Supreme Court will hear direct challenge to Roe v. Wade (racist, pay)

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Clintone

Saying a life form is an "animal" does not necessarily imply that it's not a member of the human species. Humans are, in some contexts, animals. In other contexts they are not animals.

Here's is one definition of "animal:" Any of numerous multicellular eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Metazoa (or Animalia) that ingest food rather than manufacturing it themselves and are usually able to move about during at ...

However, there are also words like "animalistic" that imply lacking traits like self-awareness, an understanding of death, or a firm knowledge of reality.

Humans are, oftentimes, described as not being animals...in some accurate contexts, by people who still view them as animals in the sense of how they are scientifically categorized. Saying an organism is "nonhuman" can work the exact same way. For example, I think it'd be pretty reasonable to say a recently fertilized egg is nonhuman...not in the scientific context, but in more practical sorts of contexts responsible for providing a more accurate worldview.

A recently fertilized egg has none of the traits of humans that we value the lives of humans for. It doesn't even have any of the traits that we value animal lives for. The only traits it has are the traits of organisms that we universally don't care at all about the lives of...such as microbes.

Fetuses are beyond that stage, I'd say, because of their potential to experience pain and other emotions...but they're still very animalistic. They have more in common with animals than humans, in all relevant ways.

That's not saying that animal welfare is unimportant...just that there are additional reasons to be protect of human life. For example, if we legalized the euthanasia of humans without their consent society would panic and collapse into chaos. Animals don't understand reality enough to even know whether or not they want to exist. They only know that they dislike suffering.




Incorrect. I can want the government to not manage people's lives in some, rational ways, but not want the government to manage people's lives in irrational ways.

You are centuries too late, coming up with that --- ^

Originally Posted by Clintone

And...what was your goal in posting that? Was it to show some sort of a point? If so...what's your point?



My statement you responded to was this: once a fetus can experience pain...their death can still assist the fetus. Once its born, death causes fewer advantages to it and more harm to society. Once it develops something like self-awareness, the prospect of euthanasia without its consent causes more harm to it still...and so, that dehumanization is often not an inaccurate way of depicting things.

There's nothing wrong with that statement.

Think about the nature of development. Early into the pregnancy, there are zero disadvantages to the ending of the life of the fetus. That's because the fetus won't be able to experience pain.

Eventually the fetus will pass the point of being able to experience pain, and with that will form the first definite negative to ending its existence.

The next major step won't come until birth. After birth there are less advantages to ending the life of the baby, and more negatives. There are less advantages and more negatives in the sense that after birth the baby will definitely be able to experience pain, unlike a fetus, which only might. Furthermore, the unpleasant process of child birthing has already been completed, so death would not avoid that. Furthermore, people will immediately start to develop emotional bonds to the baby, so ending its life would cause additional harm at that point. Furthermore, we could give the baby up for adoption rather than end its life...although I still think we should legalize the euthanasia of infants who are born with certain forms of terrible diseases for the same reason people might end the life of fetuses. This would be done by medical experts. My only question is, what sorts of conditions should this be legal for, and how long after birth?

After that, the longer the baby is around, the more resources and time is spent into raising it, and the more relationships it develops, and severing those relationships and wasting those invested resources adds an additional layer of harm.

The next step comes with something akin to self-awareness. If an organism can understand death and fear it, the prospect of it being killed when it gets sick would result in it experiencing frequent fear if that is legal...and that's another major disadvantage to ending something's life.

The next step comes when an organism understands what death is...compounding any fear the organisms has of being euthanized without its consent (or with it) if euthanasia for certain diseases is legal.

The next step involves having a more firm understanding of death...when we can really say the child would have some way of deciding, somewhat intelligently, whether or not they'd be best off alive or not. At this point, parents deciding to euthanize their child being legal would be nearly totally harmful, in most circumstances, because the child would already be able to make that decision...and legalizing the euthanasia of people without their consent at this point would lead to society collapsing into chaos, because it would tell people that anyone can have their free will taken away.




