Hypocrites!

[Donkey1499]

The POINT is, do you look at whether there is life, or whether there is fault? Are you defending life because it is life, or do you look at whose "fault" it is that a life issue has arisen?

I look at life based on action. If someone is innocent, let them live. But if they're guilty (of murder) then let them die. A very simple philosophy that anyone could understand, even if you disagree with it.

 

[Donkey1499]

Perhaps you don't UNDERSTAND what parasitic means? Does the fetus use her bodily resources without confering a benefit to the woman's biological functioning? yes, it does. That makes its function parasitic.

But the mother is ALLOWING it to use her resources. Unless if she's a poor mother and sees the fetus as the root of all her problems.

Your boss allows you to show up to work and to get paid for it, so thus, you're not a parasite to the company.

 

[steen]

I look at life based on action. If someone is innocent, let them live. But if they're guilty (of murder) then let them die. A very simple philosophy that anyone could understand, even if you disagree with it.

The dying kidney patient is innocent. So why not let him live? Why not force somebody to give up their extra kidney so he can live?

Og, I forgot, there is no FAULT involved. Yes, you were admitting to be pro-fault rather than prolife, weren't you?

 

[steen]

But the mother is ALLOWING it to use her resources. Unless if she's a poor mother and sees the fetus as the root of all her problems.Not if she is seeking an abortion, she isn't. So that still leaves the embryo's or fetus' function as parasitic.

And biologically, it is not about "allowing" anything. It is about whether it is parasitism or symbiosis. So your argument is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Felicity]

Perhaps you don't UNDERSTAND what parasitic means? Does the fetus use her bodily resources without confering a benefit to the woman's biological functioning? yes, it does. That makes its function parasitic.

4. THE ZEF = PARASITE ARGUMENT
It’s a parasite. It does not exist separate—it is attached by the umbilical cord and receives nutrients from its female host. The ZEF is dependent upon the woman and sucks resources from her body—if the woman doesn’t want to be enslaved by the non sentient, non sensate ZEF—she has the medical option of abortion.

PRO-LIFE RESPONSE:
Aside from the fact that pro choice cannot BOTH claim that the ZEF is merely “cells”—thus not an organism—AND ALSO CLAIM that the ZEF is an organism that is parasitic without demonstrating INHERENT contradictions in the premise of its argument, the embryo—which IS an organism as demonstrated above and below, IS NOT a parasite.

The mother/zygote relationship is symbiotic. The zygote resides in the environment provided by the mother and receives nutrients from the mother. Pregnancy provides hormones that have been shown to reduce the risks of some cancers—NOT TO MENTION the benefit to the species as a whole by means of the continuing of the species and ignoring SOCIAL benefits of motherhood.

The ZEF demonstrates all the necessary requirements for LIFE and it has identifiably unique and individual DNA that is of human origin—the ZEF is a whole and complete entity in and of itself EVEN WITHIN the environment it needs to sustain its life.

1) the embryo divides and grows and sustains itself for the first month--demonstrating growth and individual homeostasis and a metabolism. It has the ability to reproduce itself via twinning.
2) the embryo implants in its uterine environment and establishes a means of nourishment via the placenta--demonstrating a response to the environment and individual growth and maturation while establishing another means of metabolizing nutrients.
3) the woman's body is influenced by the action of the implantation--the embryo initiates the production of the hormone that sustains the environment—the action is initiated by the embryo implantation and exerts an influence on the mother by its presence.
From:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=177790&postcount=45

 

[Felicity]

Does the fetus use her bodily resources without confering a benefit to the woman's biological functioning? yes, it does. .

Steen--that is a LIE.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/pregnancy
Hormone changes that occur during pregnancy may influence a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer later in life. Research continues to help us understand reproductive events and breast cancer risk. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is currently funding research that may lead to discoveries that identify ways to mimic pregnancy’s protective effects and translate them into effective prevention strategies.



Pregnancy-Related Factors that Protect Against Breast Cancer

Some factors associated with pregnancy are known to reduce a woman’s chance of developing breast cancer later in life:

The younger a woman has her first child, the lower her risk of developing breast cancer during her lifetime.

A woman who has her first child after the age of 35 has approximately twice the risk of developing breast cancer as a woman who has a child before age 20.

A woman who has her first child around age 30 has approximately the same lifetime risk of developing breast cancer as a woman who has never given birth.

Having more than one child decreases a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer. In particular, having more than one child at a younger age decreases a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer during her lifetime.

Although not fully understood, research suggests that pre-eclampsia, a pathologic condition that sometimes develops during pregnancy, is associated with a decrease in breast cancer risk in the offspring, and there is some evidence of a protective effect for the mother.

After pregnancy, breastfeeding for a long period of time (for example, a year or longer) further reduces breast cancer risk by a small amount.

 

[steen]

4. THE ZEF = PARASITE ARGUMENT......

This is what happens when you don't read the post you are replying to.

Your post was without relevance to the point made.

 

[Felicity]

This is what happens when you don't read the post you are replying to.

Your post was without relevance to the point made.

I see you fail to address the points here, too.

What about that LIE of yours, steen. You gonna address that? I doubt it...your colors are showing (again) and it's shades of yellow.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Donkey1499 quoted: "Can you specify some way in which, from the biological point of view, the unborn offspring of ANY mammal is NOT parasitic upon its mother? And (ROFL) if my birth control fails, does what you wrote mean that you no longer oppose abortions?"

--and wrote: "But how can you say it's a parasite (which a parasite is a foreign entity) when the fetus is half of the mother and half of the father (half of which can't be a parasite because it's not a foreign entity). Your argument of the fetus being a parasite is utterly (HAH! utters) retarded."

WRONG, TWICE. First, you are exhibiting hypocrisy by ignoring the consequences of what you wrote. If the fetus is half-mother/half/father, then it is their property and they can freely choose to dispose of it if they wish, just as easily as they choose to dispose of clippings at a hairdresser. Second, if the fetus is its own organism, then it is INDEED parasitic! EITHER way, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.


Donkey1499 also wrote: "??? I said you shouldn't TRY to have children. In other words, keep your hands to yourself, ya damn dirty ape! lol."

Tsk, tsk. Now you are exhibiting ignorance of the difference between engaging in sex for the health benefits and/or for pair-bonding, versus engaging in sex to attempt to have offspring. They ARE two (maybe even three) different things!


