A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[manifold]

The one that says humanity trumps animals.

Traditionally accepted premises are not ethical standards in themselves.

Fine. So tell me, by what ethical standard is a human fetus of less moral value than an adult rat?

 

[Agnapostate]

Fine. So tell me, by what ethical standard is a human fetus of less moral value than an adult rat?

I didn't mention an adult rat, and I wouldn't have, since a rat's level of sentience and awareness are not sufficiently greater than those of a human fetus to serve for a thorough comparison. Regardless, the ethical standard in question is utilitarian in nature in that it measures the moral worth of beings in a purely qualitative sense without regards to species. Moral differences between species are measured in regards to their sentience and related traits, are they not? Is that not why it's considered morally worse to kill a dog than to kill an ant or a snail? Why is it thus not acceptable to distinguish similarly among individual classes of beings within species that might be vastly different from the average or typical member of that species, as the human fetus is from the average human? My ethical approach is summarized by Jeremy Bentham's declaration in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation:

The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

IMO, the man was ridiculously ahead of his time to have written these words in 1798. He also advocated the legalization of sodomy, whilst a major American political lobby (the Christian Right), favors its criminalization more than 200 years later.

 

[Shogun]

 

[manifold]

Moral differences between species are measured in regards to their sentience and related traits, are they not?

They are not. Pigs are smarter than dogs. We eat pigs... and they're damn tasty too!

 

[Yukon]

Abortion is GOOD. I have invested in Abortion Clinics owned by Dr. Henry Morgantaller and I have made a small fortune. Abortion is GOOD and it makes money.

 

[driveby]

Abortion is GOOD. I have invested in Abortion Clinics owned by Dr. Henry Morgantaller and I have made a small fortune. Abortion is GOOD and it makes money.

Did you present this position to the Pope during your Holy trip to the Vatican ? Or you couldn't find time between confession and fondling alter boys ? ......

 

[Agnapostate]

They are not. Pigs are smarter than dogs. We eat pigs... and they're damn tasty too!

Yeah, that's evidently just another inconsistency. My point really centered around the fact that there are individual organisms or classes of organisms within a superior species that are in fact inferior to a different species that the first species is generally superior to, as is the case with below average humans and certain high-functioning animals. For instance:

^^^
...we can see that certain humans suffer from deficiencies, mental or otherwise, that would clearly place them on a lower level than certain species of nonhuman animals.

 

[edthecynic]

The pointless contention of whether a fetus constitutes "human life" is entirely pointless; a far more pertinent insight would arguably be whether a fetus is a person.

Good point.

Another point, does a fetus have a soul?

Gen 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[Shogun]

They are not. Pigs are smarter than dogs. We eat pigs... and they're damn tasty too!

Yeah, that's evidently just another inconsistency. My point really centered around the fact that there are individual organisms or classes of organisms within a superior species that are in fact inferior to a different species that the first species is generally superior to, as is the case with below average humans and certain high-functioning animals. For instance:

^^^
...we can see that certain humans suffer from deficiencies, mental or otherwise, that would clearly place them on a lower level than certain species of nonhuman animals.

....says the guy insisting that developing human beings can be marginalized below that of a baby monkey.

Funny how no one besides bentham zealots put too much water in the utilitarian bucket, eh? I guess thats what happens when you start insisting that an adult monkey holds more utility than a newborn human just because the monkey can see the tree it is swinging in.

 

[Agnapostate]

....says the guy insisting that developing human beings can be marginalized below that of a baby monkey.

Funny how no one besides bentham zealots put too much water in the utilitarian bucket, eh? I guess thats what happens when you start insisting that an adult monkey holds more utility than a newborn human just because the monkey can see the tree it is swinging in.

Still haven't done your homework, eh? I've asked you several times to devise a logically sound reason for discriminating on the basis of species rather than awareness and related sentience levels. Thus far, you've instead chosen to indulge in the destructive vice of committal of logical fallacies.

No worries there! You've demonstrated rather extensively that you're not capable of logical debate.

 

[Shogun]

Poor little utilitarian. Are you so busy sniffing your own farts to recognize a kantian categorical imperative? The maxim is that HUMAN BEING > ANIMALS. All day long. Crying that no one is playing by your ethical standard is both hilarious and, truthfully, sad.

 

[Agnapostate]

Poor little utilitarian. Are you so busy sniffing your own farts to recognize a kantian categorical imperative? The maxim is that HUMAN BEING > ANIMALS. All day long. Crying that no one is playing by your ethical standard is both hilarious and, truthfully, sad.

Really, friend? Aside from your inaccurate conceptions of the categorical imperative...the most influential philosopher of the world is a utilitarian. His work directly contributed to the growth of the animal rights movement. Abortion has been legalized in many countries, and euthanasia is following down the same path. Where do you get the impression that your crude deontologist idiocy has any acceptance except amongst the Christian Right?

 

[Ravi]

The pointless contention of whether a fetus constitutes "human life" is entirely pointless; a far more pertinent insight would arguably be whether a fetus is a person.

Good point.

Another point, does a fetus have a soul?

Gen 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

That is a good point but I'm not really prepared to argue this subject from a religious standpoint. But I do surmise that back in the day...your average human didn't think abortion was anything akin to killing a living, breathing human.

 

[edthecynic]

Good point.

Another point, does a fetus have a soul?

Gen 2: 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

That is a good point but I'm not really prepared to argue this subject from a religious standpoint. But I do surmise that back in the day...your average human didn't think abortion was anything akin to killing a living, breathing human.

