quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov African states can easily obtain the capability to feed all of their citizens with our help.

The key to all you have said is "with our help." I agree, with our help all of their problems are solveable. Unfortunately, "we" don't seem very interested so instead of solving the problems we provide just enough assistance to act as a band aid to the solution and make "ouselves" feel better about "ourselves." The end result of these band aid solutions and half-measures is that we relieve the problems just enough to stave off the natural consequences, which really just serves to allow this suffering to continue generation after generation in perpetuity. If we're not going to do it right (which we clearly aren't else we would have already) then we're really exacerbating the problem by not allowing nature to take it's course and balance to be restored through starvation, disease, and eventually death. We really need to choose... either we go all out and make the sacrafices (money, food, the lives of our armed servicemen/women) to solve the root issues or we leave it alone and let the problems sort themselves out; however, allowing the status quo to continue is unreasonably cruel.

** edit; I think we both actually want the same thing; however, I'm a realist and have to resign myself to the fact that what we want isn't going to happen... those in a position to enact the best solution simple won't, therefore, I'm willing to accept the second best solution.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Okay, so just to clarify, are you saying that if you have a genetically non-unique living being, of the human genetic variety, it's death is not the death of a human? If so, why? If not, then why do you continue to raise genetic "uniqueness" as if it has some sort of relevance here?

No, again I'm referring back to abortion; the topic of the thread. The argument exists that the fetus is simply part of the mother or a non-human parasite. I'm stating, as I have again and again, that it is a genetically unique (separate from the mother or father) living organism, that is in fact human. The death of an exact twin, or somehow a genetically non-unique individual is of course still the death of a human. Again though, this is to separate the fetus from the mother since the "I can do what I want with my body" argument does not include the fetus, since it is another human inside her body.

quote:

You stated: "even if you do not consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to be human, it unquestionable has the capacity to be and therefore its death is even more wrong." So according to your own words, if some "thing" has the capacity to be human, then therefore its death is "even more wrong."

As normally occurs in a debate/discussion, I'm dealing with other people's arguments, hence the "you" part of "even if you do not...". Looking at my other posts, I consistently state what I believe (that once you have a genetically unique organism, you have a human - in the case of human sexual reproduction obviously). I'm stating that even if a person does not consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to be human, it unquestionably has the potential to be human, so even though you believe you are merely killing a living "thing," it is more "wrong" than killing other non-human living things. I'm really not sure what's so complicated about that.

Case A - You believe a zygote/embryo/fetus is human, therefore if you kill it, you're killing a human.

Case B - You believe a zygote/embryo/fetus is not human, therefore you are just killing a living "thing," but a thing that would have become human, which puts it in a different category than killing other non-human "things."

quote:

If you want to be "very consistent" then is the death of any human tissue, i.e. that which might be used for cloning or other artificial reproductive processes, which unquestionably has the "capacity to be human," wrong? According to your own words, it is, but when Renegade introduced the same issue, you responded with a serious of rather irrelevant distinctions:

Again, everything I'm relating back to the context of abortion; the purpose of this thread. I'm making distinctions between that and all other hypothetical situations that are trying to be drawn in parallel and somehow are thought to justify the abortion. As I've already said, normal human somatic tissue/cells do not spontaneously form new, complete living organisms. The only capacity for them to do so is by completely artificial and voluntary means. A zygote on the other hand does have the capability to do that very things, and by completely "natural" means, in that scientific intervention is not required. So, unless humans are now reproducing by binary fission, budding or some other asexual means, normal somatic human tissue does not have the capacity to form a "new" human.

quote:

This seems to suggest you believe that things which have the "capacity to be human" in these cases should not be treated the same with respect to the morality of their death. But you fail to explain why any of this should play a role in such moral judgments, and I can't even begin to imagine a reason which would be remotely coherent.

I just discussed this issue, but if we're trying to bring cloning ethics into an abortion debate that's fine; but they're two different topics and I've already stated my basic belief on that issue as well, which is consistent with my abortion stance.

From my post on page 7:

quote:

If you want to talk about the morality of cloning or of artificial reproduction methods, we can start another thread about that. I do think I have hinted pretty strongly that I'm against the killing of life in general, and even if its creation is "artificial," I'd be against its killing.