Donkey1499 also wrote: "fetuses don't deserve death, because they're innocent. Did they do anything wrong? No. So if a woman gets pregnant, it's her fault"

UTTERLY FALSE, AGAIN TWICE. First, a growing fetus is ALWAYS a parasitic bloodsucker; that's a biological fact. The ONLY point that matters is whether or not the fetus was invited to do its bloodsucking. If it was invited, no problem. If it wasn't, then it is TOTALLY guilty of uninvited bloodsucking, and deserves the same death penalty as any other uninvited bloodsucker, from mosquitos to giant flying vampire toads ( http://talkaboutromance.com/group/alt.penpals.forty-plus-yrs/messages/341722.html ). Second, pregnancy is NEVER a woman's fault, simply because fertilization and implantation are INVOLUNTARY proceses. Women cannot exercise any microscopic Power of Choice to cause fertilization and implantation to EITHER take place or to not-take-place. She can only exercise some macroscopic Power of Choice, to try to place barriers between egg and sperm. Sometimes the barriers work (birth control succeeds), and sometimes the barriers don't (and failures in this category includes rapes).


Donkey1499 also wrote: "Parasitic my ass! It's the mother's job to care for the child, whether it's in the womb or not. Besides, how can any REASONABLE person compare a human fetus to a parasite or having a parasitic nature."

FALSE AGAIN, TWICE. First, nature has MANY mothers that care not one whit for their offspring. For example, a female oyster can release millions of eggs into the sea at once. On the average JUST TWO might eventually survive to become adult oysters. The mother oyster doesn't care. Now of course humans are different animals than oysters, and human infants require a lot of care if the species is to survive. BUT NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE ANY WOMAN TO TAKE ON THAT JOB IF SHE DOESN'T WANT IT. Besides, enough women DO want that job, that the human species is in no danger of extinction from the lack. Second, a REASONABLE person is someone who does not deny factual evidence, and it IS a biological fact that every mammalian fetus, from mice to humans, is parasitic upon its mother. NO exceptions. Yes, it is also a biological fact that mammals are specialized to accommodate the parasitism of their offspring, but that doesn't change the fact of the parasitism one iota.

============================

Felicity wrote: "Aside from the fact that pro choice cannot BOTH claim that the ZEF is merely “cells”—thus not an organism—AND ALSO CLAIM that the ZEF is an organism that is parasitic without demonstrating INHERENT contradictions in the premise of its argument, the embryo—which IS an organism as demonstrated above and below, IS NOT a parasite.

Tsk, tsk. WHEN the young human organism is just a bunch of cells, this is also the time BEFORE it implants into a womb and starts behaving like a parasite. NO contradiction; the bunch-of-cells MUST do some differentiation/specialization before implantation can succeed.


Felicity also wrote: "The mother/zygote relationship is symbiotic. The zygote resides in the environment provided by the mother and receives nutrients from the mother. Pregnancy provides hormones that have been shown to reduce the risks of some cancers—NOT TO MENTION the benefit to the species as a whole by means of the continuing of the species and ignoring SOCIAL benefits of motherhood.

Nice try, but no cigar. The symbiosis you describe is imperfect. No woman NEEDS a fetus within her to survive, the way she needs the large amounts of truly symbiotic bacteria that reside within her. Yes, she might survive longer if she gets pregnant sometime, but she ALSO can survive longer if she doesn't smoke, eats right, etcetera. Not to mention that humans ALREADY live, in terms of heartbeats, two to four times longer than any other Earthly animal (to be equivalent, humans should all die of old age before 30, so since we don't, why fret about a few extra years that might be gained by getting pregnant?). ANYWAY, what you are ACTUALLY describing is EITHER a "sale" OR a pseudo-robbery. That latter thing involves sneaking into some store when it is closed, taking whatever is wanted, and leaving money on the counter. If caught, the robber may still be convicted. (The "sale" thing happens when the store is open, of course, and this is fully equivalent to the woman wanting to become pregnant for the "payment".) Next, regarding species-continuance, see what I wrote above about that. Next, regarding "social benefits" -- HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! The "social pressure" to have offspring is NOT needed in today's world, and therefore there should be MORE social benefits for NOT having kids, than for having them.


Felicity also wrote: "The ZEF demonstrates all the necessary requirements for LIFE and it has identifiably unique and individual DNA that is of human origin—the ZEF is a whole and complete entity in and of itself EVEN WITHIN the environment it needs to sustain its life."

AGREED. However, that doesn't mean it has any inherent right to continue to exist, though. Just like any/all other living organisms.


Felicity also wrote: "1) the embryo divides and grows and sustains itself for the first month--demonstrating growth and individual homeostasis and a metabolism. It has the ability to reproduce itself via twinning."

I understand that what you wrote is actually a quotation from somewhere else. You need to be more careful about that! SO, remember the ACTUAL cause of twinning is a "breaking" of the cluster of cells, as it exits the zygote's original "eggshell". See: http://www.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm The linked page specificaly states that something has to go wrong for twinning to happen, so twinning is NOT an act of reproduction! Especially since the separated clusters can merge back together again!


Felicity also wrote: "2) the embryo implants in its uterine environment and establishes a means of nourishment via the placenta--demonstrating a response to the environment and individual growth and maturation while establishing another means of metabolizing nutrients."

MISLEADING. The EGG supplied food for the first several cell-divisions. There was a limited supply. The forming embryo MUST acquire an alternative source for food, but it is not necessarily especially capable of "seeking" such a source. It is mostly carried by fluids at the surface of the uterus, so all it really need do is grab. If it doesn't stop its being-carried motion, it will be carried all the way out -- and if it stops but doesn't implant, then it will STILL be carried out at the next menstruation.


Felicity also wrote: "3) the woman's body is influenced by the action of the implantation--the embryo initiates the production of the hormone that sustains the environment—the action is initiated by the embryo implantation and exerts an influence on the mother by its presence."

This is merely equivalent to a mosquito or vampire-bat injecting anti-clotting agents, so it can successfully suck blood. What of it?

