Ah, but at least I have illustrated it by example.Quote:
Originally Posted by PJYelton
Printable View
Ah, but at least I have illustrated it by example.Quote:
Originally Posted by PJYelton
Oh? They do? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
Well, I guess I was wrong then. Everyone stop listening to me.
Darkness, this isn't an attack on you. And I apologize for using you as a means to an end here. But it is important that people use more than campaign slogans to make decisions.
It's cool, and you weren't a jerk, but being on the receiving end of being proved wrong still sucks :)
Read my post above. I actually thought I had my facts straight, and that I was making a decision that was more informed than average. Plus, it's not like I'm going to become a raging conservative now, unless you systematically prove me wrong on every other reason why I didn't vote for Bush. Both of my parents work in healthcare, and they typically get to see the 'real side' of things with that...that would have been like my family being rich, and I would have seen the real situation with taxes.
Then there's the war...but, that's a lot I'd rather not park in.
It's not for me to "prove you wrong" on everything. I would only suggest that you ignore politicians and political people when they speak. This includes much of the news media. Find out facts, real facts before you vote.
edit: You deserve positive feedback :)
> I would only suggest that you ignore politicians and political people when they speak.
I will second this. A good rule of thumb is if you wander into a bookstore and see a book by someone who also gives their opinion on TV, ignore that person.
woohoo!!! mommy mommy somebody likes me!Quote:
edit: You deserve positive feedback
:)
But don't be too nice to me...you'll come across as a bleeding heart liberal hippy
I hate politics.
I've got a few reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by FillYourBrain
- His foreign policy sucks. That is, he feels that the military should be intervening around the world. There is no reason why we need any military presence in many of the nations in which we have a military. The proper role of the military is denfense. We do not need a separate bureaucracy for that. (This has been increasingly the state of things over the last century, particularly since the end of WWII). Entangling foreign engagements have been the cause of many problems in history, and yet we keep creating them for some odd reason.
- He claims that he will not reinstate the draft (which he very well may not -- there is no evidence at the moment suggesting that he will), yet for some reason he refuses to do away with selective service registration.
- His attempts to ban gay marriage is an attempt to regulate morality. The government should have no role in how people choose to live there lives (registering it, let alone banning certain combinations).
- The war on drugs is ridiculous. Firstly, the reason there is a war on drugs is largely the result of US foreign policy. Secondly, what people choose to do with there lives is their own business. And the government should not say that some drugs are okay, but others are not as they do now. That is a person's own choice. (And, no, I don't do drugs.)
There are more, but I'm not terribly inclined to write a whole lot. Also note, these are all reasons not to vote for Kerry as well.
Ahh... and if anyone is interested, here is a good paper on voter ignorance. It is disturbing to see how completely out of it many voters are: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2372
> He claims that he will not reinstate the draft (which he very well may not -- there is no evidence at the moment suggesting that he will), yet for some reason he refuses to do away with selective service registration.
This is just silly. I don't know of any other president that has actually tried to get rid of SS, and there's no reason for Bush to start now.
While I know discussions often go off topic, it is funny that in a thread specifically intended to concentrate on issues and reasoning, most of the focus is, as usual, one level higher - on the existence of reasoning and a focus on issues (or lack thereof) when making a voting choice.
I wish there was more than one person on this site willing to lay out their reasons in voting for Bush and back up those reasons with a little discussion.
usually they get shouted down pretty fiercely here. I usually just avoid it myself. It's often easier to just answer programming questions. :)
Anyway, no-one did show signs of being conservative. He didn't elaborate though.
Understood... I was hoping that since I have no intention of shouting anybody down (hopefully my discussion with you shows what I am after), others would be more inclined to help me out and just ignore the extra stuff on the side.
No worries, though. :)
Of course, if you are interested, I'm still interested in finishing our discussion.
what would you like to discuss? (I noticed my reputation dropped again in the last hour. I'm sure I can get it way down before the night is over)
It's always nice to see how open-minded liberals act toward diversity of ideas.
I boosted you up, to even things out. I went to do it again and got this:
Quote:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to FillYourBrain again.
hehe, thanks but no need to worry about my rep. If I were concerned about it I wouldn't be posting in a political discussion.
Do you realize how ridiculous that statement sounds Govtcheez? The "it's been screwed up for a long time, so why bother fixing it?" argument is rather lacking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
*edit*
jlou, I think that too large of a portion of the regular posters didn't vote for Bush, so you aren't going to get a particularly large selection of answers... Other than FYB's since he's willing to face the liberal wrath. ;)
You must misunderstand what he was saying here. Cheez was pointing out that the two don't relate and if you're criticism of Bush on the draft issue is that he "refuses" to do away with selective services registration you must also say that Bill Clinton "refused" and every previous president "refused". The reality is that nobody is refusing. They just have far more important things to deal with than making a change that wont help anything to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zach L.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. First, there are much less important issues that get brought up and made into big controversies, things which should not be an issue, and are used primarily for emotional issues. And, congratulations for noting that Bill Clinton did not do away with it either. Neither did Bush Senior, or Reagan, or Carter, etc.
That line of reasoning strikes me as benig very similar to most unfortunate conversations I've had with people lately over politics namely a challenge "John Kerry's flawed because of..." or "George Bush is flawed because of..." does not elicit the react on "[Insert candidate] is not flawed because of that, and here are some reasons", but instead they just assert that the other major party candidate sucks.
Right, and by "refused", I mean that the issue has been brought up to him and he decided not to do anything about changing the current state of things. I have no idea if it had been brought up to Clinton et al or in what manner he "refused" to deal with it, but that is irrelevant anyway.
wow...
wish and you shall recieve...Quote:
Originally Posted by jlou
Ok given the response of Democrats I know here at school and around the world I have to rant for a bit, and since I can offend all the people who disagree with me here without having to deal with them in real life, you all are the ones to suffer through it...
You want to know why I voted for bush, here are my reasons. Well as some of the polls mentioned, moral issues. Now before you bash me for being some christian right zealot let me explain. I base every decision and belief on my morals, and what I can logicaly justify to myself, it has nothing to do with religion (Hell, Im an atheist). That being said I believe Kerry's economic policies are not only bad for the country as a whole, I believe they are Immoral at their basic level.
Second, I believe that Kerry's foriegn policy is basicly a reactionary move back towards the policies of Clinton, which while they might not have offended anyone in the world, they certainly didn't make us safer.
Third, while I believe in the smallest government possible (Why does the Libertarian Party only nominate raving looneys?) I believe the Republican party is the best chance at achieving this (for the moment at least). While elements of the Republican Party wish to resitrict personal freedoms, over the course of history Society itself has moved towards allowing more and more personal freedoms and has showed more and more tolerance for those deviating from the status quo. Saddly the same can not be said for economic freedom, in fact society has moved to less and less economic freedom, Because of this I have to vote for the party that will continue to push economic freedom and count on society to continue their path towards personal freedom.
