British Study Says Premature Babies Feel Pain

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

So the moment a baby in the womb can feel pain is a decernable measurable point in their life, we know exactly when that happens. And that has changed as the age a viablity has changed? For instance babies in the womb 50 years ago did not feel pain as early as they do now because babies are viable at a earlier age now?

For years the Pro Abortion crowd denied that babies felt pain in the womb. In 1984 the Letter to President Reagan was published. Many times on this site I was accussed of lying (mr steen) about this very issue. 50 years ago Back in 1945 there were studies saying babies in the womb felt pain. Now another study says the same thing and the silence from the pro abortion side is deafening (i Know mispelled it) Think of all the pain that is being commited daily on all the unborn babies. How horrible! Please not in my country. The Pro Life movement has to act now and stop this cruel and unusual and unnatural punnishment Oh it is not punishment bercause the Baby in innocent. Abortion is legalized Murder!

 

[Stace]

I appologize for any misunderstanding. I just used the Quote button on the bottom of the post. Me sorry.

It's cool, it happens.

 

[doughgirl]

"Hmm probably because he wasn't quoting an outside source, and therefore, wasn't violating the Fair Use policy."

Well all I know is that he accused me of saying something I didnt say...........then ran cause he couldnt back it up. :rofl

 

[FutureIncoming]

I don't see anything in any of the recent postings that indicates an unborn human to be more than a mere animal. Animals feel pain too, you know (easily deduced, since humans are evolved from other animals that have similar nervous systems). And we kill them by the million, all the same, with few qualms. I can agree that the methods used for killing, in abortion, could be improved to be quicker and less painful, much as such methods are used in killing ordinary animals. I've even suggested one, in other postings (snip the umbilical cord, and wait a few minutes). Anyway, no rationale to prohibit abortions has yet been offered, in those recent postings.

 

[Stace]

"Hmm probably because he wasn't quoting an outside source, and therefore, wasn't violating the Fair Use policy."

Well all I know is that he accused me of saying something I didnt say...........then ran cause he couldnt back it up. :rofl

I proved in the other thread that you did indeed call Steen an abortionist. But you've conveniently ignored that post. You wouldn't be running away from that one, now would you?

 

[Stinger]

Anyway, no rationale to prohibit abortions has yet been offered, in those recent postings.

or better stated

"Anyway, no rationale to prohibit [killing innocent human beings] has yet been offered, in those recent postings."

You need one?

 

[FutureIncoming]

"Anyway, no rationale to prohibit [killing innocent human beings] has yet been offered, in those recent postings." You need one?

Of course not; I am not against killing mere animals, even if they happen to be human, unless they also happen to be biospherically needed/scarce. (It is a Scientific Fact that all humans will die if we kill off enough other less-brainy life-forms.) I might mention that it is my understanding that many Republican/Christian/pro-lifer types favor the death penalty for persons who choose to act like wild/ravenous/etc. animals. Those proponents of the death penalty apparently aren't using the brains they claim God gave them when they claim that unborn humans are anything more than actual animals, absolutely measurable as non-persons (don't call them "beings" when they can't qualify for that label, either). Why shouldn't they be killable when unwanted, just like any other equivalently mere non-person/animal? Therefore, YOU need a rationale to prohibit abortion of extremely common/replaceable/nonessential/unwanted human fetuses. And you have yet to offer one.

 

[Stinger]

Of course not; I am not against killing mere animals, even if they happen to be human, unless they also happen to be biospherically needed/scarce.

So killing a human being is no different from killing an animal. If I happen to hit a human being with my car because I'm careless I should suffer no more penalty than if I hit a love-bug. There is no moral difference?

(It is a Scientific Fact that all humans will die if we kill off enough other less-brainy life-forms.)

Same with plants, do they get the same level of consideration?

I might mention that it is my understanding that many Republican/Christian/pro-lifer types favor the death penalty for persons who choose to act like wild/ravenous/etc. animals.

Actually if they take malicitiously the life of another innocent human being, not other animals.

Those proponents of the death penalty apparently aren't using the brains they claim God gave them when they claim that unborn humans are anything more than actual animals,

If you haven't figured out they are no less animal than you then you haven't figured out much yet at all.

absolutely measurable as non-persons

And what specifically is this absolute measurement of a non-person? And your authoritative source for it.

(don't call them "beings" when they can't qualify for that label, either).