 

[Stace]

Donkey1499 quoted: "Can you specify some way in which, from the biological point of view, the unborn offspring of ANY mammal is NOT parasitic upon its mother? And (ROFL) if my birth control fails, does what you wrote mean that you no longer oppose abortions?"

etc.QUOTE]


Oooh, I like you....someone's done their research. :clap:

 

[Felicity]

============================

Felicity wrote: "Aside from the fact that pro choice cannot BOTH claim that the ZEF is merely “cells”—thus not an organism—AND ALSO CLAIM that the ZEF is an organism that is parasitic without demonstrating INHERENT contradictions in the premise of its argument, the embryo—which IS an organism as demonstrated above and below, IS NOT a parasite.

Tsk, tsk. WHEN the young human organism is just a bunch of cells, this is also the time BEFORE it implants into a womb and starts behaving like a parasite. NO contradiction; the bunch-of-cells MUST do some differentiation/specialization before implantation can succeed.

NOT a rebuttle...so it is an organism by your statement AND a HUMAN organism at that!

Nice try, but no cigar. The symbiosis you describe is imperfect.

So--it's STILL symbiotic and thus NOT parasitic.

AGREED. However, that doesn't mean it has any inherent right to continue to exist, though. Just like any/all other living organisms.

opinion.

I understand that what you wrote is actually a quotation from somewhere else. You need to be more careful about that!

I don't know what your talking about. I wrote it--the page I referenced was something I wrote on this forum...YOU ought to be more careful about your accusations!

SO, remember the ACTUAL cause of twinning is a "breaking" of the cluster of cells, as it exits the zygote's original "eggshell". See: http://www.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm The linked page specificaly states that something has to go wrong for twinning to happen, so twinning is NOT an act of reproduction! Especially since the separated clusters can merge back together again!

And parthenogenisis isn't reproduction?

Felicity also wrote: "2) the embryo implants in its uterine environment and establishes a means of nourishment via the placenta--demonstrating a response to the environment and individual growth and maturation while establishing another means of metabolizing nutrients."

MISLEADING. The EGG supplied food for the first several cell-divisions. There was a limited supply. The forming embryo MUST acquire an alternative source for food, but it is not necessarily especially capable of "seeking" such a source. It is mostly carried by fluids at the surface of the uterus, so all it really need do is grab. If it doesn't stop its being-carried motion, it will be carried all the way out -- and if it stops but doesn't implant, then it will STILL be carried out at the next menstruation.

Not misleading--the woman does nothing to encourage implantation of an embryo outside of the natural reproductive functioning of her body. The presence of the EMBRYO is what triggers the continuation of the pregnancy

This is merely equivalent to a mosquito or vampire-bat injecting anti-clotting agents, so it can successfully suck blood. What of it?

It is the INDEPENDANT functioning of the ORGANISM--A HUMAN.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "Aside from the fact that pro choice cannot BOTH claim that the ZEF is merely “cells”—thus not an organism—AND ALSO CLAIM that the ZEF is an organism that is parasitic without demonstrating INHERENT contradictions in the premise of its argument, the embryo—which IS an organism as demonstrated above and below, IS NOT a parasite."

FutureIncoming replied: "Tsk, tsk. WHEN the young human organism is just a bunch of cells, this is also the time BEFORE it implants into a womb and starts behaving like a parasite. NO contradiction; the bunch-of-cells MUST do some differentiation/specialization before implantation can succeed."

Felicity responded: "NOT a rebuttle...so it is an organism by your statement AND a HUMAN organism at that!"

I've NEVER claimed a ZEF wasn't a human organism. Indeed, every time you bleed, every white blood cell you lose is both a complete organism AND perfectly human. These facts do not give it vast value. Ditto for a human ZEF.
Regarding rebuttal, there is indeed one in there that you missed. You claimed that that the ZEF can't be both "a bunch of cells" and an organism. THAT was what I rebutted. (Note that an organism usually has specialized parts, and this is true both of a single cell and of an embryo. But the "bunch of cells" first produced by a zygote is UNDIFFERENTIATED, which is why they can successfully twin or chimerize, and so it can be hard to decide what category of organism it is, other than "blob" or "bunch of cells". Once cell-differentiation begins, twinning or merging would be fatal, I think.) The conclusion you reached from your statement, that the implanted embryo is not a parasite, was thereby falsified.




Felicity quoted: "The symbiosis you describe is imperfect."

--and wrote: "So--it's STILL symbiotic and thus NOT parasitic."

FALSE. REAL symbiosis means each organism REQUIRES the other, and it is NOT true that any mammalian female requires offspring in order to survive. (We WOULD die without the symbiotic bacteria in our digestive tracts.) The offspring are parasites because the requirement-for-survival is one-sided. Also, the definition of "parasite" has some stretching-room. See this on the life cycle of a bird, the cuckoo, for an example of that:
http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/podos/Lahti_Biopage/lahtiPNAS05.pdf





Felicity quoted: "that doesn't mean it has any inherent right to continue to exist, though. Just like any/all other living organisms."

--and wrote: "opinion."

FACT. Remember how Nature slaughters life-forms by the million, whenever there's a volcano or earthquake or tsunami or giant meteor impact or ... "Right to life" is a POLITICAL claim for egotistical arrogant human political purposes, and nothing more than that.



Felicity quoted: "I understand that what you wrote is actually a quotation from somewhere else. You need to be more careful about that!"

--and wrote: "I don't know what your talking about. I wrote it--the page I referenced was something I wrote on this forum...YOU ought to be more careful about your accusations!"

Heh, note that I DIDN'T accuse you of not-writing the thing you quoted. I merely accused you (in an offhand way) of bringing up a point that you knew had already been refuted. **I** knew you had seen that page on twinning before, that is.



Felicity quoted: "The linked page specificaly states that something has to go wrong for twinning to happen, so twinning is NOT an act of reproduction! Especially since the separated clusters can merge back together again!"

--and wrote: "And parthenogenisis isn't reproduction?"

The lines you quoted above were a response to this that you posted: "1) the embryo divides and grows and sustains itself for the first month--demonstrating growth and individual homeostasis and a metabolism. It has the ability to reproduce itself via twinning." --There is NO mention of parthenogenesis there! Besides, parthenogenesis is a MUCH different mechanism from twinning. See:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/04-alternative.html
And here is a very long and extremely informative page on the evolution of sexual reproduction:
http://www.dhushara.com/paradoxhtm/biology.htm





Felicity wrote: "2) the embryo implants in its uterine environment and establishes a means of nourishment via the placenta--demonstrating a response to the environment and individual growth and maturation while establishing another means of metabolizing nutrients."