<RANT>
Ok now Democrats, you want to know why you keep losing??? You want to know why you have lost ground in every election since the 1996? Here is why, because you're a bunch of elitst jerks(not all of you) You continue to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an un-educated ignorant nothing. You think that is the way to convince people to vote for you. When I say Socialism is wrong, and that the democrats spend too much money, you call me a stupid greedy pig just because I believe I have a right to what I create. When I say that abortion is wrong, you call me a stupid bible thumper (once again, Im an atheist and you call me a bible thumper). The democrats don't seem to be able to handle the fact there people disagree with them. The democratic party has turned into the worst form of Ideology with no one willing to question its policies or its beliefs and simply content to bash anyone who disagrees with you. I HATE REPUBLICANS, I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE them, why do I end up having to vote for them, because the democrats call me a stupid ignorant greedy pig. Once you realize the fact that intelligent people disagree with you and that you have to convince them that you're right, or at least a better choice, rather than just saying that they are ignorant maybe you will have a chance
</rant>
Go ahead flame away, had to vent...
You guys saying that you voted Republican for smaller government and less spending have actually paid attention to how much Bush increased spending and the size of the government, right? The entire first 4 years he was in office, do you know how many spending bills he vetoed? ZERO. Do you really think that'll happen when his party is entirely in control of the government?
Saddly I do realize that Govt, but lets be honest, do you really expect me to believe that Kerry would spend less than Bush. Because of our horrible election system I was stuck chosing between a raving lunatic (Libertarian candidate) and the lesser of two evils (Bush).
Well, with Kerry as President and Congress under Republican control, you can't have expected a lot of stuff to get through.
> a raving lunatic (Libertarian candidate)
hehe, he was hilarious.
Well said, Darlen.
Since I can't be King and fix all of our problems ;) I'll do the next best thing and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Dalren, although my views differ from yours I do respect them. The only problem I have though is accusing the Democrats of bashing Republicans. Does it happen a lot? Of course. BUT you have to realize it happens both ways. I've been called an immoral tree-hugging baby-killing flaming liberal wussicrat probably as much as you've been called an ignorant bible-thumping conservative. If you had views that were closer to Democratic views I'm betting (depending on where you live) you'd be accusing the Republicans of doing this instead. Or maybe its just the people you hang out with or the area you live in. I just don't think its fair to say that Democrats solely do this, when instead its the idiots who can't make an argument so instead resort to bashing, and lets face it, both parties have a LOT of these idiots.
mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/bushˇtt
....guess who I would have voted for :p
*note: if you want to visit the site you have to replace the i in bushˇtt with...well...another i, or it wont work
?Quote:
Originally Posted by FillYourBrain
Sorry, but I have no intention of defending Clinton. :rolleyes:
Dalren, out of curiosity, how did you view Badnarik as a raving lunatic?
> Dalren, out of curiosity, how did you view Badnarik as a raving lunatic?
I'm gonna go with the "If elected, I'm going to give the occupants of the UN 2 weeks to get out and then blow up the building."
Err... Where did that come from?
PJ please don't think I believe only democrats bash the otherside, I completly agree with you. That part of my post was really me fliping out over the stuff I have heard on campus here. Really the wave of emails I got wednesday saying that everyone who voted for bush was a moron really got me upset and so they became my target.
Why is Badnarik a lunatic, well first off a commodity based currency when you are the largest economy in the world is a bad idea, also his ideas on getting rid of the federal reserve make me nervous. Second, well let me quote something written about him
"Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn't filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas' more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver's license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories." --- http://www.libertyunbound.com/archiv...ark_horse.html
Thats why
Hmm... I know a number of Libertarians (myself included), and I don't believe that any one of them knew about that stuff. I am a bit skeptical of some of it (until I can verify it, some of that seems a bit outlandish). Nothing in the paragraph you posted strikes me as more than peculiar (the driver's license bit). I could legitimately see someone protesting the IRS. Some of the other stuff in that article is a bit disturbing. I must confess that I did not know a lot about him prior to his nomination. The other two I knew a bit about, but not him. So, when I was researching him after his nomination, it seems that a good bit of that information was not as readily available as it should have been (as per Libertarian ideology).
I do appreciate the info.
Cheers
No problem Dalren. That really sucks that that happened, what school is this at?
mostQuote:
Originally Posted by PJYelton
> Err... Where did that come from?
Not a direct quote, but paraphrased, and it was from his website. If elected, he was also going to wear a pistol to his inauguration.
>>When I say that abortion is wrong,
I don't care if it is right or wrong.
I disagree with the effort to take the choice from the people involved and put it in government hands.
same with gay marriage. At least legislate so gay de-facto relationships are recognised.
>>There are two kinds of people who use the phrase "tax cuts for the rich"
The answer to FYB's question is all to do with 'disposable income'.
This is the amount of money you have after you have paid tax and necessities (food, rent ect).
Someone who has lots of disposable income is rich.
Poor people have none.
In our society we take care of those who can't take care of themselves.
GWB's idea is that the rich will invest the tax cut and so create more wealth and so pay more tax.
This wealth will over time, 'trickle down' to the poor.
In the mean time the government collects less money to spend on public services (to help the poor).
In effect the rich are being paid by the government to take care of the poor (when it is the governments job).
Do you think the rich are doing a good job of helping the poor?
Or are they just getting richer?
>>What if I told you that those making 28,400 were taxed 25% and those making 311,950 were taxed 35%?
I would LOVE it!
Australia's top tax rate hits at $62,500 and is 47%. At $21,601 you start paying 30%.
I pay $16,182 + 47% of all income over $62,500. Then I pay a 10% goods and services tax on all purchases.
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co...u=5053&mfp=001
Granted i wouldn't call you a stupid greedy pig, and i certainly think there is debate open for how much public spending there should be, but i don't find it that suprising that within academic institutions there is little support for those who believe that all that they earn is off their own back and hence should be theirs.Quote:
When I say Socialism is wrong, and that the democrats spend too much money, you call me a stupid greedy pig just because I believe I have a right to what I create.
Most objection to abortion stems from religious views, surely you are not called a Christianista after you explained your reasoning?Quote:
When I say that abortion is wrong, you call me a stupid bible thumper (once again, Im an atheist and you call me a bible thumper). The democrats don't seem to be able to handle the fact there people disagree with them
Clyde, now it might seem like I'm splitting hairs, but the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion-- contrary to what Kerry said--isn't an article of faith but part of the natural law; that is, someone may reject abortion merely on grounds that the fetus is a biological human being.
Furthermore, the distinction presents a dilemma for anyone who says, "I believe the fetus is human being by faith," but "I won't impose by religion on someone else." Because these people, admitively, have faith that the fetus is a human being, they should be more confident the fetus is a human being than someone who believes merely by the evidence. And, yet, are decisions made by belief or evidence? Evidence must be first believed; otherwise, what evidence shows is worthless. But this faith in evidence, however, isn't religious; it's common sense, solidified by our experiences.
I don't think there is even any scientific doubt that a fetus is a biological human. I think the question might be at what point the biological human achieves human conciousness. Science can't answer that one as much as they try. I for one would be horrified if one day we found out that human consciousness is achieved very early in the development and we've been killing them anyway.
And no, this is not a faith issue. Anyone who throws it that way (Clyde) is trying to avoid the actual argument.
> but part of the natural law
Which is based on...
Perhaps so, but it can provide a good guide to how fully formed the nervous system is, which is relevent.Quote:
I think the question might be at what point the biological human achieves human conciousness. Science can't answer that one as much as they try
I don't think it's an on or off kind of thing. Animals seem to be conscious yet many people find it ok to eat them. It seems reasonable to consider consciousness as graded phenomenon albeit in a somewhat abstract way.Quote:
I for one would be horrified if one day we found out that human consciousness is achieved very early in the development and we've been killing them anyway
I can well believe that some foetuses that are aborted have some form of limited consciousness, but as i said so too do many animals infact it would seem that many animals are more aware than even late term foetuses.
andQuote:
And no, this is not a faith issue. Anyone who throws it that way (Clyde) is trying to avoid the actual argument.