Moving on...

quote:

How do you propose we determine whether a pregnancy is the result of a consensual act? It seems to me this is nothing more than an incentive for pregnant women to make false accusations of rape in order to secure their right to an abortion.

If a woman can prove she was raped, and she doesn't mind dragging the father under the bus to do so, I guess that's an unfortunate outcome I'd have to live with. I would find it easier to live with false accusations of rape before the death of millions.

quote:

In any case, the pregnancy is surely the responsibility of the parents, but that only begs the question why someone not involved in the matter ought to be dictating to them how to handle it. It seems to me that abortion is a perfectly legitimate way of resolving the matter, and in most cases demonstrates greater responsibility than actually having the child. For that matter, who exactly determines what constitutes a "valid reason?" I'm sure that most women who have gone through abortions believed they had a valid reason for doing so, and I agree with them. And if -- as you state -- killing any living thing for no valid reason is wrong, and furthermore our own comfort, pleasure, et cetera do not constitute a "valid reason" then we all have the wrongful deaths of innumerable lives on our hands. Such a facsimile of morality fails to draw any meaningful distinction between something as innocuous as consuming more than the bare minimum amount of food needed for survival and something as clearly immoral as gunning down 25 women and children in a strip mall. And yet this is the preposterous moral standard that you use to judge abortion?

A child is the responsibility of their parents or guardians, yet society puts standards on the way they raise their child. Is this wrong? We force children to go to school, or at least be home schooled. Is this wrong? Public schools and many other places that take care of children require them to be immunized. Is this wrong? Society/government puts many standards in place as to how parents raise their children. This to me is even more basic. We do not allow parents to kill their own child if they decide they are not wanted, but we aren't allowed to tell parents not to kill a fetus if it is not wanted? In either case I just stated we're dealing with the killing of a human child simply in different states of development. We have many restrictions put on us by the government and society and killing others is at the top of that list.

The definition of valid would be difficult to define exactly, but my broad definition (as I've stated before) includes reasons that sustain life and restore the rights of others (before jumping on that one, as I've said before you give up your "right" to be pregnancy free by having sex, but even in this case I'd try to talk the mother into carrying the child to term).

We all have killed other living things, I agree. I also hope that no one comes away from killing another living thing, no matter what it is, feeling "good" about themselves. Most of the times we do kill it is out of instinct, self-defense or simply unknowingly. That is why I do not put those types of deaths in line with mowing down 25 people or going through a pre-meditated abortion procedure.

quote:

"So if it's not a person, then what is it? A Giraffe?" You, in your own words, believe that is a "good question." Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but actually it's incredibly, mind-bogglingly vacuous; in that regard it rather reminds me of the "morality" you seem to be preaching here. Maybe that's why you like it?

Again, I'm challenging other people's beliefs instead of simply restating my own. I want to know what people think they're killing, if it's not human, when an abortion is performed. What is so vacuous about that? Is a human fetus not part of the human species? Are the cells in a chicken egg of a different species than the chicken? If human, or any species for that matter, is not determined by genetics, what is it determined by?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im happy to be a liberal

I thought you were a "Centrist"?



No surprise anyway, it's TA.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono No, again I'm referring back to abortion; the topic of the thread. The argument exists that the fetus is simply part of the mother or a non-human parasite. I'm stating, as I have again and again, that it is a genetically unique (separate from the mother or father) living organism, that is in fact human. The death of an exact twin, or somehow a genetically non-unique individual is of course still the death of a human. Again though, this is to separate the fetus from the mother since the "I can do what I want with my body" argument does not include the fetus, since it is another human inside her body.

Right; so we've gotten past the whole issue of genetic "uniqueness," which you seem to have raised repeatedly for absolutely no reason.

quote:

I'm stating that even if a person does not consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to be human, it unquestionably has the potential to be human, so even though you believe you are merely killing a living "thing," it is more "wrong" than killing other non-human living things. I'm really not sure what's so complicated about that.

