Why the bias towards humans? (1 Viewer)

[FallingPianos]

this is addressed to those of your that oppose 1st trimester abortions.

a human embryo is capible of none of the qualities that define us as people. They are incapible of thinking, feeling emotion, or even feeling pain. the only thing they have that makes them human is human DNA - a physical feature.

Why should something as trivial as a physical feature be so important?

 

[Jerry]

this is addressed to those of your that oppose 1st trimester abortions.

a human embryo is capible of none of the qualities that define us as people. They are incapible of thinking, feeling emotion, or even feeling pain. the only thing they have that makes them human is human DNA - a physical feature.

Why should something as trivial as a physical feature be so important?

I'd love to answer, but first could you clarify how a bias toward humans plays into your question?

 

[FallingPianos]

I'd love to answer, but first could you clarify how a bias toward humans plays into your question?

humans as defined as any being possessing human DNA.

 

[Jerry]

It's "Why the bies twards [DNA]" then?

 

[LaughingLatimer]

lol u own star.

 

[FallingPianos]

It's "Why the bies twards [DNA]" then?

how about "why the bias towards beings possessing human DNA"?

 

[Jerry]

lol u own star.

If that were true I'd be getting laid more often

how about "why the bias towards beings possessing human DNA"?

Okay, I'll explain.

You just referred to the unborn as a "being".

When your opponent points out that said "being" is made of human DNA, they can rightfully say that the unborn is "a human being"; and "a human being" is the exact wording of the first definition of "
person", thus affording the unborn, per your own reference to it as a "being", the right to life per the 14th. amendment.

Ipso-facto you just agreed to outlawing all abortions where the mother's life is not in danger. All because you used the word "being".

Frustrating, no? It's a word play, but it's logical and it works.

This is why folks like FutureIncoming never refer to the unborn as a "being" or anything similar. They've fallen into the trap before and have learned their lesson.

Does that explain it?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

We're biased toward humans because we are humans; why should we give any other species as much consideration as we give our own?

 

[Kandahar]

We're biased toward humans because we are humans; why should we give any other species as much consideration as we give our own?

Why should we give other humans any special consideration either?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Why should we give other humans any special consideration either?

For the same reason we give our countrymen consideration over foreigners-- their degree of relation to us. And, for that matter, other humans are more likely to be valuable to us than members of other species; at very least, their grandchildren might make suitable mates for ours.

 

[FallingPianos]

If that were true I'd be getting laid more often

:shock: no.

You just referred to the unborn as a "being".

When your opponent points out that said "being" is made of human DNA, they can rightfully say that the unborn is "a human being"; and "a human being" is the exact wording of the first definition of "
person", thus affording the unborn, per your own reference to it as a "being", the right to life per the 14th. amendment.

Ipso-facto you just agreed to outlawing all abortions where the mother's life is not in danger. All because you used the word "being".

Frustrating, no? It's a word play, but it's logical and it works.

I'm really not interested in getting into a semantical argument. I mean, do you seriously believe that an human embryo deserves protection because if you use the right combination of dictionary definitions you can construct an embryo as being defined as a human or organization with legal rights and duties?

I could do the same thing and end up defining a doll the same way.

being: Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
human: Having the form of a human

the doll exists and the doll has human form. therefore it is a human being. the rest of the argument continues like yours.

 

[Jerry]

:shock: no.

...oooohhhhh yeahhhh......

I'm really not interested in getting into a semantical argument. I mean, do you seriously believe that an human embryo deserves protection because if you use the right combination of dictionary definitions you can construct an embryo as being defined as a human or organization with legal rights and duties?

I could do the same thing and end up defining a doll the same way.

being: Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
human: Having the form of a human

the doll exists and the doll has human form. therefore it is a human being. the rest of the argument continues like yours.

The word game is a debate path to illustrate a point, nothing more.

The references to DNA you encounter are likely responces to claims that it is okay to lower one's unborn to be seen as less than human and to counter pro-choice word games like "its not a child, it's a fetus", and smiler. The DNA is not an argument in and of itself, it is evidence.