FutureIncoming replied: "MISLEADING. The EGG supplied food for the first several cell-divisions. There was a limited supply. The forming embryo MUST acquire an alternative source for food, but it is not necessarily especially capable of "seeking" such a source. It is mostly carried by fluids at the surface of the uterus, so all it really need do is grab. If it doesn't stop its being-carried motion, it will be carried all the way out -- and if it stops but doesn't implant, then it will STILL be carried out at the next menstruation."

Felicity responded: "Not misleading--the woman does nothing to encourage implantation of an embryo outside of the natural reproductive functioning of her body. The presence of the EMBRYO is what triggers the continuation of the pregnancy"

Yes, it is known that the parasite injects hormones to prevent menstruation. And the placenta is one of the specialized structures formed by cell-differentiation that that parasite creates for its own selfish purposes during growth. The misleading thing in your earlier message was your reference "demonstrating a response to the environment", because the mammalian uterus is SPECIALIZED/evolved to be a suitable environment for parasitic offspring (variations that were less effective yielded less offspring over the ages, of course). SPECIES survival was at stake there, and Nature allows anything if it works (remember the cuckoo!).





Felicity quoted: "This is merely equivalent to a mosquito or vampire-bat injecting anti-clotting agents, so it can successfully suck blood. What of it?"

--and wrote: "It is the INDEPENDANT functioning of the ORGANISM--A HUMAN."

AND STILL A PARASITIC DUMB ANIMAL, HAVING NO INHERENT RIGHT TO LIFE, and incapable of understanding things like the Golden Rule, so therefore is not "covered" by it. Even the BIBLE states that the value of an unborn human is purely subjective, not objective (Exodus 21:22).

 

[FutureIncoming]

To Felicity: On another discussion board I encountered another pro-lifer who holds a view similar to your, regarding the definition of personhood. Your argument is now thoroughly demolished, as follows:

In that argument, the qualities of "personhood" are identified with the species instead of the individual. That is, if any member of a species qualifies as a person, then every member of that species should be granted personhood rights. The basis of this argument is that there are times when various members of a species may not be able to exhibit the traits that qualify an individual for personhood. For example, someone who has just been knocked out in a boxing-match fight is hardly in a position to demonstrate such things as Free Will or abstract reasoning, so why should that unconscious body still retain personhood rights? The answer is that we have good reason to think the unconscious body will re-awaken and at that time once more exhibit personhood traits. Well, what is the difference between acknowledging that in the future a knocked-unconscious person will awaken as a person, and acknowledging that in the future a fetus will awaken as a person?

This is the difference: "ability" is not the same thing as "functioning". The person who is knocked unconscious has the ability to exhibit the traits of personhood, even if the functioning of that ability has been temporarily interrupted. Meanwhile, the fetus totally lacks even the ability, much less the functioning. There are two analogies that should clarify this distinction. First, consider a baseball player or a pianist or a typist. These descriptions do not cease to apply if the baseball player is on vacation, or the pianist is in a bookstore where no piano is present, or the typist is at home with an illness. Why, therefore, should there even be a consideration of the notion that a person knocked unconscious might cease to qualify as a person? Second, consider that in the distant-enough future an average individual person will probably experience death. At that time, then, the person will exhibit the traits of a corpse. Well, if we can claim a fetus should be treated as a person now because in the future it will exhibit the traits of a person, then why shouldn't all the pro-life persons be treated as corpses right now, because in the far-enough future they will all exhibit the traits of corpses? Since there's too many of them to embalm, the simplest thing to do is just round them up and -- only because their own logic declares them to be equivalent of dead -- bury them in mass graves just as they are! Well, let us first kindly give them a chance to recant that idiotic logic, before any such burials occur... By the way, do not think for a moment I'm implying that aborting a living fetus is the same thing as treating it as if it is a corpse. The actual fact of the matter is that only after an abortion occurs, could a fetus be treated as a corpse. And therefore, to be consistent with the facts, only after a fetus is born and grows enough brainpower to exhibit the traits of a person, can it be treated as a person!

 

[Felicity]

Your argument is now thoroughly demolished, as follows:

Oh GEEZ.......Haven't you told me you've "demolished" this singular argument two or three times...:lol: Don't you believe your own assertions?

This is the difference: "ability" is not the same thing as "functioning".

Do you recall our discussion concerning the DIFFERENCE between "ability" and "capacity?"

How on earth can you believe this is something "new?" It was you I was chatting with when I addressed your "morphing" challenge wasn't it? I was there--were you? go check out the post again and you will see that there is a distinction made. We went round and round about "capacity vs. ability--how could you forget?

The person who is knocked unconscious has the ability to exhibit the traits of personhood, even if the functioning of that ability has been temporarily interrupted. Meanwhile, the fetus totally lacks even the ability, much less the functioning.

Dude--ABILITY specifically indicates a point in time where one is capable of something. When the boxer is knocked out--he has no ABILITY at that moment--though he does have the CAPACITY with the passage of time and he comes around sufficiently. Same goes for the fetus. She may not have the ABILITY at that particular moment in time--but she has the CAPACITY.

There are two analogies that should clarify this distinction. First, consider a baseball player or a pianist or a typist. These descriptions do not cease to apply if the baseball player is on vacation, or the pianist is in a bookstore where no piano is present, or the typist is at home with an illness. Why, therefore, should there even be a consideration of the notion that a person knocked unconscious might cease to qualify as a person?

I agree and I see no support here for what you are saying, but rather support for my position. A pianist has the ability--not being demonstrated at the moment of shopping, but it is within her capacity to demonstrate it functionally when she sits before a piano. I get ya....

Second, consider that in the distant-enough future an average individual person will probably experience death. At that time, then, the person will exhibit the traits of a corpse. Well, if we can claim a fetus should be treated as a person now because in the future it will exhibit the traits of a person, then why shouldn't all the pro-life persons be treated as corpses right now, because in the far-enough future they will all exhibit the traits of corpses?

uhhhh....we're talking about what constitutes an individual human "life." If you’re talking about dead people...they are dead. They no longer have the capacity—just as the egg and sperm do not have the capacity before they merge.