It's not complicated at all; I'm just curious why you will not stand by the same principle regarding living "things" that aren't zygotes/embryos/fetuses, but which do have the potential to be human -- for instance, any tissue which could be used for artificial reproduction and/or cloning. You know, the issue you continue to try to evade at every turn? I mean, now that we've got that whole "genetically unique" thing out of the way, all we seem to have left is the "artificial" and "voluntary" things. Which, of course, are just as nonsensical as the first.

quote:

Again, everything I'm relating back to the context of abortion; the purpose of this thread. I'm making distinctions between that and all other hypothetical situations that are trying to be drawn in parallel and somehow are thought to justify the abortion. As I've already said, normal human somatic tissue/cells do not spontaneously form new, complete living organisms. The only capacity for them to do so is by completely artificial and voluntary means. A zygote on the other hand does have the capability to do that very things, and by completely "natural" means, in that scientific intervention is not required. So, unless humans are now reproducing by binary fission, budding or some other asexual means, normal somatic human tissue does not have the capacity to form a "new" human.

According to your own words (time and time again), you believe it is wrong to kill a living thing that is genetically human. Apparently you feel it is an exception if this "thing" will only "form new, complete living organisms," with scientific intervention.

But if that follows, then at what point in the development of an "artificial" human being would it become "wrong" to kill it? Is it okay to kill a fully grown artificial human merely because he did not originate the way you speciously believe is "natural?" How about when it is partially developed, but continues to require scientific intervention to keep it alive? Am I really to believe that the "artificiality" of a human should affect its moral status?

And let’s take care of "voluntary" while we are at it. Is it okay to kill an individual who happened to have been conceived as the result of a rape, or other non-voluntary conception? At what point in that human being's development does it no longer become morally okay to kill it? Do you seriously believe that the circumstances under which a human was conceived should affect its moral status?

quote:

If a woman can prove she was raped, and she doesn't mind dragging the father under the bus to do so, I guess that's an unfortunate outcome I'd have to live with. I would find it easier to live with false accusations of rape before the death of millions.

Well, you're stuck with the death of billions either way. After all 60-80 percent of your precious human lives are spontaneously aborted very shortly after conception. So where have you been on this mass destruction of human life? I have hardly seen you preaching from the street corner about the necessity of a brobdingnagian scientific project designed to avert the senseless death taking place every day on a massive scale. Surely this should be the priority, rather than the comparatively insignificant number of deaths caused by deliberate abortions. No?

You could even say that every person should be aware that any decision to have sexual intercourse could very plausibly lead to the unnecessary death of a human. So by your twisted logic, maybe we should just not permit people to do that anymore...

quote:

A child is the responsibility of their parents or guardians, yet society puts standards on the way they raise their child. Is this wrong? We force children to go to school, or at least be home schooled. Is this wrong? Public schools and many other places that take care of children require them to be immunized. Is this wrong? Society/government puts many standards in place as to how parents raise their children. This to me is even more basic. We do not allow parents to kill their own child if they decide they are not wanted, but we aren't allowed to tell parents not to kill a fetus if it is not wanted? In either case I just stated we're dealing with the killing of a human child simply in different states of development. We have many restrictions put on us by the government and society and killing others is at the top of that list.

The two situations are not remotely analogous. No parent or guardian has the sort of responsibility that you propose a pregnant woman should have. First of all, any parent or guardian unwilling or unable to raise their child in accordance with the law can opt out of custody; clearly a pregnant woman cannot opt out of pregnancy (at least, not without an abortion!)

Secondly, these laws are designed to protect the rights of the child which, legally speaking, does not extend to a fetus. Hence, there is no legal reason that analogous restrictions would be justified.

quote:

The definition of valid would be difficult to define exactly, but my broad definition (as I've stated before) includes reasons that sustain life and restore the rights of others (before jumping on that one, as I've said before you give up your "right" to be pregnancy free by having sex, but even in this case I'd try to talk the mother into carrying the child to term).

So, just out of curiosity, who died and made you the moral arbiter of what constitute valid reasons for the termination of a pregnancy? I mean, as far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of opinion, and if that is the case, then it would seem obvious to me that each woman should be left to act in accordance with her own opinions, rather than, say, yours.

I believe you referred to the notion of personhood having "muddied the waters." Well, my well-meaning but woefully misguided friend, your absurdly arbitrary notion of "valid" may as well be pouring raw sewage into the waters.

quote:

We all have killed other living things, I agree. I also hope that no one comes away from killing another living thing, no matter what it is, feeling "good" about themselves. Most of the times we do kill it is out of instinct, self-defense or simply unknowingly. That is why I do not put those types of deaths in line with mowing down 25 people or going through a pre-meditated abortion procedure.