Ive seen arguments here likening a 9 month old unborn (parden the wording there) to various forms of moles and tumors, that not allowing a mother to kill her unborn somehow establishes slavery (an argument, IMO, which can only be made after the concept of responsibility is thrown off). Even today there are arguments being forwarded claiming that one's offspring has no value unless it is wanted, even after birth.

The whole thing is becoming very convoluted on both sides.

If any of us who oppose abortion go a bit crazy on you, we're likely just so frustrated with the lack of effective communication; both coming in and going out.

IMO the DNA thing is largely irrelevant.

 

[talloulou]

this is addressed to those of your that oppose 1st trimester abortions.

a human embryo is capible of none of the qualities that define us as people. They are incapible of thinking, feeling emotion, or even feeling pain. the only thing they have that makes them human is human DNA - a physical feature.

Why should something as trivial as a physical feature be so important?

It's the nature of the relationship. A developing human in utero was created by it's parents. For parents to decide their own offspring is "offensive" to the point where they will have it killed just seems so wrong. Mothers shouldn't
forsake their children. It's hard not to view it as completely irresponsible and lacking in both dignity and honor.

 

[FallingPianos]

The references to DNA you encounter are likely responces to claims that it is okay to lower one's unborn to be seen as less than human and to counter pro-choice word games like "its not a child, it's a fetus", and smiler. The DNA is not an argument in and of itself, it is evidence.

I dont think anyone is claiming that a human embryo isnt human. Only that there are more important factors than species classification in determaining the morality of abortion.

as for the child vs fetus argument, this is purely semantical. pro-lifers are more likely to use laymans terms, and pro-choicers are more likely to use medical terms. it doesnt really matter as long as there is mutual understanding.

I've seen arguments here likening a 9 month old unborn (parden the wording there) to various forms of moles and tumors,

oh god, not the hydatiform mole again...

that not allowing a mother to kill her unborn somehow establishes slavery (an argument, IMO, which can only be made after the concept of responsibility is thrown off).

OR

The the argument that it does not establish slavory can only be made after the duty of a pregnant woman give birth is established. its all a matter of perspective.

If any of us who oppose abortion go a bit crazy on you, we're likely just so frustrated with the lack of effective communication; both coming in and going out.

believe me, the frustration is mutual... which is why I'm not interested in debating semantics.

IMO the DNA thing is largely irrelevant.

so, what is relevant?

 

[FallingPianos]

For parents to decide their own offspring is "offensive" to the point where they will have it killed just seems so wrong.

abortions due to fetal abnormalities are rare. it has nothing to do with the embryo/fetus.

It's the nature of the relationship. A developing human in utero was created by it's parents... Mothers shouldn't forsake their children.

why not?

It's hard not to view it as completely irresponsible and lacking in both dignity and honor.

as long as we're still talking about 1st trimester abortions, I find it very easy.

 

[Kandahar]

For the same reason we give our countrymen consideration over foreigners-- their degree of relation to us.

But a single-celled zygote that happens to have human DNA is hardly related to us at all. Certainly we have more in common with a full-grown pig...yet we routinely raise those to be eaten.

And, for that matter, other humans are more likely to be valuable to us than members of other species; at very least, their grandchildren might make suitable mates for ours.

If the question is one of the value to us of life, then abortion should definitely be legal, as babies will generally require at least TWO valuable lives be devoted to caring for them, since the people most likely to want an abortion are those who can't afford a child.

 

[Kandahar]

It's the nature of the relationship. A developing human in utero was created by it's parents. For parents to decide their own offspring is "offensive" to the point where they will have it killed just seems so wrong.

But that's a personal value judgment, not a judgment on the value of the fetus' life.

Mothers shouldn't
forsake their children. It's hard not to view it as completely irresponsible and lacking in both dignity and honor.

So you're against adoption too?