And AGAIN you are making the mistake of looking at the definition I gave for personhood as if it is on some temporal plane. I am talking about a static fundamental definition that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with development over time. The species HAS THE CAPACITY for the traits of "personhood such as reasoning, self-will, extrapolations...yadda, yadda, yadda....So every LIVE creature that can be identified as an individual member of that SPECIES is a person. :shock: WOW--you're thick headed for a reasonably intelligent guy!

Since there's too many of them to embalm, the simplest thing to do is just round them up and -- only because their own logic declares them to be equivalent of dead -- bury them in mass graves just as they are! Well, let us first kindly give them a chance to recant that idiotic logic, before any such burials occur... By the way, do not think for a moment I'm implying that aborting a living fetus is the same thing as treating it as if it is a corpse. The actual fact of the matter is that only after an abortion occurs, could a fetus be treated as a corpse. And therefore, to be consistent with the facts, only after a fetus is born and grows enough brainpower to exhibit the traits of a person, can it be treated as a person!

Frankly--I am very surprised that you thought this was some kind of bomb...it doesn't even begin to address the entelechy and THAT is the basis for what I've BEEN saying to you. The whole shebang is irrelevant without addressing THAT.:2fog:

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "Haven't you told me you've "demolished" this singular argument two or three times..."

Possibly. But there were new details to help cement the case, so that YOU would accept the demolishment. I see you are still failing to understand. So....



Felicity wrote: " Do you recall our discussion concerning the DIFFERENCE between "ability" and "capacity?" How on earth can you believe this is something "new?"

That was just the first part of the demolition. CAPACITY MORE ABOUT THE POTENTIAL THAN THE ACTUAL. That's why it is irrelevant. Why do you keep forgetting that? (Obviously, because you don't want to accept FACTS.)



Felicity wrote: "Dude--ABILITY specifically indicates a point in time where one is capable of something. When the boxer is knocked out--he has no ABILITY at that moment--though he does have the CAPACITY with the passage of time and he comes around sufficiently. Same goes for the fetus. She may not have the ABILITY at that particular moment in time--but she has the CAPACITY."

TOTALLY BACKWARD. An ability is like a skill. Skills do not vanish just because you are asleep or unconscious. But the capacity to fight in the ring becomes utterly empty, just like the capacity of a dump truck is emptied when tilted. So the fetus ONLY HAS POTENTIAL/CAPACITY, AND NO ACTUAL ABILITIES/SKILLS to exhibit the traits of personhood.




Felicity quoted: "There are two analogies that should clarify this distinction. First, consider a baseball player or a pianist or a typist. These descriptions do not cease to apply if the baseball player is on vacation, or the pianist is in a bookstore where no piano is present, or the typist is at home with an illness. Why, therefore, should there even be a consideration of the notion that a person knocked unconscious might cease to qualify as a person?"

--and wrote: "I agree and I see no support here for what you are saying, but rather support for my position. A pianist has the ability--not being demonstrated at the moment of shopping, but it is within her capacity to demonstrate it functionally when she sits before a piano. I get ya...."

Heh, what you are not seeing is the simple result of your refusal to equate capacity with potential. The pianist REMAINS A PIANIST in spite of being deprived of the presence of a piano. YOU want us to believe that the ability to play vanishes when no piano is present, but skills DON'T vanish that easily. And so a person REMAINS A PERSON in spite of being knocked unconscious. The fetus REMAINS ONLY A MERE ANIMAL, due to total lack of any ability to demonstrate the traits of personhood, during ANY of its existence as a fetus.



Felicity quoted: "Second, consider that in the distant-enough future an average individual person will probably experience death. At that time, then, the person will exhibit the traits of a corpse. Well, if we can claim a fetus should be treated as a person now because in the future it will exhibit the traits of a person, then why shouldn't all the pro-life persons be treated as corpses right now, because in the far-enough future they will all exhibit the traits of corpses?"

--and wrote: "uhhhh....we're talking about what constitutes an individual human "life.""

UTTERLY FALSE!!!! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT APPLYING FUTURE TRAITS TO THE PRESENT. **YOU** WANT TO DO THAT FOR FETUSES, SO LOGICALLY OTHER SIMILAR SITUATIONS EQUALLY APPLY. And the result is that your argument is demolished under the weight of inconsistency....



Felicity also wrote: "And AGAIN you are making the mistake of looking at the definition I gave for personhood as if it is on some temporal plane. I am talking about a static fundamental definition that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with development over time. The species HAS THE CAPACITY for the traits of "personhood such as reasoning, self-will, extrapolations...yadda, yadda, yadda....So every LIVE creature that can be identified as an individual member of that SPECIES is a person. WOW--you're thick headed for a reasonably intelligent guy!"

NONSENSE. YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO EQUATE THE POTENTIAL TO THE ACTUAL. Your logic means that every human must also be treated as an expert nuclear engineer, and as an expert ballet dancer, and as an expert mathematician, and as an expert chef, and as an expert marksman, and as an expert painter, and as an expert surgeon, and as an expert singer, and as an expert computer programmer, and so on, for EVERYTHING at which any individual human has ever become expert. Let's trust babies with The Button that sends nuclear missiles flying, right? YOUR ARGUMENT IS IN SHREDS DUE TO THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES. THE **ONLY** WAY THAT POTENTIALS CAN BE COUNTED IS BY LETTING TIME PASS FOR THEM TO ACTUALIZE. Then and only then can a former baby be trusted with The Button. Then and only then can a fetus qualify as a person!




Felicity wrote: "it doesn't even begin to address the entelechy and THAT is the basis for what I've BEEN saying to you. The whole shebang is irrelevant without addressing THAT."

Definitions of entelechy from www.dictionary.com:
1. In the philosophy of Aristotle, the condition of a thing whose essence is fully realized; actuality.
2. In some philosophical systems, a vital force that directs an organism toward self-fulfillment.

I don't see any direct reference in #1 to capacity or potential. But it clearly indicates that A THING (note the SINGULAR term) can have different actualities at different times, because ONLY WHEN ITS ESSENCE IS FULLY REALIZED (as when potential is fulfilled) does the word apply. Consider a video-game console for example. Some games will do simple stuff with the available hardware, and some games will stress every bit of that hardware to its functional limits (which is why they encourage you to buy a more-advanced video-game console . Obviously only in the second case does "entelechy" apply to that game console. Certainly the word NEVER applies to any fetus! (Nor does it apply to most adult humans, either!)

