• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How would you like to die like this?

Naughty Nurse said:
You have, to date, failed to specify what exactly it is that separates human being from animals. Until you do so, how can you object to abortion whilst not objecting to meat-eating?
Click to expand...
Are you against murder laws?
 
Try this. It goes further than simply respond to your concern.

Animal "Rights" Versus Human Rights
Rights can only be held by beings who are capable of reasoning and choosing.​

June 1, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Edwin A. Locke

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human life versus animal life. This fundamental conflict of values, which was dramatized a few years ago when AIDS victims marched in support of research on animals, is still raging. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has just launched a campaign against Covance, Inc., a biomedical research lab in Vienna, Va., that uses animals for drug testing.

It is an indisputable fact that many thousands of lives are saved by medical research on animals. But animal rightists don't care. PETA makes this frighteningly clear: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." Such is the "humanitarianism" of animal rights activists.

How do these advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single--invalid--syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.

Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational faculty--which is exercised by choice. The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men--free to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.

None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through sensory-perceptual association and the pleasure-pain mechanism. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.

Only man has the power, guided by a code of morality, to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion. To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves--a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them--at our expense.

The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal "rights" advocates have revealed it quite openly. Again from PETA: "Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth"; "I do not believe that a human being has a right to life"; "I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals." These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men.

The animal "rights" terrorists are like the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.

There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and defiantly, in the name of morality, a man's right to his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.

Edwin A. Locke is Dean's Professor Emeritus of Leadership and Motivation at the University of Maryland at College Park and is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute
 
So according to this article that you posted, the only thing that can give rights to a creature is the ability to think and make choices. How many choices do you think zygotes make?
 
Kelzie said:
So according to this article that you posted, the only thing that can give rights to a creature is the ability to think and make choices. How many choices do you think zygotes make?
Click to expand...
Just about the same number as a child in the womb at any of the three tri-mesters, a newly born child, or a child of one, two, and perhaps three years. Does this similarity render them all the same as animals?
 
Fantasea said:
Just about the same number as a child in the womb at any of the three tri-mesters, a newly born child, or a child of one, two, and perhaps three years. Does this similarity render them all the same as animals?
Click to expand...

Of course not. It just proves how silly that article was. Many things go into having rights other than the ability to "make a choice"
 
Kelzie said:
Of course not. It just proves how silly that article was. Many things go into having rights other than the ability to "make a choice"
Click to expand...
If that's your belief, why not list many of those many things for us? Perhaps you'll get some agreement.
 
I believe that drawing a line, saying at this point it's a human with rights, and it this point it's not, is too arbitrary. There's no formula one could follow, no scientific evidence that leads to a logical conclusion that the fetus is a human at 2 weeks or 6 weeks or 10 weeks.

That said, I will grant the premise the the fetus is a human at conception, even if I don't believe that a clump of cells is human. An acorn is not a oak tree, and all that. However, I don't believe that "abortion is wrong" is the logical conclusion. A mother's right to her body outweighs the fetus's right to life.

There's a wonderful article by a philosopher names Judith Jarvis Thomson (you can read the whole article here ). Anyway, to sum up her point and my belief, requires a little empathy. You're supposed to imagine that you have been kidnapped by the Music Lovers of America and hooked up to a famous violinist because his kidneys don't work and you are the only person with his blood type. The doctors are apologetic, but since you are already there, and he will die without you, why don't you just put your life on hold for just nine months.

Of course it would be very nice of you to stay for nine months. But I don't think anyone would say it's your duty to do it.

The thing I like about this scenario is that it allows men the ability to empathize with the person, something that is often not possible with pregnancy. The thing I don't like is that (well one of them) is that there are very few pregnancies that require a person to be in bed for nine months. So I propose an amendment to her article, so that the violinist would be following you around for nine months, connected by a tube. Every time you ate, he would be there, every time you went on a date, or to the bathroom-hey there's the violinist!

So that is my belief, and a very long answer to the question of why you can't call something a human based on whether or not he/she/it can make a choice.
 
