Real Simple 2

[Monkey Mind]

:beatdeadhorse :beatdeadhorse Lets tenderize this mofo!

And Monkey Mind is cowardly failing to respond to Msg 413 (Real simple) and Msg 412 (Real simple).

:rofl I knew I could count on you to dig up the point in the thread where we left off. Good doggy. Notice how it was almost 600 posts ago! Contrary to your delusions of my cowardice, I got busy with work, then came back & spent about 20 minutes looking for it, then finally decided it wasn't worth the trouble. I had guessed you might dredge it up for me.

So, if I recall correctly I stated my position that a person is a living human. You countered that with your standard copy-paste ream of garbage attempting to change the subject, which I ignored. You said the census was grounds for your position that fetuses aren't persons, I countered by noting that the census recognizes newborns. Your entire position relies on the premise that newborns are not persons, yet you refused to acknowledge your inconsistency. AFAIK you still assert that newborns are not persons.

Which brings us to post 413:

if a newborn is a person then by what stretch of the imagination can that same newborn not still be a person 5 minutes before birth?

Simple. Before birth the survival mode of a human is parasitic; it takes what it wants from the host, regardless of any inclinations of the host. After birth, a human isn't parasitic...

Here you appear to be agreeing with me and retracting your earlier assertion that newborns are not persons. Please confirm. Are newborns persons or not?

I also asked what your definition of person is, and you had none. Still in progress, you say. I pointed out that it was unethical to base legal life and death policies on a position which you acknowledge is partially formed and unproven. You didn't seem to care.

Next you uttered this, which is astounding in its ignorance of biology. I didn't deem it worthy of a response, but since you've whined so desperately I'll grant you just this one.

No, I compared a parasite to an unborn human animal nonperson, and not to an always-exists-outside-the-womb child/person. I notice that your remark fails to provide any data that might indicate that the comparison is faulty, of unborn human to parasite. Do you have any such data? If not, then why did you worthlessly blather so?

The biological definition of a parasitic relationship involves two organisms of different species. Your comparison is worthless in a debate. It's just an analogy that you use to try and evoke emotional responses from Noah's Hammer et al. If fetuses are parasites, then so are breastfeeding infants and toddlers. If your definition of personhood is somehow related to what is or isn't a parasite, then you have quite a mess to straighten out. Let's see what you come up with. You can start by answering my question above.

 

[Jerry]

.....oh Christ....:hitsfan:

 

[talloulou]

You fail to answer pertinent questions, just like all the other pro-lifers. Some of these I know you have seen before:
1. "What makes an unborn human life more special/valuable/etc than a bug's life?" You seem to want us to think that the answer is obvious, but the only obvious answer is "Prejudice". A worthless answer, that.

The idea that human life is more valuable than the life of a bugs is universally accepted by most humans. In fact mammals are also universally given higher status than insects.

2. "If it is claimed that potentials need not be fulfilled, such as the potential for pro-lifers to fall down staircases and break their necks, then why do pro-lifers claim that the potentials of an unborn human should be fulfilled?" Prejudice, again? A worthless answer, that. Especially since in this overpopulated world, it increases the potential arrival of a Malthusian Catastrophe.

I don't claim there is a potential that need be fulfilled. I claim that it is wrong to take a human life and terminate it without just cause. I feel the respect we generally give human life should be extended to the unborn on the basis that they are equally human and I believe in equal rights for all humans and object to the idea of non-person humans.

3. "We almost have the technology to cut someone's head off and keep both pieces alive for years. If this happens to some normal adult human person, and the parts are widely separated, then do you think that the 'person' will thereafter be associated with the head, because of the very capable brain, or with the mere animal body? --and based on the answer to that, should brain-dead humans on life-support be called persons, and why should any humans having no more than animal-class brains be called persons?"

Answered already previously.

4. "Why do you keep calling an unborn human a 'human being' when doing so is as provably illogical as calling an average rock a 'rock being'?" (Do you enjoy telling irrational lies?)