With respect to #2, some sort of unproved thing is described. Where is the supporting evidence? Without it, the definition might as well be talking about how to make a perpetual motion machine run forever. Worthless. Not to mention vast amounts of evidence that simple organisms are very clearly pure stimulus/response biology-based machines, and most complex organisms are almost-as-clearly the same (harder to pin down due to the complexity). NO special force for self-fulfillment; just the equivalent of a computer program running, is all that is going on in all those organisms. Even the fetus is just another animal under this categorical umbrella; only after birth and enough brainpower grows for significant Free Will to manifest, one of the traits of personhood, can the computer program be revised from within.

 

[Felicity]

Felicity wrote: "it doesn't even begin to address the entelechy and THAT is the basis for what I've BEEN saying to you. The whole shebang is irrelevant without addressing THAT."

Definitions of entelechy from www.dictionary.com:
1. In the philosophy of Aristotle, the condition of a thing whose essence is fully realized; actuality.
2. In some philosophical systems, a vital force that directs an organism toward self-fulfillment.

I don't see any direct reference in #1 to capacity or potential. But it clearly indicates that A THING (note the SINGULAR term) can have different actualities at different times, because ONLY WHEN ITS ESSENCE IS FULLY REALIZED (as when potential is fulfilled) does the word apply.

Just trying to take you a step up from Dictionary.com...



http://www.ditext.com/runes/e.html
Entelechy: (Gr. entelecheia) In Aristotle's philosophy (1) the mode of being of a thing whose essence is completely realized; actuality; energeia; -- opposed to dynamis, or potentiality; (2) the form or essence. -- G.R.M.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-mot.htm#H2
2. Energeia and Entelechia
The word entelecheia was invented by Aristotle, but never defined by him. It is at the heart not only of his definition of motion, but of all his thought. Its meaning is the most knowable in itself of all possible objects of the intellect. There is no starting point from which we can descend to put together the cements of its meaning. We can come to an understanding of entelecheia only by an ascent from what is intrinsically less knowable than it, indeed knowable only through it, but more known because more familiar to us. We have a number of resources by which to begin such an ascent, drawing upon the linguistic elements out of which Aristotle constructed the word, and upon the fact that he uses the word energeia as a synonym, or all but a synonym, for entelecheia.

The root of energeia is ergonó deed, work, or actó from which comes the adjective energon used in ordinary speech to mean active, busy, or at work. Energeia is formed by the addition of a noun ending to the adjective energon; we might construct the word is-at-work-ness from Anglo-Saxon roots to translate energeia into English, or use the more euphonious periphrastic expression, being-at-work. If we are careful to remember how we got there, we could alternatively use Latin roots to make the word "actuality" to translate energeia. The problem with this alternative is that the word "actuality" already belongs to the English language, and has a life of its own which seems to be at variance with the simple sense of being active. By the actuality of a thing, we mean not its being-in-action but its being what it is. For example, there is a fish with an effective means of camouflage: it looks like a rock but it is actually a fish. When an actuality is attributed to that fish, completely at rest at the bottom of the ocean, we don't seem to be talking about any activity. But according to Aristotle, to be something always means to be at work in a certain way. In the case of the fish at rest, its actuality is the activity of metabolism, the work by which it is constantly transforming material from its environment into parts of itself and losing material from itself into its environment, the activity by which the fish maintains itself as a fish and as just the fish it is, and which ceases only when the fish ceases to be. Any static state which has any determinate character can only exist as the outcome of a continuous expenditure of effort, maintaining the state as it is. Thus even the rock, at rest next to the fish, is in activity: to be a rock is to strain to be at the center of the universe, and thus to be in motion unless constrained otherwise, as the rock in our example is constrained by the large quantity of earth already gathered around the center of the universe. A rock at rest at the center is at work maintaining its place, against the counter-tendency of all the earth to displace it. The center of the universe is determined only by the common innate activity of rocks and other kinds of earth. Nothing is which is not somehow in action, maintaining itself either as the whole it is, or as a part of some whole. A rock is inorganic only when regarded in isolation from the universe as a whole which is an organized whole just as blood considered by itself could not be called alive yet is only blood insofar as it contributes to the maintenance of some organized body. No existing rock can fail to contribute to the hierarchical organization of the universe; we can therefore call any existing rock an actual rock.

 

[Felicity]

Here is an explanation of what I believe is your struggle in understanding the "essence" of a thing versus what it is at any one point of development. I believe it explains quite well the thing which I have been referring to as the "objective reality" of the human person:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-mot.htm#H2
The word entelecheia has a structure parallel to that of energeia. From the root word telos, meaning end, comes the adjective enteles, used in ordinary speech to mean complete, perfect, or full-grown. But while energeia, being-at-work, is made from the adjective meaning at work and a noun ending, entelecheia is made from the adjective meaning complete and the verb exein. Thus if we translate entelecheia as "completeness" or "perfection," the contribution the meaning of exein makes to the term is not evident. Aristotle probably uses exein for two reasons which lead to the same conclusion: First, one of the common meanings of exein is "to be" in the sense of to remain, to stay, or to keep in some condition specified by a preceding adverb as in the idioms kalos exei, "things are going well," or kakos exei, "things are going badly." It means "to be" in the sense of to continue to be. This is only one of several possible meanings of exein, but there is a second fact which makes it likely that it is the meaning which would strike the ear of a Greek-speaking person of Aristotle's time. There was then in ordinary use the word endelecheia, differing from Aristotle's word entelecheia only by a delta in place of the tau. Endelecheia means continuity or persistence. As one would expect, there was a good deal of confusion in ancient times between the invented and undefined term entelecheia and the familiar word endelecheia.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity wrote: "Just trying to take you a step up from Dictionary.com...

OK, thanks.

--and wrote: "http://www.ditext.com/runes/e.html
Entelechy: (Gr. entelecheia) In Aristotle's philosophy (1) the mode of being of a thing whose essence is completely realized; actuality; energeia; -- opposed to dynamis, or potentiality; (2) the form or essence. -- G.R.M.

So? All THIS means is that a fetus is completely and totally a fetus, and NOTHING MORE. Until it GROWS more, that is.

