Abortion is murder

[talloulou]

Why is that relevant? We cut short the potential lifespan of every other kind of animal that we kill, so why is the potential lifespan of a human more special than the potential lifespan of those other animals? The lifespan of a tortoise can be rather longer than a human's lifespan, so does that mean a tortoise is more special than a human? I understand soup made from tortoise can be quite tasty.

If you cannot explain why a human lifespan is so special, then that conclusion is faulty. Consider the lifespan of a human born severely retarded. Please be specific in explaining why this lifespan is more special than that of a rat.

But on what grounds is this required to happen? You are essentially claiming that a potential must be fulfilled. Well, what about your own potential to run over by a truck? If potentials must be fulfilled, why are you not out in the street awaiting this event? (Note that I'm not trying to encourage it; I just want to know the logical reason why one potential must be fulfilled, while some other potential is not a must-fulfill.)

That's true enough. However, we still spray maggot-infested garbage with poison to kill the maggots, thus preventing them from fulfilling their potentials as flies, and we also don't care if a rat that we kill is a "nursing mother", such that her pups, whereever they might be hidden, will die also, instead of fulfilling their potentials as rats. Perhaps you would admit that a rat has greater potential than a fly, being a more intelligent organism. Well, so what if a human's potential is greater than a rat's? Why must that potential be fullfilled, when so many other potentials do not have to be fulfilled? And, haven't you considered all the ramifications about that human's potential? It is an extra mouth to feed in an overcrowded world that is approaching a Malthusian Catastrophe. Why do you want to help that potential be fulfilled?

Actually, that is not always true, and you know it. There is a significant percentage of natural miscarriages, up to and effectively including stillbirths and those who die shortly after the umbilicus is cut (babies born with insufficient brain do that) -- all usually caused by serious genetic defects. Why do you grant them equal value to the ones that don't naturally miscarry?

Nonsense, if for no other reason than the siginificant potential to be miscarried. Potentials that are not required to be fulfilled are irrelevant! Which leaves us comparing what is, not what is merely potential. And the "what is" of an unborn human is very comparable to many other ordinary animal organisms.

I agree that you have made similar statements/claims in the past, but when I have requested additional explanations, as above, you have failed to provide the substantiating data that would give your claims some degree of validity.

You know what Future I've grown bored of your bullshit. A homosapien is unlike any other animals because it is a homosapien. That's a fact. There are many factors that make a homosapien a homosapien and age isn't one of them. If you want to say the homosapien organism in the womb is comparable to a rat or a fly go ahead and say it. That doesn't make it true. If someone argued a sheep has five legs if you include the tail that won't change the fact that the sheep still has four legs despite the tail=leg propaganda put forth. Only homosapiens are homosapiens. Homosapiens are not other animals regardless of gestational age. If believing other than that helps you sleep better at night.....I don't know what to tell you.

Everytime in history that one group of homosapiens attempted to make another group of homosapiens less than or more animal like....they have failed and history has looked back on them unkindly.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I see you are trying to wiggle out of answering the questions I asked in Msg #1550. Didn't you write something about being willing to answer questions?

A homosapien is unlike any other animals because it is a homosapien. That's a fact.

Of course it is a fact, if you discount certain similarities with chimps, gorillas, and other members of the "great ape" family. And equally, a fly is unlike any other animal because it is a fly (if you discount certain similarities with other species). That's a fact. And a rat is unlike other animals because it is a rat (if you discount certain similarities with other species). That's a fact. Every species is special/unique in its own way (that's how we tell them apart, after all!).
Thus your claim is both utterly true and utterly meaningless. Because you are failing to indicate anything that makes homosapiens more special than the ordinary way in which any and every species is special.

There are many factors that make a homosapien a homosapien and age isn't one of them. If you want to say the homosapien organism in the womb is comparable to a rat or a fly go ahead and say it. That doesn't make it true.

It doesn't make it false, either, since the type of comparison is not specified in your statement. But look at the type of comparison I made above, and if you dare tell me that flies and rats and homosapiens are not exactly comparable in that way, you had better be able to say exactly why the comparison fails!

If someone argued a sheep has five legs if you include the tail that won't change the fact that the sheep still has four legs despite the tail=leg propaganda put forth.

Well, since I haven't made any claim equivalent to that, your point is worthless.

Only homosapiens are homosapiens. Homosapiens are not other animals regardless of gestational age.

TRUE. And flies are not other animals regardless of gestational age. And rats are not other animals regardless of gestational age. Whoop-te-do. You are still failing to indicate anything that makes homosapiens more special than the ordinary way in which any and every species is special.

If believing other than that helps you sleep better at night.....I don't know what to tell you.