Being is a word that can have many implied meanings or just suggest any creature that exists. Thus it's not, in my opinion, worth quibbling over. I think there is merit to both the argument that the unborn are human beings and that they're not. I think the latter is harder to swallow but that's my bias. The idea that the unborn may be compared to a "rock" or that calling the unborn human beings is akin to calling rocks rock beings is intellectually dishonest, unfair, crude, and absurd.

5. For those "into" Religion, consider this: There is no aspect of human biology that requires the presence of a soul in order to function, just as all the other zillions of ordinary biological organisms out there in the Universe, like bacteria, don't require the presence of souls in order to function. A soul is just an add-on; it and biology are independent of each other. Which means a human fetus can exist and grow just fine with no soul present. AND which means it doesn't deserve to be loved as much as an already-ensouled woman, until a soul is added to the fetus. Therefore this Question: "How does a so-called 'loving' God demonstrate this by condemning women who obtain abortions, after Omnisciently knowing they would seek abortions, and creating souls for those to-be-aborted unborn humans anyway?"

Religion is an "unknown" as it entails a variety of beliefs for a variety of people even those who supposedly belong to the same religion. Thus it's pointless to bring it into the discussion.

6. The Law of Supply and Demand has never exhibited any slightest chink of invalidity. It clearly states that the more common something is, the less value is assigned to it, and vice-versa. Therefore these Questions: "How can 'value of human life' be considered a constant in an increasingly-overpopulated world, especially when such dismissive lines as 'There's plenty more where you came from!' can become more and more common (because it's becoming more and more true)?" "Why do pro-lifers deny the Reality of the Law of Supply and Demand, and work to exacerbate the preceding problem?"

The demand for healthy newborns up for adoption in our country is extremely high. Many wait years and years and others give up waiting all together and spend large amounts of money to adopt babies from other countries. The law of supply and demand, if it were applicable, would only aid the prolife argument. However we don't treat human life as "business." Certainly we could deal with the homeless problem by killing the homeless but that goes against the respect for human life we hold dear. As soon as other groups of humans are also devalued, considered non-persons, and terminated based on their usefulness, worth, stage of development, or intelligence then I'll reconsider my stance but as long as we are attempting to respect human life and not kill without just cause I believe that should be extended to the unborn who are humans.

 

[Noah's Hammer]

Where is the original "Real Simple" thread?

The one where what's-his-name-proabortionist thought the idea that a pregnancy could go 39 weeks was histerical?

 

[Jerry]

Where is the original "Real Simple" thread?

The one where what's-his-name-proabortionist thought the idea that a pregnancy could go 39 weeks was histerical?

Threads are closed and placed in the Archive forum when they grow beyond 1,000 posts.

 

[OKgrannie]

Where is the original "Real Simple" thread?

The one where what's-his-name-proabortionist thought the idea that a pregnancy could go 39 weeks was histerical?

The actual duration of pregnancy is 38 weeks. I've had some experience with it myself.

Pregnancy Due Date Months Weeks Days Count Down Calculator - JavaScript code

"It's hard to predict exactly, but our calculator can give you an idea.
An average human pregnancy lasts for about 280 days or 40 weeks from the date of the last menstrual period (LMP). Traditionally, it has been calculated as 10 lunar months, or in terms of the modern calendar - 9 months and 7 days. Fertilisation however, occurs (considering an average menstrual cycle of 28 days) 14 days after the last periods. Thus, the actual duration of a human pregnancy (gestation period) is 280 - 14 = 266 days."

 

[jallman]

Where is the original "Real Simple" thread?

The one where what's-his-name-proabortionist thought the idea that a pregnancy could go 39 weeks was histerical?

It's time to get a new schtick. This has already been addressed and readdressed but you seem to be the only one unable to keep up...not surprised though, considering...:doh

 

[C Foster]

What happened to real simple?