Many many people object to abortion because they consider it to be killing a human being (as okinirus says), but then why do they consider a bunch of cells that appears to have less of a functioning brain than a fish to be a human 'being'? I think the answer often relates to faith in a human "soul" that springs magically into being at the point of conception.Quote:
that is, someone may reject abortion merely on grounds that the fetus is a biological human being
Granted i don't have figures but it seems to me that the largest factor regarding ones stance on abortion is due to religion.
Plus i wasn't suggesting one cannot have areligious arguments against abortion, more simply that religious opposition to abortion is the norm.
I don't think conciousness is the real issue, or if it is, no one knows how to precisely define the term and determine whether an entity is conscious, as you said below. Nevertheless, for many cases, someone is conscious but incapable of communicating it to others. A single human cell, for all we know, could be conscious: I'm a biological entity composed of billions of cells, yet feel as if I'm one entity. But then a differentiation o human cells must be made or belief in the soul because many different human cells are being killed and regrown each day. But, in either case, the actual knowledge and innerworking are unknown. The only knowledge we have, by way of intuition, is that the process that gives us personality, that feels pain, and that feels happiness consists of one entity.Quote:
I don't think there is even any scientific doubt that a fetus is a biological human. I think the question might be at what point the biological human achieves human conciousness.
Given a milliion-to-one odds that abortion isn't murder, I wouldn't support abortion, and that's assuming abortion is is valuable service to society. It's like nuking an island, and possibly killing millions, with no one knowing it's populated or not. Quite reckless, I think. Because of this scenario, the tendency, I believe, is that pro-choicers, the ones who've actually given thought to this issue, believe that they have absolute knowledge.Quote:
Science can't answer that one as much as they try. I for one would be horrified if one day we found out that human consciousness is achieved very early in the development and we've been killing them anyway.
I might have been a little too harsh on the typical prochoicers above, especially the use of "absolute knowledge." But we, as a society, are believing in baseless claims because what needs to be asked, and what is valued, is not being discussed by society. If a single human cell is worthless, are all human cells worthless? If a life is judged but by appearences, then life's worth is in its capability. And if so, how is a man in a coma capable of much of anything? Yet how his life is valued? How do we judge capability? Are we looking at present capability or commulative, over the future? Well, I can't do too much of thinking, nor too much of writing, in a nanosecond, so capability certainly includes some sort of timespan. And if but a timespan, then a point before birth's timespan spans after birth. And so, I think, both pro-choicers and pro-lifers should agree that the current definition of life, being after birth, is completely arbitrary. Of course, for any point, before conception, this process could be used, so the only resonable point is at conception.
>>And so, I think, both pro-choicers and pro-lifers should agree that the current definition of life, being after birth, is completely arbitrary. Of course, for any point, before conception, this process could be used, so the only resonable point is at conception.
I am pro choice.
Ignoring cases where there are risks in letting the pregnancy run to term.
I believe that it is unreasonable to force a woman to have a baby she does not want.
I do not think that any woman would under take the choice to have an abortion lightly. We must rely on the individuals judgement of their own curcumstances.
Despite how much I hate this topic (Abortion) I feel the need to respond.
I want to agree with you novacain, I REALLY REALLY REALLY want to be able to agree with you but I can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by novacain
Logically I can not justify murder simply because the mother does not want the child. The mother made an act of her own volition that resulted in this situation (this is ignoring the case of rape, in which I think it is justified), she does not get to murder the consequence of her actions.
I really would like to come down on the pro-choice side, simply looking at in the situation in a pragmatic way, there are too many children who need adoptive parents, and removing abortion would create many more. Second it leads to the creation of a black market for these services which is even uglier.
BUT, this is not enough to justify murder, this human has the same rights that everyone else does and should not be killed on the mothers command, anymore than a 3 year old should be killed if the mother no longer wants to deal with the child.
I wish I could find some logic, some argument, anything that made me think that this was somehow justifiable, but I can't. And since I can't I simply can't believe that it should be legal.
The logic is relatively simple if you do not see human beings as the centre of all life on Earth.
I personally value human life more than other forms of life purely because by all accounts human's are more aware, more capable of suffering, enjoying,basically have a much richer experience.
Following on from that i don't think the same rights that are granted fully formed human beings should be given to foetuses who show less signs of consciousness than fish (less than 3 months).
Most women who haven't been raped, like the Darlen said, have gotten pregnant by their own volition. And while these women might have been using contraception, either properly or improperly, none of these products guarantees complete protection against pregency.Quote:
I believe that it is unreasonable to force a woman to have a baby she does not want.
In any case, I believe the mother' s dislike, hatred, or love of what's in their womb doesn't matter, because if abortion is indeed murder, then the fetus is a human being, and the mother is an external factor irrelevant to the fetus. For instance, someone can hate me, in fact, the whole world can hate me, but neither those who hate me nor the entire world discounts me being a human person.
Agreed. But telling someone to take abortion seriously, while also telling them that the fetus isn't a human person, doesn't tell women why you believe abortion should be taken seriously. I think having individuals decide who is a human being or not isn't the way to assure human rights. In fact, past examples, such as slavery and the Holocaust, suggest individuals are often wrong in this regard, and these people were obviously human beings. Prudence must be the deciding factor.Quote:
I do not think that any woman would under take the choice to have an abortion lightly. We must rely on the individuals judgement of their own curcumstances.
AFAIK none of us involved in this discussion are going to have to personally make the choice to have an abortion. So none will truely understand what it would mean to be forced to carry an unwanted child through nine months of pregnancy.
How can you make an informed choice?
>>and the mother is an external factor irrelevant to the fetus.
LOL!
The funny/ironic thing about this situation is that the pro life people treat the pro choice people as if they enjoy killing babies. Obviously it's the most awful decision that could be made during the course of one's life. The question is, who gets to make that awful choice? I think giving babies up for adoption is a better option than abortion, but I think that we still need to be pro choice as a country.
edit:
Clyde, I think you are way off in the deep end with the scientific point of view. You might actually be "right" in the most objective sense. But, even if the fetus isn't a "human" yet, killing something that would have become a human is typically viewed as just as bad. I'm saying it isn't a human just for the sake of argument, that's a whole 'nother discussion I'd rather not get into.
I don't buy into the potential argument either i'm afraid. The reasoning goes that a foetus is a potential human being and preventing the realisation of this potential human being is wrong (just as killing a human being is wrong). But then there are a near infinite number of potential human beings, is it really wrong not to make them real? Should couples have as many children as physically possible?Quote:
But, even if the fetus isn't a "human" yet, killing something that would have become a human is typically viewed as just as bad.
I don't think so. (And i think such a stance can be justified by looking at what the end result of such a strategy would be: Massive overpopulation which would lead to massive death tolls and a large reduction in the quality of life of the average person)
There aren't a near infinite number of impregnated eggs, subsequently the answer to your question:
is yes, it is wrong not to make them real, if you are a pro lifer. The pro life people tend to think that killing a fully formed human, and preventing an impregnated egg from becoming a fully formed human, are equal sins. There isn't really a "right" answer. There's the scientific view (which you and I both share, Clyde), and there's the other view that is typically less scientific, and often influenced by religious beliefs (but not always).Quote:
But then there are a near infinite number of potential human beings, is it really wrong not to make them real
edit:
when I used 'sin', I didn't actually mean for it to have a religious context, as it is hardly true that all pro life people are religious.