I'm old enough to remember that before abortion was politicized, we were taught in catechism class that life began with the first breath.

 

[Ravi]

Another point, does a fetus have a soul?

That is a good point but I'm not really prepared to argue this subject from a religious standpoint. But I do surmise that back in the day...your average human didn't think abortion was anything akin to killing a living, breathing human.

I'm old enough to remember that before abortion was politicized, we were taught in catechism class that life began with the first breath.

Catholic? That's what I was taught, as well. But I prefer to leave religion out of the question because it is so theoretical itself and just clouds the issue.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm not going to name names but I recently saw another poster make one the most dumbfounding statements I've ever seen posted on a messageboard. And it inspired this thread. The comment in question was that abortion doesn't kill a fetus because a fetus isn't alive. Yes, you heard that correct. I repeat, abortion doesn't kill a fetus because a fetus isn't alive.

So then I wonder, am I missing something? Because honestly, I can't imagine how anyone without seriously diminished intellectual capacity could actually believe that a normal, healthy fetus isn't alive. For the record, I am pro-choice. But I am certainly not capable of the mental gymnastics required to fool myself into believing that abortion isn't killing a fetus. That's simply absurd.

What do you make of this?

Well this is an easy one... "The Fetus isn't alive" is a misnomer which is born in the absurdity: A fetus isn't a person; which is the Feminist drivel which was rationalized in the 1960s to promote 'free love' and other such relativist nonsense.

The function of pro-abortion advocates is to dehumanize the fetus... the reasoning is simple enough, IF it's HUMAN it has human rights... if it has human rights, then there is not even a POTENTIAL for a suppossed 'right' to KILL IT.

And even the least intellect amongst us, can figure out that IF YOU KILL IT in an abortion... IT MUST BE ALIVE; IF ITS ALIVE AND IT'S HUMAN... and again, if its human... it has rights and YOU'VE NO RIGHT TO KILL IT.

the fact is, the fetus is human; the fetus IS decidely alive and as a live human being, the fetus has every human right as any other live human being and there is NO RIGHT TO TAKE THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING BECAUSE THAT HUMAN BEING IS INCONVENIENT...

It's an invalid rationalization... to buttress an invalid species of reasoning which seeks to separate women from the RESPONSIBILITY OF A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... who, when and where she engages in sexual intercourse; which is used to justify a false right for a woman to murder her unborn baby; and calling it Moral, because they feel "ROE" made it 'legal...'

The unjustified taking of a human life is always a moral depravity... but there can be NO DEEPER, VIRULENT DEPRIVATION OF MORAL CHARACTER THAN A WOMAN WHO INTENTIONALLY MURDERS HER OWN CHILD, be that child BORN or unborn.

Any questions?

 

[deaddude]

A fetus is alive. It is genetically distinct organism. However it cannot survive without the mother's body providing life support. Right now the law says that a woman has the choice to sever the life support because it is generated by her body and not the fetus'.

Personally I think there are more important issues to worry about.

 

[manifold]

My point really centered around the fact that there are individual organisms or classes of organisms within a superior species that are in fact inferior to a different species that the first species is generally superior to, as is the case with below average humans and certain high-functioning animals. For instance:

I get your point. It's using as a basis for a moral or ethical standard that I don't agree with.

Yours is no less arbitrary than the basis for my position that humanity trumps all animals. That said, I am most definitely pro-choice. But I require no mental gymnastics to defend my position. My position doesn't require that a fetus be of less value than a puppy. And it does not require any euphamisms to hide the fact that abortion kills a living thing. My position is quite simply that I have no right to force my morality on someone else if what they are doing causes me no harm. Pretty simple really.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

A fetus is alive. It is genetically distinct organism. However it cannot survive without the mother's body providing life support. Right now the law says that a woman has the choice to sever the life support because it is generated by her body and not the fetus'.

Personally I think there are more important issues to worry about.

Well sure... because fundamental principles aren't THAT big of a deal... I mean it's not like if we set aside fundamental principle that the rejection of THOSE principles will cause problems down the line...

It's better to turn our backs on those subjects which make us uncomfortable and just let it slide... go along to get along... what's the worse that can happen? Right?

ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother, that's precious.

FUNDAMENTALS ARE THE FOUNDATION... SCREW THAT UP AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN STAND ON THAT FLAWED FOUNDATION.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

My point really centered around the fact that there are individual organisms or classes of organisms within a superior species that are in fact inferior to a different species that the first species is generally superior to, as is the case with below average humans and certain high-functioning animals. For instance:

I get your point. It's using as a basis for a moral or ethical standard that I don't agree with.

Yours is no less arbitrary than the basis for my position that humanity trumps all animals. That said, I am most definitely pro-choice. But I require no mental gymnastics to defend my position. My position doesn't require that a fetus be of less value than a puppy. And it does not require any euphamisms to hide the fact that abortion kills a living thing. My position is quite simply that I have no right to force my morality on someone else if what they are doing causes me no harm. Pretty simple really.

Abortion kills a living human being... and one which is completely innocent...

I believe that if a woman chooses to murder her own child, she's not worthy of trust ON ANY LEVEL... as she violated the most sacred trust of any found within the human species.

It's a shameful, despicable act of pure cowardice... where's the room to withold judgment?

Would you withold judgment of someone that felt YOUR child was inconvenient and murdered THEM? What's the difference?