 

[Noah's Hammer]

Right. And you've already proven how quick you are.

It's funny how most liberals and atheists and the like have a great tendancy to accuse others of that which they themselves are most guilty.

Your condescension here is a product of your arrogance. The only more common product of arrogance is ignorance.

This is the root of the haphazard attitude that purports it's OK to murder the unborn.

 

[FutureIncoming]

A person is a person, which is a living human.

So, if I recall correctly I stated my position that a person is a living human. You countered that with your standard copy-paste ream of garbage attempting to change the subject, which I ignored.

Copy/pasting is easier than re-typing from scratch. Do you have a problem with that? Furthermore I do not "change the subject" so much as bring outside and relevant data TO the subject. And your ignoring of that data neither makes it invalid nor makes it disappear.

Appropriate links appear to be:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/475530-post288.html (#288 by you)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/475791-post297.html (part 1 of my reply)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/475796-post298.html (useful data unrelated to the debate)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/475937-post331.html (part 2 of my reply)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/476066-post342.html (a promise YOU made)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/477989-post412.html (part 3 of my reply)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/478003-post413.html (part 4 of my reply)

In pointing out that you had not responded to #412 and #413, I didn't notice, and neglected to remember, that there were other messages also awaiting a response from you. But that would not have been a problem if you had actually responded to them, right?

#297 contains a response to to the above quote from #288, along with this:

Other entities may have person-like qualities but that doesn't make them persons.

My response points out a logical conundrum for you, involving banning churches. Have fun replying to that!

Next, I did not happen to respond to this:

As I said before I won't discuss mythical entities here. The thread is cumbersome enough as it is. Start a new thread, then lets both try to stay on topic in that one. It could be interesting.

I had pointed out in some earlier message that you were wrong in specifying that a person had to be a human, since traditional expressions exist, such as "little people", which are most certainly about nonhuman persons. Your ignoring of that data does not make it invalid, nor does the data disappear. Furthermore, you are wrong for another reason in claiming that persons have to be humans, since in legal fact corporations are granted person status, too. (I did not present this reason to you in a prior message.)

Anyway, since you were already ignoring valid facts to suit your own agenda, there didn't seem much reason at that time to respond to that piece of #288. NOW, however, since you seem to be bringing that persons=humans nonsense again, I can now ask you to explain why the data I have presented, that proves your statement to be nonsense, must be ignored?

You said the census was grounds for your position that fetuses aren't persons, I countered by noting that the census recognizes newborns. Your entire position relies on the premise that newborns are not persons, yet you refused to acknowledge your inconsistency. AFAIK you still assert that newborns are not persons.

I am not inconsistent at all, and this was explained in Msg #297 of the other thread. I recommend you re-read it. And respond to it! (But in a nutshell, a true generic definition of person will almost certainly exclude newborn humans. I do not dispute the current legal definition that includes newborn humans, nor do I especially seek to overthrow it. There is no need. However, there is a need to recognize that that legal definition is at odds with Scientific Fact regarding differences between generic persons and generic animals, just to prevent that legal definition from being stupidly extended in further defiance of Scientific Fact.)

I also asked what your definition of person is, and you had none. Still in progress, you say. I pointed out that it was unethical to base legal life and death policies on a position which you acknowledge is partially formed and unproven. You didn't seem to care.

This appears to have been mostly answered in #331 of the other Message thread. I see you have slightly rephrased the "life and death decisions" thing. Remember we are concentrating on abortions in this Debate; we are mostly not talking about life-and-death decisions for born humans. And since the Scientific Facts are that no unborn human has any ability to exhibit any of the traits that distinguish generic persons from generic animals, it logically follows that unborn humans are fully in the category of generic animals. NO ONE needs a fully accurate generic definition of person to be able to make the preceding factual observation and deduction. That's why I "didn't seem to care"; do you understand, now? Therefore life-and-death decisions can be made for unborn humans in exactly the same way that we make such decisions for ordinary animals. Simple.