You responded to this comment of mine:

The difference between the military killing things and abortion is when the military does it, it causes harm. If you were aborted, on the other hand, you'd still be here...more or less...or at least the consciousness that is the most important part of you. It would merely exist in other people. You would still exist...just not trivial, unique, genetic traits. The fact that someone would still be thinking of themselves as "Me" though, means you'd still have everything you want out of life, even if you were aborted.

I was not thinking of Heaven when I said that. I don't think Heaven's existence is possible. I am an atheist who believes in no traditional afterlife. I can imagine no alternative besides our memories all fading after we die.

What I meant was that after we die, our consciousness still exists within other people. That's provable, regardless of what religious view is true. I call myself "me." So do you. Our sentience, in that sense, continues on after our deaths in other people...just without our trivial genetic traits.

Now...for adults, losing those genetic traits is not trivial at all. We've built up relationships and lives and plans around them.

For a fetus they're trivial though, because no relationships have been built up around them. That's why, in fetuses, those unique genetic traits are trivial. They don't matter because the relationships and plans that make them noteworthy don't exist yet.

In your own opinion you were trivial too once ---

There's this one little fact that people have yet to pick up on it seems, is that Biology facts do not change, even though you try to bring in your own facts to refute them.

And to be honest, Biology has nothing to do with how the government will precede with their legalities on this issue.

[Stepnking]

Originally Posted by Clintone

<snipped>
The difference between the military killing things and abortion is when the military does it, it causes harm. If you were aborted, on the other hand, you'd still be here...more or less...or at least the consciousness that is the most important part of you. It would merely exist in other people. You would still exist...just not trivial, unique, genetic traits. The fact that someone would still be thinking of themselves as "Me" though, means you'd still have everything you want out of life, even if you were aborted.

Is this something you've formulated, or from one of your 'abstract thinking' sites.

I was not thinking of Heaven when I said that. I don't think Heaven's existence is possible. I am an atheist who believes in no traditional afterlife. I can imagine no alternative besides our memories all fading after we die.

What I meant was that after we die, our consciousness still exists within other people. That's provable, regardless of what religious view is true. I call myself "me." So do you. Our sentience, in that sense, continues on after our deaths in other people...just without our trivial genetic traits.

Then I ask for your proof.

[Stepnking]

Originally Posted by Clintone

Damn strait, and I deserve ever ego boost I give myself

Right on! If others won't give it to you, do it yourself.

I'm saying that this is an issue we are capable of discussing, using our reasoning ability, to determine what proper ethics are.

My statements have involved arguments about why I'm correct. This paragraph involves no argument about why you're correct. Therefore, with that paragraph, you're not trying to argue ethics. We should avoid that. It doesn't solve any problems.

Originally Posted by Clintone

No they shouldn't. They'd still exist if they were aborted...just teleported into different bodies with different genetic traits...in the sense that there would still be sentient people in existence.

I do not find it reasonable to even argue about whether an aborted fetus 'lives on' in any manner in another human. That's not an argument, that's pure science fiction on your part and I would be surprised to find anyone who agreed with you on that point. In fact, I find most of your arguments to be speculation as opposed to fact.
i.e.

1. death is more beneficial for the fetus. (is that any fetus or just the one's you consider worthy of death)

2. death is more beneficial for the fetus that is not perfect but flawed in some way. (that is ironically similar to Margaret Sangers thought that eugenics would bring about the perfect society. Others have endorsed the slaughters of innocents for supposedly the same goal.

[Stepnking]

Originally Posted by Clintone

There is no possible way to make abortions unnecessary. Even if we were all asexuals who never engaged in intercourse, except specifically to produce a child there would still be people who got pregnant then developed incurable diseases, or genetic disorders or major birth defects or other issues.