Are they being? Are they existing? Yes on both counts.

Why shouldn't they be killable when unwanted, just like any other equivalently mere non-person/animal?

Because they aren't. Your question to me, because I do believe they are human beings, is how can I justify prohibiting the killing of innocent human beings. Do you really have to ask?

Therefore, YOU need a rationale to prohibit abortion of extremely common/

I take it you've never studied biology else you would know every human being created except for maternal twins is unique.

replaceable/nonessential/unwanted human fetuses.

Replaceable/nonessential/unwanted human beings. Let's play your game, convience me it's OK to kill replaceable/nonessential/unwanted human beings and therefore justify abortion.

And you have yet to offer one.

They are human beings, do you need more?

 

[Stace]

I take it you've never studied biology else you would know every human being created except for maternal twins is unique.

Maternal twins? Is that a new one? Because I've only ever heard of fraternal and identical. I think you mean identical, as they are formed through the splitting of an egg that has already been fertilized.

 

[Stinger]

Maternal twins? Is that a new one? Because I've only ever heard of fraternal and identical. I think you mean identical, as they are formed through the splitting of an egg that has already been fertilized.

I used a more colloquial term.

PS, boy you brought back some memories. I grew up next to a pair of Fratenal twins. You wouldn't even think they were related. And once a visiting cousin ask one of the ladies at a gathering how could they be twins. Now we are talking about the deep South here and traditions and all. She told him that maternal (identical) twins are a result of the mommies egg alone (of the mother) the daddy has nothing to do with it and paternal twins happen when the mommie gives the pappy two targets and he hits them both (of the father)!

 

[Stace]

I used a more colloquial term.

PS, boy you brought back some memories. I grew up next to a pair of Fratenal twins. You wouldn't even think they were related. And once a visiting cousin ask one of the ladies at a gathering how could they be twins. Now we are talking about the deep South here and traditions and all. She told him that maternal (identical) twins are a result of the mommies egg alone (of the mother) the daddy has nothing to do with it and paternal twins happen when the mommie gives the pappy two targets and he hits them both (of the father)!

LOL.....

I have honestly never heard the phrase maternal twins. Doesn't come up with anything relevant when you do a search on it, either. Weird.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I am not against killing mere animals, even if they happen to be human, unless they also happen to be biospherically needed/scarce.

So killing a human being is no different from killing an animal.

DO NOT PUT YOUR IGNORANT MISINTERPRETATIONS INTO MY MOUTH. I did not specify the phrase "human being" in what you quoted, and therefore I was not talking about human beings. I was talking about animals only, including human animals, and there is a distinct difference between human animals and human beings, of which you appear to be ignorant. So, ask yourself this question, "Why does the word 'human' need to be embellished with the word 'being'?" It is perfectly obvious that many humans are walking around Planet Earth, just as it is perfectly obvious that many dogs, cats, spiders, horses, etc., are also walking around Planet Earth. Yet while you may often use the phrase "human being", you do not ever casually say the phrase "dog being" or "cat being" or "spider being" or "horse being", do you? Well, why not? The answer is that most humans exhibit brainpower that no mere animal can match, and "being" is used as an indicator of that brainpower, exactly as "being" is used in other widely-accepted phrases, such as "alien beings", "intelligent beings", "sapient beings", and so on.

It should now be obvious that "most humans" is not "all humans", and therefore the phrase "human being" cannot correctly/automatically be applied to all humans. The brain-dead on life-support are human animal bodies only, for example (they can't possibly have brainpower if their brains are dead, see?). And unborn humans are also only animals, since their brainpower is measurably no greater than that of many ordinary animals. Simple facts, simple logic, simple conclusions. And if you disagree, you had better be able to present better facts and logic, to support your disagreement.

If I happen to hit a human being with my car because I'm careless I should suffer no more penalty than if I hit a love-bug. There is no moral difference?

Obviously there is a difference between hitting the minded vs hitting the mindless, while equally obviously there is no significant difference between hitting different/mere/mindless animals only, just as there is no significant difference between hitting human beings and alien beings (both minded).

In skimming the rest of your post, I see that you have consistently exhibited the ignorance which I have tried to cure above. I therefore invite you to write a new response to my Msg #157, keeping in mind the it-should-now-be-obvious fact that "humans" and "human beings" are not always/automatically the same thing.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureIncoming, in Msg #157
I am not against killing mere animals, even if they happen to be human, unless they also happen to be biospherically needed/scarce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger, in Msg #158, after quoting the above
So killing a human being is no different from killing an animal.

