A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[ABikerSailor]

And that is slightly less effective bullshit, no offense. "Truth" is subjective, and therefore the majority view is still a better indicator of truth than any arbitrary objective measure you've offered thus far...in the context of our valuation of a fetus discussion of course.

Returning to the original question quickly reveals the inconsistency of this position: On what grounds are humans in general superior to nonhuman animals? For what reason? Is it not due to their greater possession of the aforementioned "traits of personhood"?

Well, several reasons......

First, check your Bible. God blew into the nostrils of man when He breathed the breath of life into Adam and Eve. He didn't do that with any other animal.

Then there is the concept of free will as well as the concept that our soul is actually a piece of God that He placed into us.

After that? Science.........we've got bigger brains and opposable thumbs.

So yeah........mankind is superior to the animals, but, it also states in the Bible that mankind has the ability to be even above the angels, or lower than the most common beast.

Depends on what you do with it really.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Just promise us that abortion will ALWAYS be your choice rather than procreating. Please, for the sake of the gene pool.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

So life is like real estate: all about the location, location, location.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Of course, following that logic says that you would ALSO believe that you have no right to "force your morality" on someone in the case of other acts like murder, assault, armed robbery . . . so long as you personally weren't the victim. I'm guessing, though, that you are in favor of the law prohibiting these acts toward people other than yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

The difference is it's not my child.

So morality is based solely on personal convenience? I got mine, everything is right in my world, so fuck everyone else?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I get your point. It's using it 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.

I don't believe that's the case. To illustrate this, why are humans as a species generally superior to nonhuman animals? Or perhaps more appropriately, why is a chimpanzee morally superior to an ant?

Because we've collectively declared it so, regardless of any judgements about the implicitness. There exists no objectively measurable criteria. A decidedly gray area if you will.

There's one objectively measurable criteria. We are ourselves humans, therefore we value ourselves and our own species over others.

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.

"Morality" exists outside of the sense that the Christian Right has defined it as. Our laws are fundamentally based around morality, and in a sense, they are based around meta-ethical utilitarianism. They institute rules intended to foster collective happiness.

I don't think it's intellectually difficult to distinguish between less moral behavior that causes direct harm to your fellow man and that which does not. To suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, insulting. No offense.

But you've already said that your morality is based solely on what's good for you personally, rather than any concern for anyone else outside yourself.

 

[Yukon]

Those who no nothing about being a parent have no right to judge those who decide to abort. Abortion is the right of every woman even a childless woman may want to remain childless.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Those who no nothing about being a parent have no right to judge those who decide to abort. Abortion is the right of every woman even a childless woman may want to remain childless.

Yeah Yack Master........next time you go to Rome to visit Bent Dick/Rat Singer, I want you to tell him that.

Tell the pope that you support a woman's right to abortion.

Chances are they'll never let you molest altar boys as a priest ever again.

 

[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.

Of course, following that logic says that you would ALSO believe that you have no right to "force your morality" on someone in the case of other acts like murder, assault, armed robbery . . . so long as you personally weren't the victim. I'm guessing, though, that you are in favor of the law prohibiting these acts toward people other than yourself.

Actually, all that strawman bullshit doesn't follow the logic at all. Quite the contrary in fact. But I know you already know what I meant and are being intentionally obtuse, so I'm not going to bother to explain.

 

[manifold]

I don't believe that's the case. To illustrate this, why are humans as a species generally superior to nonhuman animals? Or perhaps more appropriately, why is a chimpanzee morally superior to an ant?

Because we've collectively declared it so, regardless of any judgements about the implicitness. There exists no objectively measurable criteria. A decidedly gray area if you will.

There's one objectively measurable criteria. We are ourselves humans, therefore we value ourselves and our own species over others.

"Morality" exists outside of the sense that the Christian Right has defined it as. Our laws are fundamentally based around morality, and in a sense, they are based around meta-ethical utilitarianism. They institute rules intended to foster collective happiness.

I don't think it's intellectually difficult to distinguish between less moral behavior that causes direct harm to your fellow man and that which does not. To suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, insulting. No offense.

But you've already said that your morality is based solely on what's good for you personally, rather than any concern for anyone else outside yourself.

I most certainly did not.

 

[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.

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.

You see this issue as fundamental. I see it as trivial. That may sound harsh but that is how I see it. It is trivial to me because it is purely ethical, and we can argue ethics non-stop for thousands of years and not get anything done.

In short, it is purely a matter of opinion on both sides.

 

[Agnapostate]

In that case, I stand by my posts on the matter. Superiority of moral value is subjective. Your attempts to force objective, measurable criteria upon it borders on the ridiculously silly. Are you a ridiculously silly person? Not that there is anything wrong with that of course.

Then on what grounds are humans superior to other animals?

There's a very simple answer to this question: Humans possess critical traits of personhood that permit them to both enjoy their own lives more and suffer from their own deaths and other calamities than other animals. Crudely speaking, humans are more "advanced." Measurement of suffering isn't an especially "subjective" criterion, either. At our meta-ethical cores, do we not consider it imperative to avoid suffering?

Well, several reasons......

First, check your Bible. God blew into the nostrils of man when He breathed the breath of life into Adam and Eve. He didn't do that with any other animal.

Then there is the concept of free will as well as the concept that our soul is actually a piece of God that He placed into us.

Since the Bible is not indisputably accurate (and is in fact obviously inaccurate in many instances), religious justifications cannot serve as logically sound arguments.