Next you uttered this, which is astounding in its ignorance of biology.

I compared a parasite to an unborn human animal nonperson, and not to an always-exists-outside-the-womb child/person. I notice that your remark fails to provide any data that might indicate that the comparison is faulty, of unborn human to parasite. Do you have any such data?

The biological definition of a parasitic relationship involves two organisms of different species. Your comparison is worthless in a debate.

FALSE, because the word "parasitic" is not limited to the biological realm, which means that the biological definition isn't the only one that matters. How many times have you heard criminals called "parasites upon society", for example? I fully agree that biologically, a parasite must be a different species than the host, but the word "parasitic" does not at all require that particular biological fact to apply.
American Prospect Online - ViewWeb
Project MUSE
Dean's Tribute to Public Enemy
Battery Tutorial | Batterystuff.com
Exorcism New York - Spirit Depossession, Etheric Clensing, Parasite Removal, Spirit Releasement in NYC, Possession

Therefore, when I say that the survival mode of an unborn human is parasitic, I am not wrong, not at all. I notice you didn't offer an alternate description of its survival mode, despite your claims that "parasitic" is not applicable!

If fetuses are parasites, then so are breastfeeding infants and toddlers.

FALSE. Especially false after you quoted part of this in Msg #1, and apparently ignored all of it:

Before birth the survival mode of a human is parasitic; it takes what it wants from the host, regardless of any inclinations of the host. After birth, a human isn't parasitic. Everything it receives in order to survive can be a voluntary gift.

Do you see the difference between "takes ... regardless of any inclinations" and "everything ... can be a voluntary gift"??? Only the first is "parasitic"!!! The breast-feeding infant is always given access to a breast; it cannot take access on its own.

 

[jallman]

Right. And you've already proven how quick you are.

It's funny how most liberals and atheists and the like have a great tendancy to accuse others of that which they themselves are most guilty.

Your condescension here is a product of your arrogance. The only more common product of arrogance is ignorance.

This is the root of the haphazard attitude that purports it's OK to murder the unborn.

There you go with those ASSumptions again. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist. Good job chewing on that food, sport. :lol:

 

[FutureIncoming]

The idea that human life is more valuable than the life of a bugs is universally accepted by most humans. In fact mammals are also universally given higher status than insects.

A question was asked about "why". The quote does not properly answer "why". Your statement is equivalent to saying "we do this thing this way because we always did it this way", without answering why that way was chosen in the first place. Not to mention that "universally" is a pretty big word with pretty big implications, and I don't see that it is actually true. If you wanted to convince some alien from some distant galaxy that humans were more valuable than bugs, what argument would you use, besides "Because we say so!"???

I don't claim there is a potential that need be fulfilled. I claim that it is wrong to take a human life and terminate it without just cause.

Oh? This is the same talloulou who wrote this?

It is quite reasonable to argue that a being on life support who will never be capable of much of a life and has no brain waves should be terminated.

Where is the "just cause" in that? Looks to me that you are equating lack-of-potential with reason-to-kill. Therefore I conclude you are saying, in different words, that "potential matters". I acknowledge that an unborn human often has plenty of potential, but I disagree that it always matters so much that every single unborn human must be allowed to fulfill it. Especially since this kind of "potential" always comes with negatives to balance the positives. Such as more strain on the biosphere. Finally, consider carefully the logic:
1) If one human life with no potential is killable, and
2) if a second human life that has potential does not have to have that potential fulfilled,
3) then that potential might as well not exist,
4) so in what way is that second life less killable than the first?