Speaking of befouled waters, if we're going to go with some spectrum of certain types of killing being "more wrong" than others, where do we draw the line on which should be illegal? Going back to my example, I think that it is pretty clear that eating more than the bare minimum necessary for survival should be legal, and gunning down 25 people should be illegal. You may disagree -- it certainly wouldn't be out of character -- but I think any reasonable person would agree. So, I'm dying to know: where exactly in the spectrum of "wrongness" do you arbitrarily place abortion?

quote:

Again, I'm challenging other people's beliefs instead of simply restating my own. I want to know what people think they're killing, if it's not human, when an abortion is performed. What is so vacuous about that? Is a human fetus not part of the human species? Are the cells in a chicken egg of a different species than the chicken? If human, or any species for that matter, is not determined by genetics, what is it determined by?

I am pretty sure they think it is a human fetus, which is distinguished from a human person in a multitude of ways. Do you honestly think that the issue of abortion revolves around what species the fetus is? I cannot begin to fathom why you believe species is a relevant issue here; do you think that a being's moral status is somehow etched into its genetic code? I am thinking of a word that describes your position perfectly, and it resembles the word "species," only with one vowel replaced by two others. Care to offer a guess?

Africa is and has been in drought for quite some time and probably will remain that way for a time to come. The soil is not fertile enough to grow much of anything and the lack of a government system and technology due to warlords and lazy men means that it probably will never sustain itself even with all the help in the world. Also take into fact that the people in the right areas that would be willing to make food are constantly under threat of civil war and just random killings. The only thing to do is either let them die or educate them to the point that they will stop killing and raping long enough to survive.

___________________
http://www.myspace.com/topix101

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Africa is and has been in drought for quite some time and probably will remain that way for a time to come. The soil is not fertile enough to grow much of anything and the lack of a government system and technology due to warlords and lazy men means that it probably will never sustain itself even with all the help in the world. Also take into fact that the people in the right areas that would be willing to make food are constantly under threat of civil war and just random killings. The only thing to do is either let them die or educate them to the point that they will stop killing and raping long enough to survive.

Seriously, every assertion you just made is flat wrong, lol. Please tell me you were joking with this stuff.

First of all, Africa is composed of 54 countries and isn't a single political entity.



I can't even reply to the rest.

Where the hell do people get this stuff? Hollywood? I suggest you read a book first and then try posting again.



lol.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic I thought you were a "Centrist"? No surprise anyway, it's TA.

liberals can be centrists, what planet are you on? indeed, half of conservatism comes from liberalism in the first place!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Right; so we've gotten past the whole issue of genetic "uniqueness," which you seem to have raised repeatedly for absolutely no reason.

Said it before, I'll say it again...the genetic "uniqueness" is important in light of those who say that abortion is simply a matter of a woman having freedom over "her own body." An abortion does not just affect her own body, but also a genetically unique individual. I'm not exactly sure how much more clearly I can make that point. If you can show me some fetuses that are genetically identical to the mother and are the result of natural procreation, then we can start delving into how genetic uniqueness would not play a part when it comes to abortion.

quote:

It's not complicated at all; I'm just curious why you will not stand by the same principle regarding living "things" that aren't zygotes/embryos/fetuses, but which do have the potential to be human -- for instance, any tissue which could be used for artificial reproduction and/or cloning. You know, the issue you continue to try to evade at every turn? I mean, now that we've got that whole "genetically unique" thing out of the way, all we seem to have left is the "artificial" and "voluntary" things. Which, of course, are just as nonsensical as the first.

How am I avoiding it? I just said (again) that if we want to discuss the morals of cloning we should start another thread. However, I also went on to say (again) that the killing of life created through cloning was still wrong. What am I avoiding? I also further said (again) that the cells used in cloning will not spontaneously form new living organisms on their own.

Voluntary - unless you are raped or have people come and forcibly steal your cells in order to clone you, both sex and cloning are a voluntary choice

Artificial - somatic/stem cells without scientific intervention do not have the capacity to form new organisms on their own, it is completely artificial. If you can find an example of any human, any mammal, any vertebrate arising spontaneously from the somatic cells of another, please let me know.

Natural - after sex and fertilization, a new organism is formed without any outside scientific intervention. It is a natural process that has occurred since the beginning of sexual reproduction.