DO NOT PUT YOUR IGNORANT MISINTERPRETATIONS INTO MY MOUTH.

No one is putting words in your mouth, I am dealing with the ones you are typing and that is pretty much what you conveyed in your last post.

I did not specify the phrase "human being" in what you quoted, and therefore I was not talking about human beings. I was talking about animals only, including human animals, and there is a distinct difference between human animals and human beings,

Oh really, and what might that distinct difference be?

of which you appear to be ignorant. So, ask yourself this question, "Why does the word 'human' need to be embellished with the word 'being'?"

To differentiate between human beings and other beings.

Yet while you may often use the phrase "human being", you do not ever casually say the phrase "dog being" or "cat being" or "spider being" or "horse being", do you?

Feel free to.

Well, why not? The answer is that most humans exhibit brainpower that no mere animal can match, and

Then why do you equate the two?

"being" is used as an indicator of that brainpower,

No it is used to specify a "being" something that is living and being. In this case a HUMAN being.

It should now be obvious that "most humans" is not "all humans", and therefore the phrase "human being" cannot correctly/automatically be applied to all humans.

Yes it does in spite of your rhetorical hoops you create.

And unborn humans are also only animals,

What genus and species are they? Are they cainine or human?

Simple facts, simple logic, simple conclusions. And if you disagree, you had better be able to present better facts and logic, to support your disagreement.

No facts, faulty logic, faulty premises equal unsupportable conclusions.

Obviously there is a difference between hitting the minded vs hitting the mindless,

So if I go to a hospital and rape a woman who is brain dead no crime has been committed since she is "mindless"?

In skimming the rest of your post, I see that you have consistently exhibited the ignorance which I have tried to cure above.

Well when yo come down off your pedestal perhaps you can discuss this with some intelligence and not phoney premises.

I therefore invite you to write a new response to my Msg #157, keeping in mind the it-should-now-be-obvious fact that "humans" and "human beings" are not always/automatically the same thing.

Since that is not true why would I want to do that. Can you cite to me any instance in modern science where DNA was taked from a human and it wasn't human but something else? Or an instance when a human was alive but did not exist therefore was not being?

It it is human, if it is alive, it is being. Therefore it is a human being. And THAT is why many on my side oppose abortion, we don't accept your faulty conclusions that what is killed is not a human being.

 

[FutureIncoming]

No one is putting words in your mouth,

UTTERLY FALSE. When you wrote this:

So killing a human being is no different from killing an animal.

, you were trying to indicate that that was what I meant when I actually wrote this:

I am not against killing mere animals, even if they happen to be human, unless they also happen to be biospherically needed/scarce.

However, since I meant exactly what I wrote, and not your interpretation of what I wrote, you were indeed putting your words into my mouth. And your denial just makes you a liar.

So, ask yourself this question, "Why does the word 'human' need to be embellished with the word 'being'?"

To differentiate between human beings and other beings.

What a stupid lie! Most casual conversations do not include references to any beings AS "beings", except humans. Why isn't the word "human" alone sufficient to distinguish us from other organisms? Let's see a non-stupid answer, this time!

Feel free to.

casually say the phrase "dog being" or "cat being" or "spider being" or "horse being"

I don't need to. I find the word "human" quite sufficient, by itself, to distinguish humans from other organisms. Why don't you find it sufficient?

most humans exhibit brainpower that no mere animal can match, and

Then why do you equate the two?

I don't equate human minds with animal minds. I do equate human bodies with animal bodies. Human bodies are demonstrably and measurably animal, after all. Do you have any facts to the contrary, of any part of what I just wrote?

"being" is used as an indicator of that brainpower,

No it is used to specify a "being" something that is living and being. In this case a HUMAN being.

UNNECESSARILY. Most of the time when we say "dog" we are referencing a living dog, or the idea of a living dog. Ditto with the word human. And that's why we add descriptives such as "dead", "deceased", or even "late", when talking about a no-longer-living human (or dog). So, try again, why do we need to add the word "being" when talking about an average human? Also, for your edification, you should consider the fact that the word "being" can simply mean "exists". Thus a rock that exists can technically be called a "rock being", even though this isn't normally done in casual conversation. All the evidence is that the word "being" is attached to "human" to indicate some sort of specialness more than merely existing and living. Such as significant intelligence. Why else don't we say "rock beings" and "dog beings" in casual conversation? What is your answer to that question?

the phrase "human being" cannot correctly/automatically be applied to all humans.