I feel the respect we generally give human life should be extended to the unborn on the basis that they are equally human

Yes, you have said this, or the equivalent thereof, on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, it is semantically/logically equivalent to a statement such as this:
"I feel the respect we generally give to cows should be extended to steers on the basis that they are equally cattle." Most steers end up in the slaughterhouse, see, while most cows are kept alive and well, to breed more steers and cows. Well, if we routinely make distinctions among cattle, why can't we equally routinely make distinctions among humans? The "just because they are humans" argument is nothing but worthless prejudice. You need better facts than that!

and I believe in equal rights for all humans

That's nice; when are you planning on handing your car keys to a toddler? Oh, the toddler isn't capable of making good decisions about that? But an unborn human isn't capable of making any decisions at all! Its behavior is entirely stimulus/response, preprogrammed genetics in action. Just like all equivalently-developed ordinary animals out there. What make the human more special, and more deserving of rights, than the other animals? "Just because it is human" doesn't work!

and object to the idea of non-person humans.

Nevertheless, the idea of generic persons remains. It cannot be ignored forever. And any facts about humans that come out of that idea, whenever it is embraced --those facts are perfectly factual at this time, too. Facts are like that.

Answered already previously.

Relevant posts in the original "Real Simple" thread are:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/483736-post581.html by you
http://www.debatepolitics.com/483857-post596.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484038-post597.html by you
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484082-post600.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484091-post601.html by you
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484169-post603.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484234-post604.html by you
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484241-post605.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484245-post606.html by you
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484828-post644.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484974-post649.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/485783-post679.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/487262-post788.html by me
Your "answer" has been torn apart, and your response to that is being awaited.

Being is a word that can have many implied meanings or just suggest any creature that exists. Thus it's not, in my opinion, worth quibbling over. I think there is merit to both the argument that the unborn are human beings and that they're not. I think the latter is harder to swallow but that's my bias. The idea that the unborn may be compared to a "rock" or that calling the unborn human beings is akin to calling rocks rock beings is intellectually dishonest, unfair, crude, and absurd.

Please note that the question to which you responded was originally directed at Doughgirl. She continues to mis-use "human being", as do a number of pro-lifers here, not including yourself. The thing about a "rock being" is simply to illustrate the fact that when we add the word "being" to some other word, we are enhancing the base meaning of that other word. There is an original-series Star Trek episode about a rock being, after all. By default/typical usage of the word, a "being" is an intelligent person-class entity. That's why we don't in ordinary conversations talk about "cat beings" or "fetus beings", but we do in many other scenarios talk about "alien beings" or even "rock beings". And that's why human fetuses shouldn't be called "human beings" any more than we call them "fetus beings".

{{out of time; will continue later}}

 

[Jerry]

A question was asked about "why". The quote does not properly answer "why". Your statement is equivalent to saying "we do this thing this way because we always did it this way", without answering why that way was chosen in the first place. Not to mention that "universally" is a pretty big word with pretty big implications, and I don't see that it is actually true. If you wanted to convince some alien from some distant galaxy that humans were more valuable than bugs, what argument would you use, besides "Because we say so!"???


Oh? This is the same talloulou who wrote this?

Where is the "just cause" in that? Looks to me that you are equating lack-of-potential with reason-to-kill. Therefore I conclude you are saying, in different words, that "potential matters". I acknowledge that an unborn human often has plenty of potential, but I disagree that it always matters so much that every single unborn human must be allowed to fulfill it. Especially since this kind of "potential" always comes with negatives to balance the positives. Such as more strain on the biosphere. Finally, consider carefully the logic:
1) If one human life with no potential is killable, and
2) if a second human life that has potential does not have to have that potential fulfilled,
3) then that potential might as well not exist,
4) so in what way is that second life less killable than the first?

Yes, you have said this, or the equivalent thereof, on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, it is semantically/logically equivalent to a statement such as this:
"I feel the respect we generally give to cows should be extended to steers on the basis that they are equally cattle." Most steers end up in the slaughterhouse, see, while most cows are kept alive and well, to breed more steers and cows. Well, if we routinely make distinctions among cattle, why can't we equally routinely make distinctions among humans? The "just because they are humans" argument is nothing but worthless prejudice. You need better facts than that!