Those being stated; the production of life through sex is a natural, voluntary process and cloning is an artificial, also voluntary process. The destruction of life created through either process is wrong, but the reason why the death of some skin cells or isolated stem cells is not the same as the destruction of a fetus is because those cells are not a separate individual and have no natural capability of being one.

quote:

According to your own words (time and time again), you believe it is wrong to kill a living thing that is genetically human. Apparently you feel it is an exception if this "thing" will only "form new, complete living organisms," with scientific intervention.

If you aren't killing an organism then yes I do make an exception if you want to call it that. I don't equate the death of individual cells of an organism with the death of a complete being. I'm not upset with the death of somatic cells that are not and never will be a complete individual organism.

quote:

But if that follows, then at what point in the development of an "artificial" human being would it become "wrong" to kill it? Is it okay to kill a fully grown artificial human merely because he did not originate the way you speciously believe is "natural?" How about when it is partially developed, but continues to require scientific intervention to keep it alive? Am I really to believe that the "artificiality" of a human should affect its moral status?

Said it before, I'll say it again; I don't believe killing a living being, even if created through artificial means, is right. I'm still not sure how cloning ethics is somehow a means to justify abortion, but as I said I don't think killing a cloned individual is any more right than killing a sexually produced one.

quote:

And let’s take care of "voluntary" while we are at it. Is it okay to kill an individual who happened to have been conceived as the result of a rape, or other non-voluntary conception? At what point in that human being's development does it no longer become morally okay to kill it? Do you seriously believe that the circumstances under which a human was conceived should affect its moral status?

I made an exception in the case of rape because the mother's rights have been violated. I also stated that I would still try to talk the mother into keeping the child. Even though I feel it morally wrong to terminate the pregnancy, I realize that the pregnancy is a violation of her rights. I don't think the circumstances of how a pregnancy was begun changes abortion's ultimate killing of a human.

quote:

Well, you're stuck with the death of billions either way. After all 60-80 percent of your precious human lives are spontaneously aborted very shortly after conception. So where have you been on this mass destruction of human life? I have hardly seen you preaching from the street corner about the necessity of a brobdingnagian scientific project designed to avert the senseless death taking place every day on a massive scale. Surely this should be the priority, rather than the comparatively insignificant number of deaths caused by deliberate abortions. No? You could even say that every person should be aware that any decision to have sexual intercourse could very plausibly lead to the unnecessary death of a human. So by your twisted logic, maybe we should just not permit people to do that anymore...

Spontaneous abortion is a natural (I know you hate word) process. It's like saying dying of "old age" is murder. Abortion is not a natural process.

quote:

The two situations are not remotely analogous. No parent or guardian has the sort of responsibility that you propose a pregnant woman should have. First of all, any parent or guardian unwilling or unable to raise their child in accordance with the law can opt out of custody; clearly a pregnant woman cannot opt out of pregnancy (at least, not without an abortion!) Secondly, these laws are designed to protect the rights of the child which, legally speaking, does not extend to a fetus. Hence, there is no legal reason that analogous restrictions would be justified.

I agree they're not analogous in that the parents of a child can opt out of custody but not kill it whereas a pregnant mother has no ability to opt out of custody without killing it. However, my point was that the government/society does put restrictions on what parents can and cannot do with their offspring and there should never (in my opinion) be the option of killing it. You wondered how someone not involved in the situation could dictate what can and cannot be done, I gave examples of how that already happens.

quote:

So, just out of curiosity, who died and made you the moral arbiter of what constitute valid reasons for the termination of a pregnancy? I mean, as far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of opinion, and if that is the case, then it would seem obvious to me that each woman should be left to act in accordance with her own opinions, rather than, say, yours.

No one, I'm stating my opinion. Some people have the opinion that child pornography is OK, global warming doesn't exist, God is real. Do all opinions hold equal merit? No, of course not, an individuals own opinions nearly always carry the greatest weight. That doesn't mean each person's individual opinion should equate to law. I gave basic guidelines as to when an abortion may be considered valid and I'm sure if I had enough time I could write an entire rubric as to when it would and wouldn't be valid.

quote:

I believe you referred to the notion of personhood having "muddied the waters." Well, my well-meaning but woefully misguided friend, your absurdly arbitrary notion of "valid" may as well be pouring raw sewage into the waters.