 

[talloulou]

why not?

Because it is completely irresponsible. Parents should "parent" a notion that is quickly going out of style but true none the less.

as long as we're still talking about 1st trimester abortions, I find it very easy.

There is no honor in killing your own child.

 

[FallingPianos]

Parents should "parent" a notion that is quickly going out of style but true none the less.

why should they? I'm not asking because I disagree, if we were discussing a born child i'd agree 100%

why should a pregnant woman be compelled to care for her embryo/fetus
OR
why should an embryo/fetus be entitled to that care?

to me, the idea that anyone should be compelled to care for a non-sentient being is uncomprehensable.

There is no honor in killing your own child.

there is no honour nor dishonour.

 

[talloulou]

So you're against adoption too?

No I'm not against adoption. It's a blessing when someone else chooses to take responsibility for a child whose parents for whatever reason did not. I'd prefer to see mothers hand their responsibility over to another vs killing their child.

 

[talloulou]

why should a pregnant woman be compelled to care for her embryo/fetus

Because it is her child. It's at an earlier stage of development than a born child but it is her child nontheless.

why should an embryo/fetus be entitled to that care?

Why shouldn't it be?

to me, the idea that anyone should be compelled to care for a non-sentient being is uncomprehensable.

Why is that? When babies are born they are completely dependent still on anothers care. They aren't able to talk. Who knows what they think. Why should anyone care for newborns? Other than age what is the difference between a born and unborn child? Neither have complete brain development. Perhaps the unborn are completely unaware. But you could kill a newborn without it being aware. You could drug it to sleep and end its life without any pain or conscious objection from the child. Either way you are taking a life. Whether you take the life before or after it is born you are taking a life.....

Mothers shouldn't take the life of their children.

there is no honour nor dishonour.

I disagree. There should be shame in abortion.

 

[talloulou]

But a single-celled zygote that happens to have human DNA is hardly related to us at all. Certainly we have more in common with a full-grown pig...yet we routinely raise those to be eaten.

That's completely ridiculous. Parents who have created a child by their own actions are certainly related to that child. And that child if born will more than likely highly resemble those parents in many ways. To not see that is delusional.

 

[FallingPianos]

Because it is her child. It's at an earlier stage of development than a born child but it is her child nontheless.

I agree that its hers. to think otherwise would be absurd. I still fail to see why that matters.

Why shouldn't it be?

Because there is no reason to.

Why is that? When babies are born they are completely dependent still on anothers care. They aren't able to talk. Who knows what they think. Why should anyone care for newborns? Other than age what is the difference between a born and unborn child? Neither have complete brain development. Perhaps the unborn are completely unaware.

if newborns were proven to be totally non-sentient i'd have no opposition to euthanising them either.

But you could kill a newborn without it being aware. You could drug it to sleep and end its life without any pain or conscious objection from the child.

you are comparing a temporary state (sleep) to a semi permanent state of non-sentience. the comparison is invalid.

Either way you are taking a life. Whether you take the life before or after it is born you are taking a life.....

I dont think anyone is claiming that abortion doesnt kill the embryo or fetus.

Mothers shouldn't take the life of their children.

if "children" includes the unborn in the 1st trimester I fail to see why not.

 

[Kandahar]

That's completely ridiculous. Parents who have created a child by their own actions are certainly related to that child. And that child if born will more than likely highly resemble those parents in many ways. To not see that is delusional.

That's not what I mean by "related." The fact is that a single-celled zygote (or a first-trimester fetus) has very little in common with human beings other than DNA. We have MUCH more in common with fully-developed animals than we do with uterine goo.

 

[FallingPianos]

That's not what I mean by "related." The fact is that a single-celled zygote (or a first-trimester fetus) has very little in common with human beings other than DNA. We have MUCH more in common with fully-developed animals than we do with uterine goo.

you need to qualify your statement. "he fact is that a single-celled zygote (or a first-trimester fetus) has very little in common with born human beings other than DNA."