That's nice; when are you planning on handing your car keys to a toddler? Oh, the toddler isn't capable of making good decisions about that? But an unborn human isn't capable of making any decisions at all! Its behavior is entirely stimulus/response, preprogrammed genetics in action. Just like all equivalently-developed ordinary animals out there. What make the human more special, and more deserving of rights, than the other animals? "Just because it is human" doesn't work!

Nevertheless, the idea of generic persons remains. It cannot be ignored forever. And any facts about humans that come out of that idea, whenever it is embraced --those facts are perfectly factual at this time, too. Facts are like that.

Relevant posts in the original "Real Simple" thread are:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/483736-post581.html by you
http://www.debatepolitics.com/483857-post596.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484038-post597.html by you
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484082-post600.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484091-post601.html by you
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484169-post603.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484234-post604.html by you
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484241-post605.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484245-post606.html by you
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484828-post644.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/484974-post649.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/485783-post679.html by me
http://www.debatepolitics.com/487262-post788.html by me
Your "answer" has been torn apart, and your response to that is being awaited.


Please note that the question to which you responded was originally directed at Doughgirl. She continues to mis-use "human being", as do a number of pro-lifers here, not including yourself. The thing about a "rock being" is simply to illustrate the fact that when we add the word "being" to some other word, we are enhancing the base meaning of that other word. There is an original-series Star Trek episode about a rock being, after all. By default/typical usage of the word, a "being" is an intelligent person-class entity. That's why we don't in ordinary conversations talk about "cat beings" or "fetus beings", but we do in many other scenarios talk about "alien beings" or even "rock beings". And that's why human fetuses shouldn't be called "human beings" any more than we call them "fetus beings".

{{out of time; will continue later}}

I happen to know that it took you no less than 1 hour to research and make that post...cuz I've been hanging around board.

Not slamming you or nothing, just showing your dedication.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Religion is an "unknown" as it entails a variety of beliefs for a variety of people even those who supposedly belong to the same religion. Thus it's pointless to bring it into the discussion.

Those who use religion in anti-abortion arguments typically have several generic statements in common. One such statement is "God says no!", except that when pressed to provide supporting evidence for that statement, they can't do any better than the "don't murder" Commandment. Which leads us to the secular world and discussions about the word "murder", and more discussions about "persons". Heh, if a corporation is a person, then a financier/corporate-raider who arranges a leveraged buyout of an undervalued company, in order to sell off its assets and to shut it down, is committing murder, eh?
Another common religion-based anti-abortion argument involves souls, and my Question was aimed squarely at anyone who want to claim that unborn humans have souls. Those who don't make that claim are free to ignore the question. Perhaps I should add that "out", the next time I re-type the question.

The demand for healthy newborns up for adoption in our country is extremely high. Many wait years and years and others give up waiting all together and spend large amounts of money to adopt babies from other countries. The law of supply and demand, if it were applicable, would only aid the prolife argument.

There is a flaw in that argument somewhere. I'm not sure precisely what it is, but it must exist. For evidence that your argument is flawed, consider this logic:
1) The drive to reproduce undeniably exists and is a strong drive.
2) The selfishness of Mindless Natural Biology has yielded many strategies in which Organism A reproduces at the expense of Organism B. This can be as simple as a wasp injecting an egg into a caterpillar (which hatches and eats the living caterpillar out from the inside), or as complex as a cuckoo depositing an egg into another bird's nest (which hatches and the first thing the chick does is push the other eggs out of the nest).
3) Humans are not immune from seeking ways to get others to support their offspring. How often are women on Welfare accused of abusing the system, just to have more kids (thereby satisfying the biological drive in Point 1)?
4) The demand for newborns is obviously an opportunity for any human who wants to have offspring, and let someone else bear the costs of raising those offspring. If the demand exists exactly as you have specified, unflawed, then there will be humans out there breeding just to pass their genes on, and to meet that demand. Where are they? The lack of such a group of breeders is the evidence that your argument is flawed.
5) I suspect the flaw is another Mindless Natural Biological drive, which tends to bond the mother with the newborn. If the infant is kept instead of given up for adoption, then the outside demand goes unsatisfied. Note that the Law allows the woman to keep the child even if she can't properly care for it without lots of assistance. And prohibiting abortions will not affect that bonding-fact hardly at all!!! Therefore I recommend some drug-research into preventing this bond from forming. Then any woman who doesn't want to abort and also can't properly raise a child herself will be able to give away the infant without feeling loss. (And there still won't be any need to ban abortions!)

