose I sustain an injury (i.e. paralyzed, broken neck) and any near future or momentary intervention could result in my death (I need specialized medical assistance). If I'm incapable of leaving, can you justify killing me?

The big difference is that you actualy know what life and death is, are aware you are alive, and don't want to die. A fetus never gained consciousness to begin with, so this is more like having two groups vehemently argue over whether people, who are born blind, should be wearing red or green dresses.

[FredericBastiat]

But we do this all the time to comatose people on life support  

The big difference is that you actualy know what life and death is, are aware you are alive, and don't want to die. A fetus never gained consciousness to begin with, so this is more like having two groups vehemently argue over whether people, who are born blind, should be wearing red or green dresses.

There's a difference between conscious sentience in progress, and one that has been halted or damaged due to injury, otherwise it would be an arbritrary definition that some ignorant people, or newborns, could fall into and then be "aborted".

Let life be what it will be. Intervene to help, not to harm.

[Hawker]

My principle is you should not kill anyone except when under danger of violence from that person.  If you have a better one, lets hear it. 

You have yet to define "anyone," which is what I have been asking you from the very beginning. Why is one clump of cells a someone, and another clump of cells a clump of cells?

Perhaps you should make your own definition?  That's what everyone else does.

[Rassah]

My principle is you should not kill anyone except when under danger of violence from that person.  If you have a better one, lets hear it. 

You have yet to define "anyone," which is what I have been asking you from the very beginning. Why is one clump of cells a someone, and another clump of cells a clump of cells?

Perhaps you should make your own definition?  That's what everyone else does.

I gave you the definition I am working with: an intelligent conscious being capable of rational thought, self awareness, and understanding of the concept of life, death, and personal rights. My definition covers children, adults, and anything we may come across in the future, be it IA, intelligent animal hybrids, or alien species. It does not include random clumps of cells, beings incapable of higher brain functions, and those who are comatose or in a vegitative state.
I don't know what your definition is, but it sounds like either just "a human" without any differentiation between a skin sample and a firtilized egg, or you just simply don't have a definition, because that is something you don't even care to consider, instead choosing to parrot other's sentiments of things being wrong without caring why.

It's funny, but I get a strong suspicion that if we do get things like computers storing people's consciousness, or intelligent animal hybrids, the side fighting for the "sanctity of life" will be the one denying those beings the right to life on the basis that they are not "hunam," while the "pro-abortion" crowd will likely be the ones defending them...

[Rassah]

Let life be what it will be. Intervene to help, not to harm.

Again, thats just taking the easy, non-thinking route. On another thread, Hawker was vehemently denying Smallpox's right to life.

[Hawker]

My principle is you should not kill anyone except when under danger of violence from that person.  If you have a better one, lets hear it. 

You have yet to define "anyone," which is what I have been asking you from the very beginning. Why is one clump of cells a someone, and another clump of cells a clump of cells?

Perhaps you should make your own definition?  That's what everyone else does.

I gave you the definition I am working with: an intelligent conscious being capable of rational thought, self awareness, and understanding of the concept of life, death, and personal rights. My definition covers children, adults, and anything we may come across in the future, be it IA, intelligent animal hybrids, or alien species. It does not include random clumps of cells, beings incapable of higher brain functions, and those who are comatose or in a vegitative state.
I don't know what your definition is, but it sounds like either just "a human" without any differentiation between a skin sample and a firtilized egg, or you just simply don't have a definition, because that is something you don't even care to consider, instead choosing to parrot other's sentiments of things being wrong without caring why.

It's funny, but I get a strong suspicion that if we do get things like computers storing people's consciousness, or intelligent animal hybrids, the side fighting for the "sanctity of life" will be the one denying those beings the right to life on the basis that they are not "hunam," while the "pro-abortion" crowd will likely be the ones defending them...

Your definition means its OK to kill babies.  That's not likely to get much support so you are welcome to it as an intellectual exercise.

[Rassah]

My principle is you should not kill anyone except when under danger of violence from that person.  If you have a better one, lets hear it.  

You have yet to define "anyone," which is what I have been asking you from the very beginning. Why is one clump of cells a someone, and another clump of cells a clump of cells?

Perhaps you should make your own definition?  That's what everyone else does.

I gave you the definition I am working with: an intelligent conscious being capable of rational thought, self awareness, and understanding of the concept of life, death, and personal rights. My definition covers children, adults, and anything we may come across in the future, be it IA, intelligent animal hybrids, or alien species. It does not include random clumps of cells, beings incapable of higher brain functions, and those who are comatose or in a vegitative state.
I don't know what your definition is, but it sounds like either just "a human" without any differentiation between a skin sample and a firtilized egg, or you just simply don't have a definition, because that is something you don't even care to consider, instead choosing to parrot other's sentiments of things being wrong without caring why.

It's funny, but I get a strong suspicion that if we do get things like computers storing people's consciousness, or intelligent animal hybrids, the side fighting for the "sanctity of life" will be the one denying those beings the right to life on the basis that they are not "hunam," while the "pro-abortion" crowd will likely be the ones defending them...

Your definition means its OK to kill babies.  That's not likely to get much support so you are welcome to it as an intellectual exercise.

I have a definition. You don't. Using my definition, you think we should allow babies to die a horrible death by thirst or starvation. I don't know how you could be so cruel to babies to leave them to that fate.
If you don't like my definition, feel free to suggest improvements. Somehow I doubt you can come up with anything that isn't arbitrary or just based on your feelings. Prove me wrong.

[Hawker]

I have a definition. You don't. If you don't like mine feel free to suggest improvements. Somehow I doubt you can come up with anything that isn't arbitrary or just based on your feelings. Prove me wrong.

Um yours is arbitrary and based on your feelings.  So is everyone else's.  That's the way this stuff works.  Are you hoping that there is some definition written in the stars?

[Rassah]

I have a definition. You don't. If you don't like mine feel free to suggest improvements. Somehow I doubt you can come up with anything that isn't arbitrary or just based on your feelings. Prove me wrong.

Um yours is arbitrary and based on your feelings.  So is everyone else's.  That's the way this stuff works.  Are you hoping that there is some definition written in the stars?

Self awareness is arbitrary? Understanding what death means and fearing it is arbitrary? Making choices is arbitrary?
Perhaps the issue is that you believe everything, including the definition of a human life, is arbitrary, thus we shouldn't even think about it, and thus the best option is just to do whatever the law or the bible says, without questioning it?

No wonder you can't even begin to think about where things like laws and rights come from