The number of fertilised eggs is not equal to the number of potential people, a single man produces zillion of different sperm each of which could fertilise any egg producing a genetically distinct individual. However since we consider indentical twins to be two people not one, the true number of potential people is basically infinite.Quote:
There aren't a near infinite number of impregnated eggs, subsequently the answer to your question
If pro lifers consider preventing a potential person becoming a real person murder, then one would expect them to argue that the instant a women starts ovulating she should become pregnant, and continues having babies back to back every 9 months till the day she stops ovulating (which should be delayed as long as possible).
Without the egg the zillions of sperm lack the direct potential of becoming a human...they only have indirect potential of becoming a human, which in the opinions of most doesn't count. You need to directly destroy the impregnated egg in order to stop it from becoming a human. You do not need to destroy sperm to prevent them from becoming a human...they do not develop into a human unless being coupled with the egg. There's a point where it's too much of a longshot of saying 'this has the potential of becoming a human', because following your mindset, you can say "don't destroy these strands of proteins laying in this here petri dish, because after billions of years and lots of evolution this might become a human." There's a certain point where it's just not pragmatic to do that anymore, and I think you've hit it with the sperm thing.Quote:
The number of fertilised eggs is not equal to the number of potential people, a single man produces zillion of different sperm each of which could fertilise any egg producing a genetically distinct individual
edit:
If I remember correctly, sperm and eggs are haploid cells, which means they only contain half of the strands required to make up the full dna of a human. The fact that each of these cells alone doesn't contain enough dna to make up a human, and the petri dish example, both support what I'm saying.
edit1:
Bless you! :)Quote:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praetar necessitatem
The potential argument's premise--that we should judge by appearances--is wrong. But I think the argument can be used because the fetus without intervention is growing towards a human person.
Not proven beyond doubt. If you're assuming this view, then your're clearly adopting a religious stance. Certainly a stance that rejects materialist, certain fatalistic religions, and deistic religions where God knows the complete future. You're really constraining yourself to a narrow segment of the population here.Quote:
But then there are a near infinite number of potential human beings
There are two differences between a fetus and a plausible fetus: a fetus is a human being, and without extraordinary outside intervention will be a human person. Why that matters, I think, is that the potentional argument measures capability along a timescale, presumably only several months. So, while a fetus doesn't appear to have what we would call a person, he or she does have the qualities in the form of potential. Now we simply don't know what this potential is measured by, some will believe genes, others will believe fate. On the other hand, a nonexistent fetus, without existing, doesn't exist at the time the argument is applied, and doesn't have potential. You can't argue using a nonexistent entity.Quote:
is it really wrong not to make them real? Should couples have as many children as physically possible?
No no no, i'm not adopting a religious stance!Quote:
Not proven beyond doubt. If you're assuming this view, then your're clearly adopting a religious stance. Certainly a stance that rejects materialist, certain fatalistic religions, and deistic religions where God knows the complete future. You're really constraining yourself to a narrow segment of the population here.
The number of hypothetical genetically distinct individuals will be a huge huge number. (Each sperm a man produces could hypothetically fertilise any female egg) but environment also plays a role, which means you need to factor that in too, which is where the numbers just get stupid.
(Edit: I think you're trying to apply hard determinism, that doesn't work, and it violates quantum theory anyway - see the final paragraph).
I don't think a fetus is necessarily a "being", as its nervous system develops i think you might be able to call it that, but the ethical weight behind the words "human" being depend on the "human" being more aware/conscious/intelligent than every other form of life (why else would a "human being" be more important than a "rodent being"?) that doesn't apply to the fetus.Quote:
There are two differences between a fetus and a plausible fetus: a fetus is a human being, and without extraordinary outside intervention will be a human person
50% of fetuses miscarry, so it may not develop into a human person.
This argument doesn't work, both you and darkness see something special happening at the point of fertilisation but it's impossible to justify that point of view without appealing to religious ideas, or using arbitrary qualifiers.Quote:
Why that matters, I think, is that the potentional argument measures capability along a timescale, presumably only several months. So, while a fetus doesn't appear to have what we would call a person, he or she does have the qualities in the form of potential. Now we simply don't know what this potential is measured by, some will believe genes, others will believe fate. On the other hand, a nonexistent fetus, without existing, doesn't exist at the time the argument is applied, and doesn't have potential. You can't argue using a nonexistent entity
You can apply this:
To a sperm/egg pair, and say:Quote:
So, while a fetus doesn't appear to have what we would call a person, he or she does have the qualities in the form of potential
"So, while a sperm/egg pair don't appear to be what we would call a person,they do have the qualities in the form of potential"
Consider the moment before fertilisation, a sperm is just about to fertilise an egg, the moment after it has, and the first time the fertilised egg divides.
In all 3 scenarios, a person does not exist, in all 3 scenarios a person might exist at some point in the future (in fact, a multitude of different people might exist, given different conditions in the womb, and even differenty experiences in later life). After fertilisation we have a diploid cell, before hand we have two haploid cells, but what is the significance of that?
Infact let me rephrase this in terms of multidudes of people (even if you don't agree with me, this will make you think).
First i will state that i'm assuming that a person is defined by their genes and their environment (for simplicity i will broadly equate environment to experiences).
Let us imagine ten years have passed and I have written down the history of everything that happened to me over those 10 years. Now from this point in the present the number of hypothetical future histories is a stupidly large number, encompassing every possible permutation that could occur in that time (of course some of these histories will be cut short, because i'll die). Each potential future history will result in a different potential future me.
So right now there are zillion different potential 34 year old Clyde's, and with each moment that passes a multitude of them cease to be possible.
With that in mind let us return to the topic at hand.
For simplicities sake let us start with the point of copulation (we could go further back but it would get more complicated).
There are ca. 250 million sperm released, so initially there are 250 million possible genetic blue prints for our potential human beings. The best case scenario is that a sperm manages to reach the egg and fertilise it, our potential population is instantly reduced to a 250 millionth of its size, as pregnancy progress various somatic mutations occur (or don't occur) again wiping out countless billions of potentials. (Again we will assume the best case scenario in which case the fetus does not miscarry). The chemical makeup of the womb is dependant upon the mother's diet and state of mind and with each minute variation more and more potential people will be cast aside as potential variables turn into actual characteristics. After 9 months a child is born, of course there are still more potential human adults arising from this single baby than the entire population on Earth, that number is forever decreasing as the baby turns into a child, the child grows to be a man, and only the instant before death are there no more potential people left.
As i said we could go back before copulation, infact every instant as we wipe out large numbers of out potential future selves we wipe out even larger numbers of our potential future children, and yet larger numbers of out potential future grandchildren.
My point is simply that in our journey from potential to real there is nothing significant about fertilisation it's just another branching point in the tree diagram of of our potential population.
(I should really talk a bit about determinism here, but it doesn't really effect the outcome of the argument, if one favours free will then it is valid to talk about the potential future, quantum indeterminancy means that from a physics point of view its ONLY valid to talk about the potential future, and even if one takes the view of the now defunct Laplacian determinism one does not rescue the case for abortion since all distinction between human action vs. as would happen "naturally" cease to exist).