However we don't treat human life as "business." Certainly we could deal with the homeless problem by killing the homeless but that goes against the respect for human life we hold dear.

More, it involves murdering persons. Abortions, however, don't.

As soon as other groups of humans are also devalued, considered non-persons, and terminated based on their usefulness, worth, stage of development, or intelligence then I'll reconsider my stance

What you should reconsider is your initial valuing of all human life, regardless of its characteristics. WHY is a just-fertilized ovum just as valuable as a fully competent woman who doesn't want to be pregnant? Certainly they are both human, but they are also both very unequal in a large variety of ways. Why does "human" trump all those other characteristics, such that the zygote must be valued identically to the adult?

but as long as we are attempting to respect human life and not kill without just cause I believe that should be extended to the unborn who are humans.

I reiterate that it is persons that should be equally valued, and not mere lives. Lives are cheap; just count the numbers of bacteria for proof. And you have yet to answer the main question of why human lives, as lives, should be considered more special than lives of bugs. MY answer involves persons who happen to be humans; their lives are more special because persons are special, having characteristics unmatched by any ordinary animal. And it logically follows that humans lacking those characteristics are not more special. Simple.

 

[talloulou]

What you should reconsider is your initial valuing of all human life, regardless of its characteristics. WHY is a just-fertilized ovum just as valuable as a fully competent woman who doesn't want to be pregnant? Certainly they are both human, but they are also both very unequal in a large variety of ways. Why does "human" trump all those other characteristics, such that the zygote must be valued identically to the adult?

I would not view outlawing abortion as valuing the unborn more or even equally as the mother which carries him/her. However when you are comparing a circumstance where a mother is forced to be pregnant for 9 months vs. another scenario where a human is killed it is my belief that "being terminated" or killed far outweighs being pregnant for 9 months. Thus in the case of an unwanted pregnancy the desire to not be pregnant is not sufficient enough in my mind to warrant another human be put to death. Now if the woman has genuine health problems where the pregnancy poses a genuine risk to the mother's life than I would view an aboriton in that case as self defense and warranted.

 

[talloulou]

If you wanted to convince some alien from some distant galaxy that humans were more valuable than bugs, what argument would you use, besides "Because we say so!"???

Well actually insects are quite valuable to the planet and thus our species as a whole. But that's another topic. As far as convincing aliens, who knows? What if the aliens were bug like? The ways I'd come up with to convince an alien of human worth would vary depending on the alien type I was confronted with. If it looked like a big giant bug you can be sure I wouldn't
start the converstation rambling on and on about my disregard for the lives of indivdual bugs.

That's nice; when are you planning on handing your car keys to a toddler? Oh, the toddler isn't capable of making good decisions about that? But an unborn human isn't capable of making any decisions at all!

Right but my toddler will have the same rights and opportunities to go about obtaining a drivers license as I did or as his/her peers do at the time. I certainly can't kill my toddler at age 4 and claim my killing of him/her is inconsequential because at age 4 his capabilities and capacities to do much of anything were low. The unborn may not be comparable or even equal to 4 year olds but in the same manner 4 year old aren't equal or comparable to 18 year olds and the evident changes/differences exist throughout the stages of life from conception till death.

What make the human more special, and more deserving of rights, than the other animals? "Just because it is human" doesn't work!

In our society it works that way all the time.