Really? Then define for me when a fetus transforms into a "person." What constitutes a "person" that makes it different or above merely human? If "person" is not an intrinsic property of human, what must a person do in order to achieve "person hood." Is it ok to kill a "non-person" human?

That is less muddy than me saying the termination of a pregnancy is only valid when the mother's life is in danger or the mother's rights were violated in the process of her becoming pregnant?

quote:

Speaking of befouled waters, if we're going to go with some spectrum of certain types of killing being "more wrong" than others, where do we draw the line on which should be illegal? Going back to my example, I think that it is pretty clear that eating more than the bare minimum necessary for survival should be legal, and gunning down 25 people should be illegal. You may disagree -- it certainly wouldn't be out of character -- but I think any reasonable person would agree. So, I'm dying to know: where exactly in the spectrum of "wrongness" do you arbitrarily place abortion?

Right next to killing a human.

quote:

I am pretty sure they think it is a human fetus, which is distinguished from a human person in a multitude of ways. Do you honestly think that the issue of abortion revolves around what species the fetus is? I cannot begin to fathom why you believe species is a relevant issue here; do you think that a being's moral status is somehow etched into its genetic code? I am thinking of a word that describes your position perfectly, and it resembles the word "species," only with one vowel replaced by two others. Care to offer a guess?

I just said it; define "person." Tell me exactly when and how a human becomes a person and it is no longer acceptable to kill them.

Last edited by NeoPhono on Feb-09-2008 at 07:06

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Seriously, every assertion you just made is flat wrong, lol. Please tell me you were joking with this stuff. First of all, Africa is composed of 54 countries and isn't a single political entity. I can't even reply to the rest. Where the hell do people get this stuff? Hollywood? I suggest you read a book first and then try posting again. lol.

I was being sarcastic obviously i failed.

___________________
http://www.myspace.com/topix101

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD I was being sarcastic obviously i failed.

Phew, ok thank God.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Said it before, I'll say it again...the genetic "uniqueness" is important in light of those who say that abortion is simply a matter of a woman having freedom over "her own body." An abortion does not just affect her own body, but also a genetically unique individual. I'm not exactly sure how much more clearly I can make that point. If you can show me some fetuses that are genetically identical to the mother and are the result of natural procreation, then we can start delving into how genetic uniqueness would not play a part when it comes to abortion.

In your own words:

"The death of an exact twin, or somehow a genetically non-unique individual is of course still the death of a human."

You also stated that:

"whether or not you consider the developing "thing" to be a person, it is genetically human, a living being, and killing it, along with any other living thing for no valid reason, is wrong."

So the death of a genetically non-unique human is wrong. And the death of a genetically unique human is wrong. Therefore, the genetic uniqueness, or the lack thereof, of a human has no effect on their moral status.

quote:

How am I avoiding it? I just said (again) that if we want to discuss the morals of cloning we should start another thread. However, I also went on to say (again) that the killing of life created through cloning was still wrong. What am I avoiding? I also further said (again) that the cells used in cloning will not spontaneously form new living organisms on their own.

I'm definitely getting the idea that you weren't being intentionally dense earlier; it appears entirely unintentional.

Again, you said:

"even if you do not consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to be human, it unquestionable has the capacity to be and therefore its death is even more wrong."

If that is true (and I submit that it is not), then the killing of cells that could be used in cloning is wrong. They have the capacity to be human -- otherwise, they couldn't be used in cloning. It does not matter whether they will form a new living organism "spontaneously" or not; they have the capacity to be human and therefore, by your own words, killing them is "even more wrong." You've attempted to append many more requirements after the fact, e.g. "natural," "spontaneous," but don't seem to be able to carry any of them through to any logical conclusion.

quote:

Said it before, I'll say it again; I don't believe killing a living being, even if created through artificial means, is right. I'm still not sure how cloning ethics is somehow a means to justify abortion, but as I said I don't think killing a cloned individual is any more right than killing a sexually produced one.

So you agree that how "natural" the process by which a human would develop has no effect on its moral status. Well, I'm glad we can now discard your harebrained appeals to "naturalness" along with those to "genetic uniqueness" and the rest of your innumerable red herrings.

quote:

I made an exception in the case of rape because the mother's rights have been violated. I also stated that I would still try to talk the mother into keeping the child. Even though I feel it morally wrong to terminate the pregnancy, I realize that the pregnancy is a violation of her rights. I don't think the circumstances of how a pregnancy was begun changes abortion's ultimate killing of a human.