Edit:
If we are drawing the line on pragmatic grounds surely the current system is fine.Quote:
There's a certain point where it's just not pragmatic to do that anymore, and I think you've hit it with the sperm thing
Edit2:
Ooh my first negative feedback.
I didn't give you the negative feedback. I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, I just tend to say "the other side of the story" in discussions, even if the "other side" is the side I wouldn't normally take a stance on.
Oh i wasn't accusing anyone, and i think that's probably an admirable trait.
Potential is different from possibilities in that potential is owned by an object, and this object will, unhindered, cash this potential. From this perspective the sperm and egg, together, have the potential to create a human being. But their potential is clearly owned by the male and the female, just as they have reproductive rights. Hence, as owner of their potential, they can both do as they please. But the fetus, like a baby, owns his or her potential to become a person. Beaching this ownership, while not done to a currently existing human person, is done to a biological human being.
A murder, nevertheless, kills someone, taking away a victim's life. But when the murder is tried the victim is a corpse. For whose life has been taken as passed away, society must look into the past, for only then was a living person. Now I don't argue after the fact: that now, when there is neither person nor human being, no one's right is violated. In the case of abortion, however, society must look into the future, imposing a considerable problem. Because a fetus will eventually grow into a person, I believe the person not yet formed has every right to exist as a fetus as a preson. If I was murdered as a one-year-old, I wouldn't exist, and I'd think that this event, murdering me as a one-year-old, kills my existence on this world; otherwise, killing me as a one-year-old would only kill some instantaneous period of my existence.
If you want to think of it that way you could claim that possibilities are 'owned' by an object / collection of objects. I'm not seeing a real difference between the two.Quote:
Potential is different from possibilities in that potential is owned by an object, and this object will, unhindered, cash this potential
Your concept of ownership is an entirely arbitrary qualifier:Quote:
From this perspective the sperm and egg, together, have the potential to create a human being. But their potential is clearly owned by the male and the female, just as they have reproductive rights
A sperm and egg have the potential to create a human being, but arbitrarely you ascribe the "ownership" to the parent bodies, a sperm and and egg stuck together have the potential to create a human being but arbitrarely you don't ascribe the "ownership" to the parent bodies.
But you are the one desciding ownership! I could equally claim "But the fetus, like the sperm/egg, does not own it's potrential to become a person that is owned by the parents".Quote:
But the fetus, like a baby, owns his or her potential to become a person
50% self abort. A foetus developing into a person is merely possibility.Quote:
Because a fetus will eventually grow into a person
But a persons future existence, is not an existence at all, its just a possibility, nothing more. Your life is not possibility its a reality.Quote:
If I was murdered as a one-year-old, I wouldn't exist, and I'd think that this event, murdering me as a one-year-old, kills my existence on this world; otherwise, killing me as a one-year-old would only kill some instantaneous period of my existence
As i said in the post above, there are zillions of possibile future people, every action that we make eliminate absurd amounts of them. Simply by choosing not to have a baby tommorow 'kills' its future existence, you arbitrarely ascribe ownership to me in that instance, but i could equally ascribe ownership to the sperm/eggs.
Edit:
If you wish to invoke the concept of ownership surely it makes more sense to extend our current concept of ownership, so i "own" my body including my sperm, my g/f owns her body including her eggs, correspondingly my g/f would own the foetus.
Note i don't really agree with this ownership idea, i don't think abortion should be allowed because the woman "owns" the foetus i think abortion should be allowed because a foetus is not a person (and indeed at earlier stages nothing more than a collection of cells), IF a foetus was as aware as you or me, I would be against it.
I'm thinking of potential like how we use "potential energy." Of course, ownership of this potential is an ethical concept. All people own their potential to reproduce; otherwise, society would allow rape. Neither is this concept arbitrary, because all human beings own their personhood; otherwise, unjustly taking away a human being's right to their personhood, through abuse or neglect, would be wrong. (I don't consider babies fully developed person's, having defined a person as able to speakor communicate and be a member of society.)Quote:
If you want to think of it that way you could claim that possibilities are 'owned' by an object / collection of objects. I'm not seeing a real difference between the two.
Possiblities, unlike potential, suggest capabilties aren't an inherent property of the object. Life clearly is an inherent property of the fetus, being that without an abortion the fetus' natural path is to continue living.
You're citing a statistic you've found somewhere, but no one knows the exact cound. I've never heard anyone give an *estimate* of 50%. In fact, I've heard estimates about as low as 10%. Where does this number come from? Depending on the age of the fetus, the chance of a successful birth ought to be quite high.Quote:
50% self abort. A foetus developing into a person is merely possibility.
Killing me, it could be argued, kills neither my past nor my future but only that instant. Because I cannot do too much in an instant, where is the ethical justication for killing being wrong? You said before that you believe murder is wrong because persons are capable of enjoying life. But without delving into the future, I'm uncertain how, using this logic, murder is wrong.Quote:
But a persons future existence, is not an existence at all, its just a possibility, nothing more. Your life is not possibility its a reality.
I don't think that's a good example because whilst it's called "potential" energy it is actually a genuine form of energy. A potential person is not a person at all, its not a form of a person it is simply a possible future person, a maybe (which doesn't apply to PE at all).Quote:
I'm thinking of potential like how we use "potential energy."
If you really want to invoke ownership, then ownership of our own bodies is enough to rule out rape.Quote:
Of course, ownership of this potential is an ethical concept. All people own their potential to reproduce; otherwise, society would allow rape
Your usuage is arbitrary for the reason i layed out in the post above.Quote:
Neither is this concept arbitrary, because all human beings own their personhood; otherwise, unjustly taking away a human being's right to their personhood, through abuse or neglect, would be wrong
You arbitrarly ascribe "ownership of potential" to a fertilised egg, or a collection of cells in a fetus but not to a sperm/egg.
Furthermore one need not base ethics entirely on the concept of ownership, people suffer when raped, people suffer when abused or neglected that is enough to justify their ethical status on utilitarian grounds.
It is the standard figure i've heard quoted, i can't recall where i heard it first probably biology A-level but i'm sure the medics i lived with mentioned before.Quote:
You're citing a statistic you've found somewhere, but no one knows the exact cound. I've never heard anyone give an *estimate* of 50%. In fact, I've heard estimates about as low as 10%. Where does this number come from? Depending on the age of the fetus, the chance of a successful birth ought to be quite high.
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/681_1192.asp
This site gives the reference in the scientific literature.
In anycase even if we pretend that it is 10% (which its almost guarateed not to be), that doesn't alter the argument in the slightest, a fetus is NEVER guaranteed to become a person it is a possible person nothing more.
If we accept your overall "potential" premise then the only conclusion is that we encourage, nay force, all women to start having children the instant they reach reproductive maturity and only stop when their dead. That way you will reduce the number of potential people being "killed" (and still countless cajillions will flit out of existence every zeptosecond). No answer i give to the question you pose will alter that conclusion.Quote:
Killing me, it could be argued, kills neither my past nor my future but only that instant. Because I cannot do too much in an instant, where is the ethical justication for killing being wrong? You said before that you believe murder is wrong because persons are capable of enjoying life. But without delving into the future, I'm uncertain how, using this logic, murder is wrong.