Perhaps the first thing we should agree on is the meaning of the word 'philosopher' and the role it describes. Merriam-Webster's defines it this way:

Main Entry: phi·los·o·pher
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)f&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, modification of Middle French philosophe, from Latin philosophus, from Greek philosophos, from phil- + sophia wisdom, from sophos wise
Date: 14th century
1 a : a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : SCHOLAR, THINKER b : a student of philosophy
2 a : a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier b : an expounder of a theory in a particular area of experience c : one who philosophizes

Without a doubt, there is a need for philosophers and a place in the world for them. However, the philosopher you cite displays no knowledge of biology, obstetrics, or genetics; simply an abundance of emotional thought.

If one wants to understand what is going on in the womb during the period immediately following conception, wouldn't one be better advised to seek the knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and most of all, the experience, of persons qualified in obstetrics, biology, or genetics? Persons whose life work is germane?

How about these emminently qualified experts:

"WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?"​
On April 23-24, 1981, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on this very question? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who all affirmed that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.”
 
I must have missed in your definition where a philosopher has to have a degree in biology.

And the point was it doesn't matter if the fetus is life or not, the point was that a fetus's or any other person's right to life does not outweigh another person's right to their own body. You responded to my statement that it doesn't matter if the fetus has rights with people saying that they are alive from the moment of conception. I have already given you that premise (even if I don't believe it).

And a little side note on your "expert"

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth: is an expert in photobiology, also known as the study of the effects of light on biological systems. How nice that she could take time away from researching human photosensitivity diseases to testify on a completely different subject.

Dr. McCarthy de Mere is a plastic surgeon. I'm sure he welcomed the break from boob jobs and face lifts to say a little something on the beginning of life.

Dr. Hymie Gordon strangely enough since he is a chairman at the Mayo Clinic, seems to have done little in his life except say this quote. I will say in passing though, that he is a geneticist (sp?) not a molecular biologist. Maybe he should stick to comments in his study area.

Dr. Jerome Lejeune is a fabulous, brilliant man that discovered the genetic mistake that leads to Downs Syndrome, but again, a geneticist does not a molecular biologist make. Genetics is concerned with the science of heredity, not the beginning of life, which is hardly a scientific question anyway, since all cells are alive.

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, thank god, has a website, which made my search much easier. His claim to fame is being a specialist in gland problems in children. Do I really need to explain this?

And last (thank god), Dr. Landrum Shettles, is the co-author of a book Choose the Sex of Your Baby because he is an expert (and fan of) on in-vetro fertilization and cloning techniques. It seems strange that a man who is a fan of choosing which cells get to make a baby by human choice has a problem with destroying those same cells (which is what I''m assuming he does with the "leftovers" anyway).
 
Abortion is mureder of one's own offspring...

An abominable action...
 
Quertol said:
Abortion is mureder of one's own offspring...

An abominable action...
Click to expand...

Hey look! I can make statements with absolutely no backing too!

Abortion is the removal of a cell cluster...

A sometimes necessary action when the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.

Although...I suppose it doesn't actually accomplish much.
 


At what point does a "cell cluster" become a baby?
 
Did you read my previous post at all? Even though I don't think a cell cluster is a baby, it is too difficult to draw a line of 10 days or 10 weeks or whatever. I'm saying it doesn't matter at all. One persons right to life does not trump anothers right to their body when a person's right to life depends on another giving up their right to their own body.
 

What are you talking about, their right to their own body? Right to life has to prevail... It is considered reasonable service to that baby...it did not choose to be conceived, you chose, so now...it is your responsiblity to care for that baby...until it is out of the womb...you can then give it up for adoption or what not...
 