Yes it does in spite of your rhetorical hoops you create.

Just because you say so, that does not make it true. And you know full well that language in casual conversation is often used imprecisely/irregularly. This is just one example among many ("being" applied to humans and not to most other organisms), and the proof is in your answers (or your lack of intelligent answers) to the questions above.

And unborn humans are also only animals,

What genus and species are they? Are they cainine or human?

They are 100% human, of course, as well as 100% animal. To be human is not to automatically also be an "intelligent being", any more than a dog or a human white-blood-cell (perfectly human and perfectly animal) are intelligent beings.

Simple facts, simple logic, simple conclusions. And if you disagree, you had better be able to present better facts and logic, to support your disagreement.

No facts, faulty logic, faulty premises equal unsupportable conclusions.

I AGREE, that you have no facts, your logic and premises are faulty, and your conclusions are unsupportable. Otherwise you would have presented some actual data, instead of lies.

Obviously there is a difference between hitting the minded vs hitting the mindless,

So if I go to a hospital and rape a woman who is brain dead no crime has been committed since she is "mindless"?

Heh, if you jaywalk are you commiting a crime? How many "crimes" are crimes only because they have been arbitrarily declared to be crimes? It is necessary to think about why some particular act might or might not be a crime, therefore. In the example you offered, what of the larger picture? Who is paying for that woman's life-support? Does that person have custody/control? Would you violate that custody/control by committing rape? If so, then perhaps you would be commiting a crime.

I therefore invite you to write a new response to my Msg #157, keeping in mind the it-should-now-be-obvious fact that "humans" and "human beings" are not always/automatically the same thing.

Since that is not true ...

Ah, but it is true, as shown all through this message.

... why would I want to do that.

Your original reply to Msg #157 was faulty, that's why. I was offering you a chance to correct the faults, so that we could further debate the points raised in that Message. At the moment we are side-tracked.

Can you cite to me any instance in modern science where DNA was taked from a human and it wasn't human but something else?

I don't need to. I can simply cite your own sentence, in which you did NOT think it necessary to use the phrase "human being" instead of the simpler "human". I can also reiterate what I wrote above about white blood cells taken from a human. Each of those is an individual organism and also is perfectly human. And none of them are anything other than 100% pure-living-animal in their essence as organisms. And even for multicellular human organisms such as a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus, none of them are anything other than 100% pure-living-animal in their essence as organisms. It takes a mind to be a "being" of the sort referenced in casual conversation.

Or an instance when a human was alive but did not exist therefore was not being?

That is not a very sensible notion -- but since you are confusing different definitions of "being", it figures that your confusion is rampant all through your so-called argument in this sub-Debate. I, on the other hand, have been focussing almost exclusively on the meaning of "being" as used in casual conversation. And I said so, too. That's why I can ask why it always/consistently appears to be used as if it means "with significant intelligence". Thus "human being" means "human with significant intelligence", and "worm being" is a never-used phrase (in casual conversation), simply because no worm has that much intelligence.

It it is human, if it is alive, it is being. Therefore it is a human being.

Your repetitive confusing-of-definitions just makes you look ignorant/stupid. I recommend you cease forthwith.

And THAT is why many on my side oppose abortion, ...

All of them are as ignorant and confused as yourself? HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!

... we don't accept your faulty conclusions that what is killed is not a human being.

It is your logic that is faulty, simply because if your logic is correct, then you should be equally using-in-casual-conversation such phrases as "fish beings", "cow beings", "pig beings", "tree beings", and so on -- and you should be equally opposed to killing all of them. Since you pro-lifers mostly aren't so opposed, it logically follows that you are simply exhibiting hypocrisy and/or prejudice of a particularly stupid variety.

 

[Stinger]

Actually the usage of "human" and "human being" are interchangable when discussing a living human. You have offered nothing more than silly semantics so I can only take it that you have difficulty maintaining your position on it's merits.

when you post such nonsense as

"Thus "human being" means "human with significant intelligence" "

Guess a new born is not a human being by your faulty reasoning.