The way out of the apparent ethical dilemma you present is to consider ethical 'theory' as we are doing but also to consider what and why ethics are.
Ethics evolved as a social code that enables humans to cooperate successfully in a society. One of the key cornerstones involves killing, all cultures have ethical constraints (in some form or another) around death for this very reason.
What i'm saying is that random murder is a moral "known", similarly randomly making someone suffer is also a moral "known".
Issues of abortion (or indeed almost any modern ethical debate) fall outside core ethical principles and so we must appeal to some kind of theoretical treatment to resolve them.
There is other way of looking at the question, which again delves into the practical nature of ethics.
From a utilitarian perspective we can justify murder as wrong because most people have loved ones who will suffer if they are killed. One could propose a thought experiment where our victim does not have any loved ones, but such a thought experiment is meaningless because (atleast statistically) in the real world we wouldn't know that.
Nice... :cool:Quote:
and still countless cajillions will flit out of existence every zeptosecond
> and still countless cajillions will flit out of existence every zeptosecond
I'd like a link to back up this figure, please.
If 'man is made in Gods image' then surely he isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by B0bDole
I've been trying to resist saying maddox's point of view, but I can't help it.
"I'm against abortion, but I am for killing babies"
WHEW, NOW I FEEL BETTER...please feel free to rank me down.
Ok, more like amortized analysis. Because potential energy is only called energy to have the conservation of energy hold, there shouldn't be any problem using potential here. A potential person, whether a fetus or a baby, owns their potential to become a person. Stopping that potential, allowing the baby to become feral is wrong. Now this abuse is done to a baby, a human being, but not a fully developed person. Are babies persons by your definition?Quote:
I don't think that's a good example because whilst it's called "potential" energy it is actually a genuine form of energy. A potential person is not a person at all, its not a form of a person it is simply a possible future person, a maybe (which doesn't apply to PE at all).
Yes, and I'd think those cells are a part of our bodies.Quote:
If you really want to invoke ownership, then ownership of our own bodies is enough to rule out rape.
The ethical concept of ownership can apply to the fetus because the fetus is a human being. The sperm and the egg are human cells, but not human beings. They don't have any ethical considerations in of themselves.Quote:
Your usuage is arbitrary for the reason i layed out in the post above.
You arbitrarly ascribe "ownership of potential" to a fertilised egg, or a collection of cells in a fetus but not to a sperm/egg.
Why doesn't this concept apply to the sperm and the egg? Well, the sperm and egg's potential is owned by the respective human beings; their potential cannot have two owners. Of course, the cells could own their own potential without their human counterparts owning them.
Basing ethics on a slice such as ethical ownership is easier than using a mix of values. Moreover, every ethical decision can be based by ownership, given that society owns certain unlawful freedoms. Of course, ethical laws are different from what's moral, which must be based upon love or higher principle. Obviously someone can avoid criminal behavior while also being wicked. But our laws are to protect the people, first and foremost, while not becoming impractical.Quote:
Furthermore one need not base ethics entirely on the concept of ownership, people suffer when raped, people suffer when abused or neglected that is enough to justify their ethical status on utilitarian grounds.
No, there's no standard figure. They're all based upon estimates. But there was recently a new technique--actually predicting greater spontaneous abortions than had previously been indicated--but I'm not knowledgeble enough to evaluate it. In any case, when the fetus as reached a certain point of development, when most of the deformed fetuses have died, then I'd say the odds are pretty good for success.Quote:
It is the standard figure i've heard quoted, i can't recall where i heard it first probably biology A-level but i'm sure the medics i lived with mentioned before.
No, as I mentioned before, these women have reproductive rights, and they can choose whether to have sex or not. In other words, the potential they have to reproduce is owned by them. They don't, however, have the right to kill another human being, because each human being owns their ethical potential to become a person. Furthermore, ownership of potential doesn't mean fulfilling the potential is necessarily a good thing, only that whoever owns the potential has the right to do as they please.Quote:
If we accept your overall "potential" premise then the only conclusion is that we encourage, nay force, all women to start having children the instant they reach reproductive maturity and only stop when their dead.
No, I don't think so. Abortions are well attested to as being wrong in early literature. The Didache banned abortions, associating it with infanticide, and I'm aware of an early Christian authors to have used abortion (as one of many issues) to attack pagan roman culture. Presumably the author believed the roman he was arguing against had similar thoughts upon abortions. Zorastrians, too, wrote against abortions. For these authors, however, their ethical systems were more based upon gut-feelings, along with their perception of natural order. ( ie., they could reason that God created the fetus, and taking the fetus' life was wrong. )Quote:
Issues of abortion (or indeed almost any modern ethical debate) fall outside core ethical principles and so we must appeal to some kind of theoretical treatment to resolve them.
Well, not only is that thought experiment valid but someone could go and kill everyone, eliminating all loved ones.Quote:
From a utilitarian perspective we can justify murder as wrong because most people have loved ones who will suffer if they are killed. One could propose a thought experiment where our victim does not have any loved ones, but such a thought experiment is meaningless because (atleast statistically) in the real world we wouldn't know that.
Well, I had wanted to stay away from this argument, but...
...and...Quote:
The ethical concept of ownership can apply to the fetus because the fetus is a human being. The sperm and the egg are human cells, but not human beings. They don't have any ethical considerations in of themselves.
The distinction you have made here is completely arbitrary. Why does the fetus 'own its potential' and the sperm and the egg do not? What is inherently different about it that the containing organism (the mother) does not own it (a part of her body) any more. At early stages, the fetus does not have any cognitive ability. Rather, instead of being just a couple cells, it is now a slightly bigger ball of cells.Quote:
Why doesn't this concept apply to the sperm and the egg? Well, the sperm and egg's potential is owned by the respective human beings; their potential cannot have two owners. Of course, the cells could own their own potential without their human counterparts owning them.
'Society owns certain unlawful freedoms'? Wouldn't it suffice to have each individual own a set of rights (or freedoms, or whatever you want to call them)? The idea being that anyone infringing upon anothers rights is acting unlawfully, instead of saying that society 'owns' rights to remove liberty.Quote:
Basing ethics on a slice such as ethical ownership is easier than using a mix of values. Moreover, every ethical decision can be based by ownership, given that society owns certain unlawful freedoms.
Your going into abstractions without fully defining the set of axioms you base your statements upon. Sure, a woman's ability to reproduce is owned by her. But then why not is a mass of cells which have no cognitive ability? Does a tumor 'own its right to fulfill its potential'? How do you draw the line of what is and is not a person?Quote:
No, as I mentioned before, these women have reproductive rights, and they can choose whether to have sex or not. In other words, the potential they have to reproduce is owned by them. They don't, however, have the right to kill another human being, because each human being owns their ethical potential to become a person. Furthermore, ownership of potential doesn't mean fulfilling the potential is necessarily a good thing, only that whoever owns the potential has the right to do as they please.
My thought is this: The fetus, before it has a developed cognitive system does not display enough 'human-like' characteristics to have a higher priority than the organism to which it is biologically attached (the mother). So, it's mother is the one responsible for it and what gets done to it.
If the sperm and egg owned their potential to create life, then a doctor could, without the patient's consent, manage to create another human being using a patient's cells.Quote:
The distinction you have made here is completely arbitrary. Why does the fetus 'own its potential' and the sperm and the egg do not?