After that? Science.........we've got bigger brains and opposable thumbs.

Thank you. That's the response that I was looking for. But now that we have it, what makes human fetuses morally superior to such animals, in the case that they have "bigger brains" than do fetuses?

There's one objectively measurable criteria. We are ourselves humans, therefore we value ourselves and our own species over others.

That is not a logically sound argument, considering that it does not address the matter of arbitrary species distinctions. Similarly, an individual may "value" others of his race or ethnic group more, but that would do nothing to eliminate the relatively arbitrary distinctions involved.

 

[manifold]

In that case, I stand by my posts on the matter. Superiority of moral value is subjective. Your attempts to force objective, measurable criteria upon it borders on the ridiculously silly. Are you a ridiculously silly person? Not that there is anything wrong with that of course.

Then on what grounds are humans superior to other animals?

There's a very simple answer to this question: Humans possess critical traits of personhood that permit them to both enjoy their own lives more and suffer from their own deaths and other calamities than other animals. Crudely speaking, humans are more "advanced." Measurement of suffering isn't an especially "subjective" criterion, either. At our meta-ethical cores, do we not consider it imperative to avoid suffering?

Do you honestly not understand my point, or are you intentionally ignoring it? Doesn't really matter to me which, I just need to know in order to decide how to proceed.

 

[Agnapostate]

Do you honestly not understand my point, or are you intentionally ignoring it? Doesn't really matter to me which, I just need to know in order to decide how to proceed.

Your point is apparently inconsistent, since you don't apply the same standard to differences in kind, namely those between entire species. Unless, of course, you believe that moral distinctions between the human species and other animals are similarly subjective.

 

[manifold]

Do you honestly not understand my point, or are you intentionally ignoring it? Doesn't really matter to me which, I just need to know in order to decide how to proceed.

Your point is apparently inconsistent, since you don't apply the same standard to differences in kind, namely those between entire species. Unless, of course, you believe that moral distinctions between the human species and other animals are similarly subjective.

Unless?

That's what I've been saying all along, perhaps not as clearly and succinctly as I thought.

 

[Shogun]

In that case, I stand by my posts on the matter. Superiority of moral value is subjective. Your attempts to force objective, measurable criteria upon it borders on the ridiculously silly. Are you a ridiculously silly person? Not that there is anything wrong with that of course.

Then on what grounds are humans superior to other animals?

There's a very simple answer to this question: Humans possess critical traits of personhood that permit them to both enjoy their own lives more and suffer from their own deaths and other calamities than other animals. Crudely speaking, humans are more "advanced." Measurement of suffering isn't an especially "subjective" criterion, either. At our meta-ethical cores, do we not consider it imperative to avoid suffering?

Do you honestly not understand my point, or are you intentionally ignoring it? Doesn't really matter to me which, I just need to know in order to decide how to proceed.

Notice the pattern of his reaction.. throw a Kantian curve ball at him and he disappears. This guy is full of shit.

 

[Agnapostate]

Unless?

That's what I've been saying all along, perhaps not as clearly and succinctly as I thought.

In that case, is there a morally relevant difference between killing a human and stepping on an ant?

Notice the pattern of his reaction.. throw a Kantian curve ball at him and he disappears. This guy is full of shit.

Dear boy, you know absolutely nothing about ethics (which accounts for your inability to offer a logically sound argument in favor of your position), a fact that you illustrate with idiotic references to Kant and the categorical imperative. Considering Kant's proclamation that "[o]nly a rational being has the power to act in accordance with his ideas of laws-that is, in accordance with principles-and only so has he a will," it should be rather obvious to those familiar with Kant that a fetus is not a "rational being" through the guidelines that Kant established. Of course, all you did was go to Wikipedia and look up "utilitarianism," so you gathered some dimwitted comprehension that Kantianism and deontology was opposed to utilitarianism, but were not informed enough to understand the nature of Kantianism.

And this simply illustrates that you know nothing of ethics, least of all utilitarianism, as was seen from your imbecilic flailing and comical attempts to attack felicific calculus with the example of the Holocaust victim being slapped. In regards to Kantianism, I doubt that you could even explain the difference between a means and a mere means.

 

[manifold]

Unless?

That's what I've been saying all along, perhaps not as clearly and succinctly as I thought.

In that case, is there a morally relevant difference between killing a human and stepping on an ant?

In my subjective opinion, yes, there is a HUGE difference. And I'm pretty sure I represent the vast majority of humanity on this one. It really is that simple.

 

[Agnapostate]

In my subjective opinion, yes, there is a HUGE difference. And I'm pretty sure I represent the vast majority of humanity on this one. It really is that simple.

But that's an ad populum logical fallacy. A majority of this country's population supported the doctrine of slavery (or at the least, white supremacy), in its early days, but how can that have had any effect on its moral status?

Moreover, why do you consider killing a human to be worse than killing an ant? This is the question that I've been trying to have answered.

 

[del]

In my subjective opinion, yes, there is a HUGE difference. And I'm pretty sure I represent the vast majority of humanity on this one. It really is that simple.

But that's an ad populum logical fallacy. A majority of this country's population supported the doctrine of slavery (or at the least, white supremacy), in its early days, but how can that have had any effect on its moral status?

Moreover, why do you consider killing a human to be worse than killing an ant? This is the question that I've been trying to have answered.

put a sock in it agnes, you've grown tiresome.

excuse me, even more tiresome.