Oh well.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Actually the usage of "human" and "human being" are interchangable when discussing a living human.

This is true only when people conducting ordinary conversations aren't being scientifically precise --the normal situation, that is. And dictionaries, of course, reflect ordinary conversation (that's their job) as much as they reflect scientific precision (that's their job, too). What a dictionary doesn't always say is why a particular phrase has entered common usage. It is that "why" that I am focussing on, to make my argument here. Your bald statement of interchangeability does not, I see, address any of the "why" questions that I have asked:

So, ask yourself this question, "Why does the word 'human' need to be embellished with the word 'being'?"

The most obvious answer to that "why" is, "there is no need for it". But it does reflect simple self-perception-of-specialness, when humans compare themselves to other animals, simply because, in ordinary conversation, the word "being" is only attached to "human" and equivalent-to-human organisms (as in "alien being"), but not to less-intelligent organisms. (Note that if an alien organism was of the merely animal class, it would very likely be called an "alien animal" and not an "alien being".)

So, I am saying that the phrase "human being" is just a way that humans use to brag about themselves, in the same way that upper-class humans like to use lots of titles to brag about themselves. (For an extreme example, see the second paragraph of the prologue to the Code of Hammurabi: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM ) And "there is no need for it" --as bragging, that is. There can still be a need to distinguish members of the generic class of intelligent beings, and in that context, the phrase "human being" would be completely correct and proper. But note that most of the time, here on Earth, humans are the only known intelligent beings present, and so again the most obvious answer to that "why" question is, "there is no need for it."

You have offered nothing more than silly semantics so I can only take it that you have difficulty maintaining your position on it's merits. when you post such nonsense as "Thus "human being" means "human with significant intelligence" "

Au contraire! See above. I am quite consistent in what I am talking about. You, on the other hand, are trying to take advantage of natural human laziness, braggadocio, etc., to mis-use language, and its potential ability to communicate precise information, to misinform and control people. Just like all the other pro-lifers.

Guess a new born is not a human being by your faulty reasoning.

The reasoning isn't faulty at all, and a new-born human measurably does not technically qualify as an intelligent being. Thus, when the word "being" is used as an identifier for intelligent organisms, it cannot logically be applied to new-born humans. In measurable fact, the data is that most humans do not finish growing/acquiring all the mental traits that distinguish us from ordinary animals, until more than two years after birth. See this: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000ACE3F-007E-12DC-807E83414B7F0000
I might mention, however, that sufficiently developed human newborns (most preemies don't count here) do one thing that no other ordinary animal does. They can express an opinion about the world, loudly and long. All other animal newborns live very quiet lives, lest predators find them.

Anyway, since newborn humans do not and cannot qualify as intelligent beings, it is obvious that no unborn human can qualify as an intelligent being. This Abortion Form is not about newborn humans (nor is it about two-year-olds). There remains no supportable rationale that you or any other pro-lifer has offered, to prevent the abortion of unwanted human animals in an overpopulated world. (And if only the wanted ones are born, then you have no supportable rationale to talk about killing newborns or two-year-olds, either.)

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger, continuing
Guess a new born is not a human being by your faulty reasoning.

The reasoning isn't faulty at all, and a new-born human measurably does not technically qualify as an intelligent being. Thus, when the word "being" is used as an identifier for intelligent organisms, it cannot logically be applied to new-born humans.

Nope as I already demonstrated in merely means existing. And your "technically qualifying" has no sound basis at all, it is merely self-serving specious arguement. Sorry but your simpleton semantics are of no interest. A fetus is human and it is existing it is being, just as you were at that stage of life. It is as seperate and complete a human being as you were when you were at that very same stage of your life. And if we are going to judge whether or not we can kill someone based on thier intelligence well that is certainly a world I don't want to live in. If you have no problem killing innocent human beings because they complicate life for someone then just admit it.

 

[FutureIncoming]

The reasoning isn't faulty at all, and a new-born human measurably does not technically qualify as an intelligent being. Thus, when the word "being" is used as an identifier for intelligent organisms, it cannot logically be applied to new-born humans.

Nope as I already demonstrated in merely means existing.

Actually, I was first between us to indicate that the word "being" can also mean "exists". Yet that definition does not help your overall argument at all!!! And here is the evidence for that statement:

I don't see anything in any of the recent postings that indicates an unborn human to be more than a mere animal. ... no rationale to prohibit abortions has yet been offered, in those recent postings.

or better stated "Anyway, no rationale to prohibit [killing innocent human beings] has yet been offered, in those recent postings." You need one?