Biologically, the fetus is another human being, not part of the mother. Consequently, the dna of the fetus is different from the mother's dna.Quote:
What is inherently different about it that the containing organism (the mother) does not own it (a part of her body) any more.
Many fetus' do have cognitive ability, and these, too, are being destroyed by abortion. Cognitive ability, if just certain brain cells communicating with each other, isn't a radical difference because a fetus' cells are also communicating with each other.Quote:
At early stages, the fetus does not have any cognitive ability. Rather, instead of being just a couple cells, it is now a slightly bigger ball of cells.
Ethically, I assume that only human beings can hold ethical ownership of potential. Sure, a tumor has potential to fully develop, killing the victim. But the tumor is not a human being, and cannot ethically own this potential.Quote:
Does a tumor 'own its right to fulfill its potential'? How do you draw the line of what is and is not a person?
Furthermore, a human being has a biological definition as an entity capable of holding potential exists from conception to death. In this respect, when full personhood is acheived, the human being can be said to own its personhood, for before the human being owned its potential to become a person.
For a person, however, I've defined as someone capable of communicating and functioning in society. In effect, a human being with the cognitive awareness and faculties and identity that we observe in society. ( Babies don't appear to be fully developed persons, and for that matter a fetus, two seconds before conception, wouldn't be a fully developed persons. )
Nevertheless, I've never said that murder was only of a person, because there are cases, such as feral children, where a human being's personhood is robbed from them. These children often never fully develop into what we call a person--instead developing into an animal entity. In fact, in some cases these children were raised by animals.
Ethically, forcing a child into a condition that robs them of their personhood is wrong by natural law. The crime, neverthless, doesn't harm, existing person, but rather a human being. And so, using Clyde's ethical system, isn't wrong.
No one said anything about forcing a child into conditions that rob it of its 'personhood' (which is still not very defined). Forcing the child would be violating its liberties.
At any rate, a fetus does have it's own DNA. Of course, so do plant cells, animal cells, etc. The fetus is attached to the mother insofar as it is biologically dependent on a specific person (that is, until it is separated, there is no substitute for who is responsible for it). A baby is not so attached.
Additionally, to say cells communicating form a recognizably human cognitive ability is not discriminating enough. By that definition, a great many things are human. What can a baby do that sets it apart from a fetus (at least in early stages)? One thing is language processing.
Your using this idea of potential way too loosely. A piece of graphite has 'potential' to become elements of cells or even DNA and develop into a nice, happy human being, but that doesn't stop anyone from smearing it all over a piece of paper.
This example illustrates a point. Because the child or baby hasn't become a person, the violation is not of a person's liberties but only of a human beings. The difference between feral children and abortion, however, is that feral children don't die. Abandoned, they grow into an animal-like being neither speaking a language nor really able to. A feral child is definitely a human being but is not really a person.Quote:
No one said anything about forcing a child into conditions that rob it of its 'personhood' (which is still not very defined). Forcing the child would be violating its liberties.
The fetus is biologically human being. I used DNA only to prove contrast between the fetus being a different organism than the mother. A human being has other properties besides human DNA; otherwise, a human cell would be automatically a human being.Quote:
At any rate, a fetus does have it's own DNA. Of course, so do plant cells, animal cells, etc.
True, but I think whether the fetus is dependent on another human person or not is irrevelent. Often another human being is depedent upon another. For example, a comatose man is dependent upon the hospital staff, and a baby is dependent upon another's care for at least 16 or so years.Quote:
The fetus is attached to the mother insofar as it is biologically dependent on a specific person (that is, until it is separated, there is no substitute for who is responsible for it). A baby is not so attached.
I'm not following. I said something to the effect that observing brain cell activity is the only way cognitive ability is obseved. Yet this cognitive ability is nothing notably special, being only a cells communicating.Quote:
Additionally, to say cells communicating form a recognizably human cognitive ability is not discriminating enough. By that definition, a great many things are human.
Deaf babies have trouble language processing as well, though sign-language is also a language. Babies don't really begin using the language, so I'm uncertain what you mean by language processing. True, babies can cry, notifying the parent. But in the womb, fetusus can kick, also notifying parent.Quote:
What can a baby do that sets it apart from a fetus (at least in early stages)? One thing is language processing
No one has obseved a piece of graphite becoming a human being. Potential, ethically speaking, only can apply to human beings or maybe other organism.Quote:
Your using this idea of potential way too loosely. A piece of graphite has 'potential' to become elements of cells or even DNA and develop into a nice, happy human being, but that doesn't stop anyone from smearing it all over a piece of paper.
I don't see why that child isn't a person. It is developmentally the same (roughly speaking -- in terms of biology) of anyone else its age.Quote:
This example illustrates a point. Because the child or baby hasn't become a person, the violation is not of a person's liberties but only of a human beings. The difference between feral children and abortion, however, is that feral children don't die. Abandoned, they grow into an animal-like being neither speaking a language nor really able to. A feral child is definitely a human being but is not really a person.
Then what are these properties?Quote:
The fetus is biologically human being. I used DNA only to prove contrast between the fetus being a different organism than the mother. A human being has other properties besides human DNA; otherwise, a human cell would be automatically a human being.
You missed the point. A fetus is dependent upon a specific person. A baby is not. A comatose man is not.Quote:
True, but I think whether the fetus is dependent on another human person or not is irrevelent. Often another human being is depedent upon another. For example, a comatose man is dependent upon the hospital staff, and a baby is dependent upon another's care for at least 16 or so years.
The point was that there are patterns of cognition that are specifically human. (See below.)Quote:
I'm not following. I said something to the effect that observing brain cell activity is the only way cognitive ability is obseved. Yet this cognitive ability is nothing notably special, being only a cells communicating.
That is not language processing. Language processing is the ability to perform statistical analyses and to break down language phonologically and syntactically.Quote:
Deaf babies have trouble language processing as well, though sign-language is also a language. Babies don't really begin using the language, so I'm uncertain what you mean by language processing. True, babies can cry, notifying the parent. But in the womb, fetusus can kick, also notifying parent.
Ethics deals with what is proper conduct, so I don't know what you mean here by 'ethically speaking'.Quote:
No one has obseved a piece of graphite becoming a human being. Potential, ethically speaking, only can apply to human beings or maybe other organism.
You don't think all potential people "own" their potential, sperm/eggs for example.Quote:
A potential person, whether a fetus or a baby, owns their potential to become a person.
Babies have fully functioning nervous systems, they respond to pain, are capable of learning, etc. etc.Quote:
Are babies persons by your definition?
My ethical principles focus on awareness/conscious experience. That is the reason i put humans ahead of other animals (If you do not follow this then I do not see any other way to justify placing humans above other animals without appealing to religious ideas).
Babies are capable of being conscious therefore warrant ethical consideration.
Early fetuses are no more aware than thumb cells, therefore do not.
Why is a fetus a human "being" and not an egg+sperm pair?Quote:
The ethical concept of ownership can apply to the fetus because the fetus is a human being. The sperm and the egg are human cells, but not human beings.
1. Something can have 2 owners.Quote:
Why doesn't this concept apply to the sperm and the egg? Well, the sperm and egg's potential is owned by the respective human beings; their potential cannot have two owners. Of course, the cells could own their own potential without their human counterparts owning them.
2. One could claim exactly the same thing of the foetus (owned by the human beings).
I could consider the egg/sperm pair a single system, i could give it a name like "spetus" and then i could claim that it "owns" it's potential.