Women, believe it or not, have a right to their own body. As in, they get to choose what happens to their body. Did you read my other post yet? It's number 74. If you do, you will see why I don't think a.) right to life prevails, or b.) it is a reasonable service. As for choosing to be conceived or not, I have a feeling very few women wrestling with the decision to have an abortion wanted to become pregnant. Yes I know they choose to have sex and blah, blah. But if a women opened a window and a robber climbed in, you wouldn't say he has as much of a right to her house as she does because she opened the window knowing that there were such things as robbers. What if she installed bars in her window, and there was a defect through no fault of her own? Is it still her responsibilty? When a women takes steps to decrease the risk of pregnancy, and it happens anyway, she should not then be forced to give up her liberties for anothers.
 

What you don't understand is that the propagation of the species is the most important thing... You analogy is wanting...
 
Ah yes. My mistake. So any time a women menstrates, instead of doing the "most important thing" and getting herself pregnant like any good animal before she wastes her egg, she should be taken out back and stoned. Sorry there's no cute analogy to prove you wrong, just the logical conclusion to your statement.
 

But you see the act of leaving a window open isn't meant to produce a robbery. The act of sex is in fact meant to produce a child. If one is responsible, they can reduce the chances of pregnancy dramaticly.

If one were to use most types of birth conrtol pill with perfect use, the chances are reduced to 1% failure rate. If you want to go the extra mile and use another type of birth control, most condoms, with perfect use, have a 3% failure rate.

1% chance with a 3% chance yields a .03% chance of pregnancy. A pill and a piece of latex a day, keeps the tongs/scrapers/vaccums away.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
But you see the act of leaving a window open isn't meant to produce a robbery. The act of sex is in fact meant to produce a child. If one is responsible, they can reduce the chances of pregnancy dramaticly.
Click to expand...

Te act of sex has become meant to mean a lot more than having children. It is more recreation now.
 
alex said:
Te act of sex has become meant to mean a lot more than having children. It is more recreation now.
Click to expand...

Recreation? Okay... This 'recreation' has consequences. Kind of like other recreations. If you play soccer, don't be surprised when you get a little sweaty...

See where I'm going with this?
 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say a HUGE number of people don't have sex with the intent to produce a child. Of course the chance is always there. Just like when you open a window, the intent isn't to let in a robber, but the chance is always there. And condoms, with perfect use, actually have an 11% failure, for male, and 21% failure for female condoms according to the FDA
 

I didn't see anywhere in your site where it mentioned perfect use. Judging by the figures it provided and the figures my source provided, I think it was an average of all uses, perfect or otherwise. Also, all of the figures were from 1997.

This is MY SOURCE. NOTICE: My source is from a website known as "CondomDepot.com" that I found from a quick google search. There was nothing explicit that I saw, but there may be some sort of advertisements, etc. So enter at your own risk.

Basically it says that the male condom, typical use is about 15% failure, and 2% in perfect use(the earlier 3% was from a different source, this one has many many contraceptives and their failure rates). There are many different forms of "The Pill" mentioned here.

This is an activity that has consequences and should be prepared for. Be responsible pre-empitvely.
 
Last edited:

I think that a website selling condoms might have a slight bias. This website is by the govenment and says 86-98 for male and 79-95 for female.

However, the point being that NONE of them are perfect. So the situations still will exist that a woman would have to give up her liberties, for the liberties of another person which she tried to prevent from being conceived in the first place.
 
Apropos of nothing, I gotta share this story. My friend used to work for the State of Minnesota's child support division and this case came across his desk. There were two friends that shared a small apartment and were quite poor. They had their girlfriends over and one couple went to the bedroom, slipped on a condom and went to town. After they finished, the other couple went in, they didn't have any more condoms, so the guy turned the condom inside out and they did the deed. Apparently they didn't wash it off or didn't wash it off well enough because the 2nd women got pregnant from the first guy. The first guy is on the hook for the child support too.
 

A valid point, but if you take the right precautions and be responsible, your chance of meeting with an unwanted pregnancy becomes very very slim. Preventing a pregnancy is better and safer and more responsible than terminating one. I believe people should be held responsible for their actions. This includes their mistakes.

Shuamort:

That's grotesque. I can't believe someone would actually do that. It's one level of stupidity to re-use a condom, it's a completely new and depressing level to re-use someone elses...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…