--and wrote: "http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-mot.htm#H2
2. Energeia and Entelechia
The word entelecheia was invented by Aristotle, but never defined by him. It is at the heart not only of his definition of motion, but of all his thought. Its meaning is the most knowable in itself of all possible objects of the intellect. There is no starting point from which we can descend to put together the cements of its meaning. We can come to an understanding of entelecheia only by an ascent from what is intrinsically less knowable than it, indeed knowable only through it, but more known because more familiar to us."

Sounds a lot like trying to "grok", a Martian word brought to us by Robert A. Heinlein in "Stranger in a Strange Land".

--and wrote: "We have a number of resources by which to begin such an ascent, drawing upon the linguistic elements out of which Aristotle constructed the word, and upon the fact that he uses the word energeia as a synonym, or all but a synonym, for entelecheia."

So, to help others grok "entelecheia", you brought up a nice long description, across two messages, of how thoroughly and how perfectly something can be itself, even if it's only a rock. BUT NOTHING IN ALL THAT DESCRIPTION LETS ANYTHING BE **MORE** THAN ITSELF. A human fetus thus remains a mere animal having no objective value at all, and having only subjective value as far as human persons are concerned, fully abortable when unwanted.

 

[Felicity]

BUT NOTHING IN ALL THAT DESCRIPTION LETS ANYTHING BE **MORE** THAN ITSELF. A human fetus thus remains a mere animal having no objective value at all, and having only subjective value as far as human persons are concerned, fully abortable when unwanted.

And of what species or "being" is the individual "animal" fetus when it is a fetus in a human being's womb?

 

[Felicity]

And after you answer the above question with the OBVIOUS answer....

Let me refer back to this part--Thus if we translate entelecheia as "completeness" or "perfection," the contribution the meaning of exein makes to the term is not evident. Aristotle probably uses exein for two reasons which lead to the same conclusion: First, one of the common meanings of exein is "to be" in the sense of to remain, to stay, or to keep in some condition

Hence--the “entelechy of any human being” is already in its “completeness”at every stage of its life—it is, was, and will be what it means to be a human being simply by being what it is as it maintains its organized body--a human being.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Felicity quoted: " BUT NOTHING IN ALL THAT DESCRIPTION LETS ANYTHING BE **MORE** THAN ITSELF. A human fetus thus remains a mere animal having no objective value at all, and having only subjective value as far as human persons are concerned, fully abortable when unwanted."

--and wrote: "And of what species or "being" is the individual "animal" fetus when it is a fetus in a human being's womb? And after you answer the above question with the OBVIOUS answer.... Let me refer back to this part--Thus if we translate entelecheia as "completeness" or "perfection," the contribution the meaning of exein makes to the term is not evident. Aristotle probably uses exein for two reasons which lead to the same conclusion: First, one of the common meanings of exein is "to be" in the sense of to remain, to stay, or to keep in some condition. Hence--the “entelechy of any human being” is already in its “completeness”at every stage of its life—it is, was, and will be what it means to be a human being simply by being what it is as it maintains its organized body--a human being."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Your definition of "obvious" is certainly not mine. The OBVIOUS answer is that you are misinterpreting Aristotle. THE FETUS IS COMPLETELY AND PERFECTLY A FETUS, NOTHING MORE. Yes, it has ENOUGH characteristics to be completely identifiable as a member of the human species and yes, it perfectly exists in the sense of "being there", BUT THAT IS ALL. The DNA of a white blood cell from an adult human is not "more human" than the DNA of a new-formed human zygote. Thus a zygote or blob-of-stem-cells or embryo or fetus (ZBEF), or even a newborn, is **NOT** defined-with/granted every single possible human trait, such as the ability to speak Russian. It doesn't NEED those traits to be identifiable as perfectly and completely human! (Not to mention that if some nonhuman space alien landed in Washinton DC yet could speak in both Russian and English, that entity would still be completely and perfectly nonhuman.) At EVERY stage of its existence, ANYTHING IS PERFECTLY AND COMPLETELY WHAT IT IS, **AT**THAT**STAGE**. It is **NOT** what it could become at some future stage. A blob of underground molten magma is not the rock it will become after (and IF) a volcano expels it. Graphite that is vaporized in an environment of appropriate temperature and pressure is not the diamond that can spontaneously crystallize from colliding carbon atoms. A warrior living by the sword is not identical in every way to a corpse with a sword stuck into it. "Continuity" is **NOT** the same thing as "identity". (Ever heard the philosophy, "You cannot step into the same river twice"?) Or, consider an adolescent with excellent hearing and vision. At that stage the adolescent is perfectly complete with excellent hearing and vision. Later on, if jobs are taken as a disc jockey and a welder, and deafness and blindness happen to occur, THEN AT THAT STAGE, the former adolescent is now perfectly complete with deafness and blindness. If neither of us would say that molten magma is also a rock, or that graphite is also a diamond, or the live warrior is also a corpse, or the original adolescent is perfectly complete with the future traits of deafness and blindness, then neither of us can say that any human fetus is perfectly complete with the future traits of personhood. Every human fetus REMAINS a mere animal having no objective value at all, and having only subjective value as far as human persons are concerned, fully abortable when unwanted.

Your argument IS totally demolished, because Aristotle was NOT so stupid as to try to grant nonexisting characteristics to anything's present description!

 

[Felicity]

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!

What is with that "HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!" thing? Do you have a hairball?

Your definition of "obvious" is certainly not mine. The OBVIOUS answer is that you are misinterpreting Aristotle.

What?--did one of your "giant squids" swim up to you and whisper the "facts" in your ear? Gimme a break--it's right there in black and white...:roll:

THE FETUS IS COMPLETELY AND PERFECTLY A FETUS, NOTHING MORE.

Fetus is a developmental stage--one cannot "be" a fetus. The thing in the womb is a particular "being" at the developmental stage of "fetus" and is only referred to as "a fetus" in the same sense a "being" is referred to as a teenager or a tadpole.

Yes, it has ENOUGH characteristics to be completely identifiable as a member of the human species and yes, it perfectly exists in the sense of "being there", BUT THAT IS ALL.

So it is "a" creature that is "human" and it's "being" there...."a" "human" "being!"................ A HUMAN BEING! It's simple--and it remains simple despite your denial.

The DNA of a white blood cell from an adult human is not "more human" than the DNA of a new-formed human zygote.