Of course not; I am not against killing mere animals, even if they happen to be human, unless they also happen to be biospherically needed/scarce. ... Why shouldn't they {{unborn humans}} be killable when unwanted, just like any other equivalently mere non-person/animal? Therefore, YOU need a rationale to prohibit abortion of extremely common/replaceable/nonessential/unwanted human fetuses. And you have yet to offer one.

So killing a human being is no different from killing an animal. ... There is no moral difference?

When the definition of "being" merely means "exists", there is indeed no moral difference!!! Go ahead! Just try to show how an innocent unborn human, just because it exists, has a morally superior existence to that of any other innocent animal, which also just happens to exist --and which we casually kill at whim, such as calves to obtain veal.

Only if "being" means more than "exists" can you have an argument! And no matter what attribute other than "exists" that you assign as a meaning for "being", applicable to any average well-developed born human, you will discover that if that definition does not apply to ordinary animals, then that definition will also not apply to unborn humans. Period And therefore your argument fails, spectactularly, in using the word "being" as an excuse to prohibit abortions.

 

[dragonslayer]

nope.

what does that have to do with premature babies?

Ok premature babies feel pain. what does this mean? If a baby is created and cell division has started, After a month in the womb, is it a person, or a lump of cells. There certainly is some cell specialization, the central nervous system is forming. If the central has to form or there would never be a human being created out of that lump of cells. I don't believe that that lump of cells is viable or yet a human even with the beginnings of a CNS. After three months I believe it is viable and should be left alone, Unless the mother is gonna die.

My real problem with Right to Life, is making a girl have a baby, and then letting it starve to death,or live in abject poverty. To many times I have heard people who are right to life, make statements about how terrible it is to have tax money used to take care of babies and children. Hypocritical as heck.

 

[Stinger]

When the definition of "being" merely means "exists", there is indeed no moral difference!!! Go ahead! Just try to show how an innocent unborn human, just because it exists, has a morally superior existence to that of any other innocent animal, which also just happens to exist --and which we casually kill at whim, such as calves to obtain veal.

Morality is a decission we as a society make. If you see no moral difference between killing another human being and killing a roach then just admit it.

Only if "being" means more than "exists" can you have an argument!

Attach Human to the front of it.

And therefore your argument fails, spectactularly, in using the word "being" as an excuse to prohibit abortions.

Again you simply engage in semantical arguements. I have no interest in them. If you can't make the intellectual distinction between human beings and dog beings then you can't offer any arguements I care to hear. I happen to believe we human belings do not have a right to kill another human being simply because that other human being is an incovienence to our life. I believe all human beings have a right to their life. If you don't so be it.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Morality is a decission we as a society make.

Yes, but what is the rationale for "morality"? You will find, all too often, that morals are nothing more than arbitrary pronouncenments dictated by religious leaders. Why is eating pork immoral for Jews and Muslims, but not Christians, eh? The Thirty Years' War (early 1600s) was almost entirely fought because various religions each claimed that they knew the only moral way to worship God, and none of the other sects did. Thus, because they are arbitrary and non-universal, morals are not a topic worthy of discussion. Ethics, however, is something that can replace morals, because they are not steeped in arbitrary religious idiocy. Ethics can have a firm universal basis, such as, "we need various guidelines to make it easier for people to get along with each other." Then some of the things that are declared immoral, like murder, are also declarable as unethical (and so again there is no reason for morals to be discussed). Of course, since they can be universal, ethics can equally apply to human persons, robotic persons, alien persons, and so on. They will never apply to mere animals, such as unborn humans, that cannot understand and implement the concepts.

If you see no moral difference between killing another human being and killing a roach then just admit it.

I see an ethical difference between killing a person any sort, and killing a nonperson of any sort. (Of course there is no ethical difference between killing persons only--which shouldn't be done-- just as there is no ethical difference between killing nonpersons only--which is generally okay.) Unborn humans are in the second category, while most well-developed born humans are in the first category. Morals, being stupid, arbitrary, prejudiced, and hypocritical, are worthless. It was morals that declared that dark-skinned humans should not marry light-skinned humans, after all --while ethics doesn't care if human and nonhuman persons marry. (Which one better promotes people getting along with each other?)