 

[FutureIncoming]

What you should reconsider is your initial valuing of all human life, regardless of its characteristics. WHY is a just-fertilized ovum just as valuable as a fully competent woman who doesn't want to be pregnant? Certainly they are both human, but they are also both very unequal in a large variety of ways. Why does "human" trump all those other characteristics, such that the zygote must be valued identically to the adult?

I would not view outlawing abortion as valuing the unborn more or even equally as the mother which carries him/her.

Very well. However, how is it possible to say something like "Unborn humans deserve to live!" without assigning a significant valuation to them? Even if this valuation is less than that assigned to the mother, it still has to be significant, for you to be willing to EITHER insist that the mother's valuation of the unborn human become at least equal to your valuation of it, OR effectively enslave the mother by banning abortion and requiring a pregnancy to be carried to term. And so far you have still failed to specify why your valuation of unborn humans must be Objectively True, such that that gives you some kind of right to exercise either of the preceding choices.

However when you are comparing a circumstance where a mother is forced to be pregnant for 9 months vs. another scenario where a human is killed it is my belief that "being terminated" or killed far outweighs being pregnant for 9 months.

Again, your belief appears to be entirely based upon a Subjective valuation, and not on an Objective valuation. Why should anyone agree with you?

Thus in the case of an unwanted pregnancy the desire to not be pregnant is not sufficient enough in my mind to warrant another human be put to death.

Again, your belief appears to be entirely based upon a Subjective valuation, and not on an Objective valuation. Why should anyone agree with you?

Now if the woman has genuine health problems where the pregnancy poses a genuine risk to the mother's life than I would view an aboriton in that case as self defense and warranted.

This is obviously due to your assigning less value to the unborn human than to the mother. I have no problem with that. It is the preceding problem that you must solve, regarding the actual valuation that you do assign to unborn humans.

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

If you wanted to convince some alien from some distant galaxy that humans were more valuable than bugs, what argument would you use, besides "Because we say so!"???

Well actually insects are quite valuable to the planet and thus our species as a whole. But that's another topic.

Indeed, especially since you are comparing species with species, and not individuals. Generally, no matter how valuable a species is, an individual member of it is near-valueless, especially when the species is very common and in no immediate danger of extinction --and those last two facts apply both to the average insect species on Earth, as well as to homo sapiens. Meanwhile, if humans have any value to Planet Earth, it may possibly be as Gaia's mechanism for spreading Earth-life to other worlds --but if that's true, then as long as we are squabbling and not investing vast effort into space programs, we are effectively valueless to Gaia. Do you have any other rationale to assign as much Objective Value to the human species as can be assigned to bugs?

As far as convincing aliens, who knows? What if the aliens were bug like? The ways I'd come up with to convince an alien of human worth would vary depending on the alien type I was confronted with. If it looked like a big giant bug you can be sure I wouldn't
start the converstation rambling on and on about my disregard for the lives of indivdual bugs.

I doubt that that is as important as you think. Remember the difference between R-strategy and K-strategy breeders? Humans are K-strategy, while bugs are R-strategy; each adult bug can have hundreds to thousands of offspring. Intelligent bugs will long ago have experienced multiple Malthusian Catastrophes, if they tried to grant significant value to all those offspring. They will know that excess offspring must be culled, to maintain a stable society. And we humans need to learn that, too --or at least learn that abortion is OK in a world where overpopulation is endangering the long-term survival of our society.

 

[FutureIncoming]

What make the human more special, and more deserving of rights, than the other animals? "Just because it is human" doesn't work!

In our society it works that way all the time.

SO? Like I said before:

Your statement is equivalent to saying "we do this thing this way because we always did it this way", without answering why that way was chosen in the first place.

I see that you responded to some text in #12 which was practically adjacent to this, but you didn't respond to this. Tsk, tsk. Nor did you respond to a fair amount of other stuff in either Msg #12 or #14. I'm waiting....