The fact that the spetus can be considered two cells should make no difference whatsoever, afterall one can consider a single cell as a collection sub cellular components if on wants to, or go further and consider it by its molecular constituents.
And they can choose whether or not to have an abortion or not.Quote:
No, as I mentioned before, these women have reproductive rights, and they can choose whether to have sex or not.
Can you not see that you are drawing a completely arbitrary line in the sand here.Quote:
In other words, the potential they have to reproduce is owned by them. They don't, however, have the right to kill another human being, because each human being owns their ethical potential to become a person. Furthermore, ownership of potential doesn't mean fulfilling the potential is necessarily a good thing, only that whoever owns the potential has the right to do as they please.
Why consider a fetus to be a human being and not a sperm/egg.
The core ethical principles i was refering to are those that are universal across all cultures.Quote:
No, I don't think so. Abortions are well attested to as being wrong in early literature. The Didache banned abortions, associating it with infanticide, and I'm aware of an early Christian authors to have used abortion (as one of many issues) to attack pagan roman culture. Presumably the author believed the roman he was arguing against had similar thoughts upon abortions. Zorastrians, too, wrote against abortions. For these authors, however, their ethical systems were more based upon gut-feelings, along with their perception of natural order. ( ie., they could reason that God created the fetus, and taking the fetus' life was wrong. )
From a utilitarian perspective that fails, because just as causing suffering is wrong reduction of happyness is also wrong.Quote:
Well, not only is that thought experiment valid but someone could go and kill everyone, eliminating all loved ones
Heard of IVF?Quote:
If the sperm and egg owned their potential to create life, then a doctor could, without the patient's consent, manage to create another human being using a patient's cells.
Another arbitrary qualifier, one could easily choose to define the fetus as part of the mother. How we classify stuff is completely up to us.Quote:
Biologically, the fetus is another human being, not part of the mother. Consequently, the dna of the fetus is different from the mother's dna.
Oh yea and Cheez:
You're kidding right?Quote:
I'd like a link to back up this figure, please.
> You're kidding right?
No way man, you can't just throw out numbers like "cajillion" and "zeptosecond" and not expect to be called on them.
Ah there is some confusion here:
I was referring to the number of possible future people who cease to be possible with each passing moment.
The number of hypothetical future people is dependent on all possible future scenarios (minus redundancy).
Imagine the number of possible futures that exist from our perspective here present, if we follow the free-will version of events, then we must encapsulate every single choice anyone every makes.
Right now say i don't know you feel thirsty and you have choice between two drinks, a coke and uh a pepsi. From our position before the event occurs both choices are a possibility (assuming that is you don't really hate one :)). The consequences of this seemingly innocuous choice will be miniscule in the immediate future but will grow larger and larger as time passes (if we watched both versions of events the differences between the worlds would diverge in a chaotic manner)
This process occurs with every single choice anyone ever makes (that's why earlier on i made reference to a branching tree diagram)., each choice wipes out all possible alternative futures where that choice was made (hence "killing" a near infinite number of possible people)
To provide a slightly less abstract example, we simply restrict our definition of individual to a genetic individual, consider only one birth not the possible people's future children and limit ourselves to extrapolating from the point of copulation.
There are at that point ca. 250 million possible future individuals. (Here i'm not basing "possible" on freewill but purely on the physics, i would have done this with the choice example but to avoid denying free-will (and getting into another issue) i used the idea of choice instead - which will only act to reduce the number of possibilities anyway). At the point of fertilisation 249,999,999 possible people flit out of existence.
> Ah there is some confusion here:
Yeah there is. You see, I was joking; trying to deflate a serious situation a little by asking for information to back up your made up numbers. This is the part where you post "LOL" or "haha cheez you got me"
PS Pepsi sucks.
Aah i seeeeeee. ooooops. Lalalaa.
Incidently a zeptosecond isn't a made up number. :P
I kinda figured it wasn't, but I decided I'd feel silly if I tried to look it up and found out it didn't exist. :)
A feral child often doesn't behave like a person. A found feral child doesn't identify with other human beings but with the animals that cared for the child. While a biological human, such a child's mental neural connections have delapidated to the point where learning human languages is impossible.Quote:
I don't see why that child isn't a person. It is developmentally the same (roughly speaking -- in terms of biology) of anyone else its age.
Well, what is the difference, then, between a baby and a fetus two seconds before birth? If there is no difference, then you have admitted that abortion, as US/UK law stands, is arbitrary.Quote:
Babies have fully functioning nervous systems, they respond to pain, are capable of learning, etc. etc.
Yes and no. If a fetus isn't aware or conscious then murdering him or her might be mitigated somewhat. But if pain was the only reason murder was wrong, then silent murder--murder without the person feeling anything--wouldn't be wrong.Quote:
My ethical principles focus on awareness/conscious experience. That is the reason i put humans ahead of other animals (If you do not follow this then I do not see any other way to justify placing humans above other animals without appealing to religious ideas).
Awareness, however, is a difficult thing to judge. If awareness means simply a bunch of cells communicating with each other, then both the early-stage fetus and the baby are aware. If, however, awareness means simply a bunch of nerve cells communicating, then you're suggesting nerve cells have a higher priority, also arbitrary.
Clearly at some level some principle or premise must hold. Animal rights aside, I'm limiting human ethics to be between biological human beings. Of course, the biological definition of human being isn't arbitrary, but I'd suppose animals also could have some ethical ownershp. Obviously, if something has 10^-10 chance of occuring, the ethical ownership entitled to that object may just as well be 0. Lead by way of possibility is worth just as much as gold-- the potential is there--the practical chance of turning tons of lead into gold isn't.
I think, as defined by my biology textbook, the sperm and the egg are not human being, which is a member of homo sapiens. ( I've since left the biology text a 1000 miles from my current location, so I'm unable to give an exact quotation.) This definition isn't arbitrary but one of standard usage. Neither sperm cells nor egg cellst have the capability of developing into an adult human being, nor do do they have the capability of reproducing to form another human being. They are ordinary human cells.Quote:
Why consider a fetus to be a human being and not a sperm/egg.
But this view above wasn't why I rejected the sperm and egg. If they held ownership, the result would be odd ethics. A doctor could---without a patients consent--impregnate a women with a patient's semen. ( IVP clinics have the patient's consent. )
Agreed. But to have any meaningful result, this ownership could be divided. For instance, both you and me could own a baseball. But our ownershp would have to be shared such that I use the ball only when you're not using it. This division means that at some time, when you're using the ball, I don't own it.Quote:
1. Something can have 2 owners.
Yes, I'd suppose so. But why just the mother? Why not the man as well? Here, however, the matter is one of location; the fetus is in the mother's womb. But, a priori, I'd say that a human being is a human being no matter where he or she is. And the argument the fetus is dependent upon the mother won't hold, because many human beings are dependent upon many other human beings. And, in the case of the fetus, this decision to be dependent is often the mother's or doctor's choice, since the fetus at a late stage could be removed from the mother's womb.Quote:
2. One could claim exactly the same thing of the foetus (owned by the human beings).
Yes, I agree. But for points mentioned already, this idea would result in odd ethics with no historical precident. Abortion does have historical precident, being banned by several prior societies.Quote:
I could consider the egg/sperm pair a single system, i could give it a name like "spetus" and then i could claim that it "owns" it's potential.