Only if "being" means more than "exists" can you have an argument!

Attach Human to the front of it.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH! You are merely arbitrarily, prejudicially, and hypocrically claiming that a "human being" is somehow superior to a "roach being", two types of organisms that happen to exist, without even offering a reason why. Of course, if you do offer a reason why, you will see that that reason does not apply to unborn humans....and therefore you still have no argument that can be used to prohibit abortion!

Again you simply engage in semantical arguements.

YET YOU CHOSE THE SPECIFIED SEMANTIC! Msg #168 was about the consequences of your insistence that the most relevant definition of "being" is "exists", and if you don't like those consequences, tough! Complaining about it does not qualify as Debating. Not to mention that #168 was preparatory for this expose` of your arbitrary prejudice and hypocrisy. You have yet to offer any Objective support for your implications that the simple existence of a human organism is inherently superior to the simple existence of a roach organism. (If roaches had opinions, wouldn't they equally prejudicially claim they are supeior to humans? And, Objectively, it is widely believed even by humans that roaches will easily survive World War III. Does that make roaches superior? Are you now going to present your chosen semantic definition of "superior"?)

If you can't make the intellectual distinction between human beings and dog beings then you can't offer any arguements I care to hear

Ah, but I do make intellectual distinctions between humans existers and dog existers. Human existers, those that qualify as intelligent beings, have intellects, and dog existers (and fetal human existers) don't. It is the existence of intellects, persons, that is far more valuable to Society than the existence of mere animal bodies. This fact is even widely/unofficially recognized by the popularity of such fictions as "Alien Nation" and "Star Trek" and "Star Wars", where the biology of persons is mostly a non-issue (and some persons don't even have biology). Thus the anti-abortionists say we should allow every single unintellected unborn human to grow an intellect, while other people realize that the world is already overpopulated with tens or hundreds of millions of intellects that are being wasted. Obviously the Law of Supply and Demand has made intellects less valuable these days than they were in the days that arbitrary morals were first written down. (And the fact that morals still claims a super-high value for intellects, in spite of data that exactly fits the Law of Supply and Demand**, just proves even more the irrelevance/worthlessness/falseness of arbitrary morals.) So why do we need even more intellects, before all that already exist are fully part of a joint endeavor to survive the Incoming Future?
{{**In ancient China, it was normal for a peasant, meeting a social superior, to refer to self as "This worthless person". The notion that "there was plenty more peasants where that one came from, after all" perfectly meshes with what the Law of Supply and Demand has to say about overpopulation: value goes down as quantity goes up. Abortion could possibly be seen as a tool to keep population low, and value high....}}

Additional topic:
Your irrational spoutings about human beings only serve to promote a Malthusean Catastrophe (when you insist that more mouths-to-feed must be born into an already-overpopulated world). So, if that Catastrophe happens, are you willing to take responsibility, along with the rest of the pro-life and the "be fruitful and multiply" idiots, and line up to be executed, for your actions that will have helped to cause the deaths of 90+% of all the human-beings/people on Earth? (You are genocidal!) Remember where the road paved with good intentions leads? That's because good intentions need to be long-sighted, but are usually short-sighted. Note: 90-99% death rate is typical for a Malthusean Catastrophe, and humans are not immune, as was proved on Easter Island --about 20,000 people dropped to about 200, a 99% death rate, after they used up their resources. Island Earth is just a bigger island with a bigger initial population and more resources, and we are using up its finite resources. For example, global oil production is at its peak and will soon (if not already happened) start to decline, never again to reach late-2005/early-2006 level (see http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak ).

 

[Stinger]

Yes, but what is the rationale for "morality"?

A civil flurishing society.

You will find, all too often, that morals are nothing more than arbitrary pronouncenments dictated by religious leaders. Why is eating pork immoral for Jews and Muslims, but not Christians, eh?

I guess because Jews smartly realized that eating pork back then could cause health problems and people dying from it was not good for society.

But if you believe society can exist without certain moral standards they how do you propose we govern and prevent anarchy?

If you believe there is not moral or ethical difference between killing an innocent human being and a bug being then I certainly do not want to live in your world.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH! You are merely arbitrarily, prejudicially, and hypocrically claiming that a "human being" is somehow superior to a "roach being",

Well when I studied biology ( it was my major) the differences were certainly not abitrary.