Yeah--you're right--A white blood cell is NOT a human being, whereas a zygote is. The article I cited even addressed "blood" and the DIFFERENCE between such things. Did you read it????? Go back a couple of posts...IT'S RIGHT THERE!

A rock is inorganic only when regarded in isolation from the universe as a whole which is an organized whole just as blood considered by itself could not be called alive yet is only blood insofar as it contributes to the maintenance of some organized body.

IOW--If you look at the universe as an organized whole--all the "parts" of the universe make up that whole--all that it iswasandwillbe. From there we can look at the individual parts in isolation.

Although earth is part of the universe--it exists as "earth" --a "whole onto itself." And all the earth iswasandwillbe is the "actuality" of the earth--the "reality" of what earth IS. But ultimately, the earth is part of the universe.

On this earth are topographical features like hills, valleys, oceans, etc....those are "parts" of what is the earth and contribute to the whole of the earth. You cannot say what it IS to be earth excludes any of those things--to do so is to deny REALITY. However, you can look at an ocean in isolation from the earth--and then describe all the things that make an ocean an ocean--yet it still does not deny that an ocean is part of the earth which is part of the universe.

To get back to the debate....A human being is all that a human iswasandwillbe--If you want to describe what a human being is....all the "parts" of what it means to be human are included. That includes zygote, embryo, fetus...etc. And humans are part of the larger whole of "living things" on these topographical features that exist on earth that exists in the universe....

If you look at "fetus" in isolation you can describe what it is to be a fetus--but to deny the larger reality is to deny that reality. Nothing in the universe exists in isolation--everything is part of a greater whole and although you can compartmentalize all the little aspects of reality and discuss them in isolation--the reality is that NOTHING in ACTUALITY exists in isolation.

If you think "human beings" exist--and that as human beings we have a responsibility to protect and defend our own lives and the lives of other human beings because of "what we are" --then the reality is that the same responsibility to others includes a responsibility to human beings of all stages of development and functionality.

So .....human blood can be described as human material--and it can be described in isolation of the human being--yet it CANNOT EXIST independently of the human being. It arose in the body of a human and it is part of a human, but in isolation, it is NOT a human whereas a fetus IS.

That is the distinction.....Why don't you take that to your opposition on the other forum!

(Not to mention that if some nonhuman space alien landed in Washinton DC yet could speak in both Russian and English, that entity would still be completely and perfectly nonhuman.)

You can imagine squids and space aliens could be "persons"? Giant squids exist in the depths of the ocean and we know precious little about them--space aliens are even less in the realm of provable science....What is your hang-up on fetuses? Fetuses are all around us and yet you refuse to use that wonderful imagination of yours and consider them "people." Why?

At EVERY stage of its existence, ANYTHING IS PERFECTLY AND COMPLETELY WHAT IT IS, **AT**THAT**STAGE**. It is **NOT** what it could become at some future stage. A blob of underground molten magma is not the rock it will become after (and IF) a volcano expels it. Graphite that is vaporized in an environment of appropriate temperature and pressure is not the diamond that can spontaneously crystallize from colliding carbon atoms. A warrior living by the sword is not identical in every way to a corpse with a sword stuck into it. "Continuity" is **NOT** the same thing as "identity". (Ever heard the philosophy, "You cannot step into the same river twice"?) Or, consider an adolescent with excellent hearing and vision. At that stage the adolescent is perfectly complete with excellent hearing and vision. Later on, if jobs are taken as a disc jockey and a welder, and deafness and blindness happen to occur, THEN AT THAT STAGE, the former adolescent is now perfectly complete with deafness and blindness. If neither of us would say that molten magma is also a rock, or that graphite is also a diamond, or the live warrior is also a corpse, or the original adolescent is perfectly complete with the future traits of deafness and blindness, then neither of us can say that any human fetus is perfectly complete with the future traits of personhood. Every human fetus REMAINS a mere animal having no objective value at all, and having only subjective value as far as human persons are concerned, fully abortable when unwanted.

I believe the erroneous focus of this section of your post was corrected above.

Your argument IS totally demolished, because Aristotle was NOT so stupid as to try to grant nonexisting characteristics to anything's present description!

You do recognize that every time you claim this SAME position is demolished--you only serve to prove how solid it is indeed! I suggest you read through the link on entelechy a little more carefully before you speak for Aristotle.

 

[americanwoman]

Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights, ("Oh, oh, you can't hurt the defenseless little animals") to be for abortion of Human Babies?!?!
This has been stuck in my mind since I heard someone bad-mouthing Bill O'Reilly (who's ok in my book, don't love him, don't hate him), for being OK with the Pit Bull ban in several states. I said "Bill O'Reilly's ok, I don't agree with him on this issue, but I do on many others."
They replied with "any man who thinks it's OK to take away my "right" to choose (referring to abortion) will never be on my good list....Yet, she was there to voice her opinion against the "murder" of puppies.....So it's OK to kill unborn Human Babies, but not unborn puppies? I cannot follow this logic, someone please enlighten me!

sounds like my ultra liberal mom. She was lecturing me the other night about punishing my dog for going to the bathroom in my house. She said it's not right to spank a dog. I told her, "What so it was ok to spank me, slap me, put me away in a room, and ground me when I was bad?" That shut her up! My mom is also pro choice and would never punish a dog but would spank a child. yeah thats a hypocrite!

 

[doughgirl]

Americanwoman interesting.....


Most libs would picket for saving the lives of whales or seals....or eagles.........would picket against using faux fur to make clothes......but would stand on the front lines for the womans right to slaughter a human unborn child by dismembering it alive.

Hmmmmmmmmm

 

[Saboteur]

sounds like my ultra liberal mom. She was lecturing me the other night about punishing my dog for going to the bathroom in my house. She said it's not right to spank a dog. I told her, "What so it was ok to spank me, slap me, put me away in a room, and ground me when I was bad?" That shut her up! My mom is also pro choice and would never punish a dog but would spank a child. yeah thats a hypocrite!

Abusing animals is worse than hurting humans. Animals don't understand right and wrong like people do. Yet if a dog bites a person, it is usualy destroyed. If a person hurts another person or an animal... it usualy results in a fine even though the person knew they were doing wrong.

Furthermore an animal, especially a pet, is giving unconditional love to you and will not retaliate to your bad behavior. If you spank your child it is in retaliation to something the child knew what they were doing was wrong.