If your believing prejudice that one animal species is, in its animal nature, somehow better than all other animal species, helps you sleep better at night....I do know what to tell you. STOP. Acknowledge that it is our minds and not our bodies that make us special. Those of us that have minds, of course.

Everytime in history that one group of homosapiens attempted to make another group of homosapiens less than or more animal like....they have failed and history has looked back on them unkindly.

That's only because they based their distinctions on prejudice, and not on Scientific Fact. There is no fact that can let you say that unborn humans have minds of greater than ordinary-animal-level, and therefore unborn humans are indeed comparably equivalent to ordinary animals, both physically and mentally. NOT SPECIAL, they are.

 

[talloulou]

That's only because they based their distinctions on prejudice, and not on Scientific Fact. There is no fact that can let you say that unborn humans have minds of greater than ordinary-animal-level, and therefore unborn humans are indeed comparably equivalent to ordinary animals, both physically and mentally. NOT SPECIAL, they are.

The laws against one human killing another human are not about being special. You can't kill someone and then tell the judge..."This guy was a real piece of s-hit. Certainly not special. Dumb as a f-ucking fly. Annoying as a f-ucking rat. Parasitic as a tapeworm and that's why I killed the useless piece of s-hit f-ucker. In general laws prohibit one human from killing another human on the basis that human life is valuable. Not subjectively valuable in that a human has to prove their intelligence, have a certain IQ, prove they're smarter than a chimp, prove they can survive independent of others, ect....

 

[FutureIncoming]

The laws against one human killing another human are not about being special.

They are about people getting along with each other. And don't the laws specify "persons" or "people" more than they specify "human"? Remember the TV show "Alien Nation"? That show "works" because most laws specify "people" and not "human". Yes, we could go round-and-round about how dictionaries tend to equate humans with persons, but that is only because of tradition, and not because of rigorous thought about (A) the fact that English allows non-humans to qualify as persons, and (B) what distinguishes people from non-people. And Science is where such rigor is to be found. More on "tradition" below.

You can't kill someone and then tell the judge...

And right there is your problem. "Someone" is equal to "person". It is true that there is no way that a person-qualifier also equals a non-person. It is not true that, using the same Scientific definition that correctly identifies non-human persons, an unborn human qualifies as a person in the first place. Note that this is what the Challenge in my Signature is about, finding a Scientific definition of person that works both for non-humans, accurately, and also for unborn humans. I'm claiming that there is no such definition, because neither you nor any other pro-lifer can specify such a definition.

"This guy was a real piece of s-hit. Certainly not special. Dumb as a f-ucking fly. Annoying as a f-ucking rat. Parasitic as a tapeworm and that's why I killed the useless piece of s-hit f-ucker.

As just explained, there is no way that a person-qualifier also equals a non-person. That's why a judge won't "buy" those statements. And that's why this observation:

Everytime in history that one group of homosapiens attempted to make another group of homosapiens less than or more animal like....they have failed and history has looked back on them unkindly.

is a Truth.

In general laws prohibit one human from killing another human on the basis that human life is valuable.

Well, that's partly true and partly incomplete. There is the fact that a lot of laws are Relgion-based, where arbitrary claims were pronounced, and those who disagreed were banished or killed (see Deuteronomy 17:12). And after centuries of going along with the pronouncement, it becomes traditional, whether it is true or not. Well, is there any truth to the traditional claim that human life is valuable? Certainly I might say that my life is valuable to me, and you might say that your life is valuable to you, but how can we really be sure that this is equally true for every other person? (And note that non-persons, animals, are never asked!) What about those criminals sentenced to "life in prison with absolutely no chance of parole" --how many of that group would commit suicide if they were allowed to try it? And what about those not in prison who do commit suicide, eh? It seems to me that they count as Scientific Evidence that some persons do not consider their lives to be valuable to themselves. So, why are they required to believe your claim that their lives are valuable?

Not subjectively valuable...

That is laughable: HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! All values are subjective! Even human life is not Objectively valuable, else you would have answered the alternate Challenge in my Signature quite a while ago, by simply offering proof of the objective value of human life. There is plenty of evidence that human life is Subjectively valuable (every diaper manufacturer wants more babies to be born, employers generally don't want their starving low-paid employees committing suicide, etc), but not one iota of evidence exists that human life is Objectively valuable. (Think about this horrible hypocrisy, that so many Republican pro-lifers also oppose Minimum Wage Laws intended to help people stay alive...)

...in that a human has to prove their intelligence, have a certain IQ, prove they're smarter than a chimp, prove they can survive independent of others, ect....

But a human need not prove any such thing. A human simply is those things, or isn't (or is in the "gray zone" between them, where we can err in their favor). The former allows that human to qualify as a person in exactly the same way that a non-human might qualify. Why should it be any different for humans than for nonhumans?