Quite frankly I find your arguements ludicrious and have no interest in wasting my time on them.

 

[FutureIncoming]

what is the rationale for "morality"?

A civil flurishing society.

Ah, but you say that only because morals were "pushed" for millenia, by religious leaders who originally made other claims for the basis of morals. Since people can eventually get used to most any political situation, in this case you have swallowed the Big Lie, that morals are necessary.

Why is eating pork immoral for Jews and Muslims, but not Christians, eh?

I guess because Jews smartly realized that eating pork back then could cause health problems and people dying from it was not good for society.

FALSE. Eating well-cooked pork is fine for most humans. (Some will have a bad reaction, but then name any other food and some humans will have a bad reaction to it.) It is the "well cooked" aspect that Christians recognized and accepted as a reason to throw out an outdated arbitrary pronoucement. I notice you said nothing about the Muslims, who came along centuries after the Christians, yet reverted to moralizing against eating pork. What say you about that, other than to admit morals really are just a bunch of often-conflicting-and-thus-worthless arbitrary pronouncements?

But if you believe society can exist without certain moral standards ...

I specifically wrote that ethics, based on the notion that people need to get along with each other, can be a suitable universal replacement for arbitrary morals. So why are you stupidly trying to imply I wrote anything else?

If you believe there is not moral or ethical difference between killing an innocent human being and a bug being then I certainly do not want to live in your world.

But you still have failed to show how or why an innocent unintellected human exister is in any way more deserving of life than an equally innocent unintellected bug exister. So, if you claim that that particular variety of human is more deserving than the bug, then I formally request you provide the supporting evidence for that claim, per the Rules of Debate.

The actual ethic is that the intellected being/exister is always more deserving of life than the unintellected being/exister. This is the ethic of humans vs ordinary plants and animals, since before the Stone Age. On what basis dare you say otherwise? Therefore, since it is unintellected, a human fetus has no rights to interfere with the life of its intellected mother. Simple.

You are merely arbitrarily, prejudicially, and hypocrically claiming that a "human being" is somehow superior to a "roach being"

Well when I studied biology ( it was my major) the differences were certainly not abitrary.

Whoop-te-do. "Different" is not equal to "superior". You might as well be saying that a "grasshopper being" is superior to a "roach being", just because it is a grasshopper being, different from a roach being. Worthless prejudice!

You can not logically compare a mosquito and a member of the species homo sapiens.

I can, indeed! Both are multicellular organisms, and neither is more alive than the other. Both are animals having digestive and respiratory and circulatory and nervous and reproductive systems, and both come equipped with stimulus/response instincts for Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing, and Fornicating. Humans have endoskeletons and mosquitos have exoskeletons, but that just means both have skeletons, and both have numerous muscles attached to those skeletons. Humans and mosquitoes can both experience the environment via physical senses of sight, smell, touch, taste, and sound (sound-detection is one of the very very oldest of senses). Dissimilarities in the details of the sensory organs are just that, mere details, compared to the fact that the senses all exist. I've seen several Web pages indicating that humans and insects have perhaps 30% of genes in common. I half-suspect that just about every multicellular life-form on Earth has about that much in common (almost as soon as multicellularity happened, so did the "Cambrian Explosion", bringing the divergence of such lines as the arthropods and the chordates). A human may have 100,000 times the mass of a mosquito, but both have mass.... Now, let's see the evidence supporting your claim that it is illogical to compare a human animal with a mosquito animal.

{{Talloulou never did offer such evidence.}} Obviously I quoted the above because roaches, like mosquitos, are more like humans than you appear to have understood. What neither roaches nor mosquitoes nor human fetuses have are intellects, and thus all of them are more equal to each other, than unitellected human fetuses are equal to intellected humans. Because it is our intellects that most distinguish persons from all the other well-studied life-forms, nonpersons every one, on Earth. On what basis can you say otherwise, to any of those statements?

Quite frankly I find your arguements ludicrious and have no interest in wasting my time on them.

Seeing the extent that you have not-answered various questions I've asked, I think the evidence is that you are actually copping out from a losing situation, instead of just admitting that you are wrong, that you have no supporting data that can convert your prejudice into non-prejudice. Otherwise you should/would have presented it by now. Just like it hasn't been presented by any of the other pro-lifers here, thus proving they are indeed as misinformed and prejudiced as you.