So you agree that terminating such a pregnancy is still "wrong." Therefore, how voluntary or involuntary the process by which a human is created has no effect on its moral status. We'll kick that one to the curb as well.

It's amusing how permissive you are regarding people doing things that you believe are "wrong," in this regard. If only you had the good sense to extend the same limitation to the rest of your simple-minded opinions...

quote:

Spontaneous abortion is a natural (I know you hate word) process. It's like saying dying of "old age" is murder. Abortion is not a natural process.

I never said it was murder, so you are -- as usual -- way off the mark. Further, it is clear that abortion is a natural process: human beings, by virtue of their biological nature, have developed the ability to terminate pregnancies. And due to the underlying natural forces that govern human behavior, they occasionally choose to exercise that ability.

Show me the super-natural forces that contribute to abortion, and I'll agree that it is not natural. Otherwise, it is natural.

In any case that's quite apart from the point. Namely, that you, apparently, believe that these human lives have the same value as any other human lives. Well, if that's the case, then this process is killing more humans than every other cause of death combined, several times over! So, surely you would then agree that developing ways to prevent or combat it should be a higher priority than developing means to prevent or combat any other causes of death. No?

quote:

I agree they're not analogous in that the parents of a child can opt out of custody but not kill it whereas a pregnant mother has no ability to opt out of custody without killing it.

Great! Then we can stick that one in the pile with the rest of your pointless arguments that are neither here nor there.

quote:

No one, I'm stating my opinion. Some people have the opinion that child pornography is OK, global warming doesn't exist, God is real. Do all opinions hold equal merit? No, of course not, an individuals own opinions nearly always carry the greatest weight. That doesn't mean each person's individual opinion should equate to law. I gave basic guidelines as to when an abortion may be considered valid and I'm sure if I had enough time I could write an entire rubric as to when it would and wouldn't be valid.

Well, I am so relieved that you have the capacity to expound upon your opinions at considerable length (vacuous though they may be.) I certainly agree that not all opinions hold equal merit -- yours, for instance, appear to hold just about none!

quote:

Really? Then define for me when a fetus transforms into a "person." What constitutes a "person" that makes it different or above merely human? If "person" is not an intrinsic property of human, what must a person do in order to achieve "person hood." Is it ok to kill a "non-person" human? That is less muddy than me saying the termination of a pregnancy is only valid when the mother's life is in danger or the mother's rights were violated in the process of her becoming pregnant?

Neither is objective, and they are both equally muddy. The difference is that yours just fucking stinks. Well, that and there's the small fact that you were the one hypocritically crying about the muddying of the waters in the first place.

To answer your questions, in order to have a right to life (or any right), one must be a person. There may be other reasons why it would be wrong to kill a human, including one who is not a person, but they would have to be justified by more than an appeal to an inherent "wrongness" in killing human beings.

As for what constitutes a "person," I have already stated that, so I will simply quote myself here:

"... any meaningful criteria for personhood must be rooted in that which makes us people as opposed to mere assemblages of biological tissue. That seems to me to be our capacity for higher brain functions such as individual volition, memory, and the comprehension of stimuli rather than a mere response to them."

And furthermore:

"To reduce the quality of personhood such that it requires only basic functions like circulation, digestion, et cetera or the presence of certain organs, cells, or genetic material strikes me disrespectful of the dignity of human individuals."

quote:

Right next to killing a human.

Well, you are certainly free to opine as you will, so I guess I'll just go ahead and restate that last part for emphasis:

"... disrespectful of the dignity of human individuals."

It's really rather sad; not only can you seemingly not cease appealing to conditions you later agree are not relevant, but when you actually manage to squeeze an idea out that doesn't conflict with something else you've said, it turns out to be an incredibly contemptible one. Oh well...

Men really have no place deciding these sorts of things, unless you're in a relationship with someone looking at it as an option.

It's amusing how America has a tendency to make non-issues of issues, and issues of non-issues.

Besides, last I checked, every time a male ejaculates, millions of potential "life" cells are left to compete and die. Only one survives.

What's the deal when religious nutheads are trying to use science as their defense for their bullshittery non-issues?