We may never get to 'zero' abortions, but we can accomplish continued reductions, as has been done over the past years, by increasing the use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Which do you think better, prevention or 'cure'?

The majority of abortions are not for the reasons you cite above.

[Stepnking]

Originally Posted by Marc Paolella

The law throughout the vast majority of western civilization allows for legal removal of early term fetal cell masses. It does not recognize the fetal cell mass as a human person deserving of any independent protection. Which is rational and correct.

Here's an idea. Let's eliminate all cell masses, fetal or otherwise, even down to the single cell. I mean, what good are they. What benefit could they possibly provide, they are nothing but a mass of cells.

Then see how your world goes.

[Stepnking]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Abort:
1 : to bring forth stillborn, nonviable, or premature offspring
2 : to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary
3 : to terminate a procedure prematurely


PS: there has to be something, before there is nothing, other wise there would be no reason to use the word.

Yeah, those were my thoughts too.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I see you agree that the father as well as the mother has the right to kill the fetus. Either one could be perceived as "assisting" the fetus by killing it thereby preventing it from living a lifetime of hardship and struggle.

I agree that the mother will not necessarily be the person who is best at judging the ideal fate of her child/fetus/whatever.

However...I see no point to giving the father equal legal right to end the life of the fetus as the mother, because if they disagreed, they'd still have a "tie" so we might as well just give the mother all the legal power. Also...there's the MAJOR side bonus of allowing the mother to retain power over her own body, if we do things my preferred way, rather than giving both parents equal power.

I could a society having some panel of experts determine of a fetus is allowed to continue to exist. These would be the most unbiased masters in their fields possible to obtain.

However, our society would never allow such a panel...and I'd have concerns about such a panel existing in any society. We'd pretty much have to totally re-define human nature for such a pane to exist in anything resembling a healthy society.

The closest thing we can have to an ideal scenario is the mother having all the power regarding the fate of her would be child/child/fetus/whatever.

And they're not different situations. Parents are prosecuted for killing their kids just like anyone else who killed a child would be, so the same should be true of fetal homicide laws. Prosecute the parent or anyone else who kills the fetus. Otherwise, those laws are unconstitutional by creating a protected class for which the murder of another human is legal.

So far as I can tell, you only think abortion and fetal homicide through assault are not different situations because you irrationally perceive the worst thing about murder being the person dying. Society's opposition to murder has nothing to do with people dying. Dying is not inherently a negative thing. Ask any brain-dead comatose person or person who wants physician-assisted euthanasia legal.

What can make being killed a negative thing are the following:

#1. pain
#2. The removal of one's freedoms in the form of stealing away one's life and ability to influence society
#3. The making of people incapable of achieving their goals and continue their responsibilities
#4. one's relatives and friends being sad
#5. The consequences that would happen if we legalized the killing of adults and self-aware children without their consent that would cause massive fear and a lack of long term planning stemming from that fear and the collapse of civilization stemming from that fear.

None of those five negatives apply to the death of fetus...except perhaps for pain. Other medical treatments that cure ailments often have side-effects of pain...so I'd don't see why legalizing the curing congenital heart defects, through abortion, in the form of getting an abortion of the fetus with the heart defects, then having another child 2 years later without the heart defects, would be a problem.

[PilgrimsProgress]

If a baby can live outside the womb even living in an incubator like many preemies do for a couple of months, you shouldn't kill it. If the mother doesn't want it, put it up for adoption. Lot of couples are looking for infants.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

You are centuries too late, coming up with that --- ^

In your own opinion you were trivial too once ---

There's this one little fact that people have yet to pick up on it seems, is that Biology facts do not change, even though you try to bring in your own facts to refute them.

And to be honest, Biology has nothing to do with how the government will precede with their legalities on this issue.

I have no clue what you are talking about

[Clintone]

my original posts you responded to are in bold and italics.

The difference between the military killing things and abortion is when the military does it, it causes harm. If you were aborted, on the other hand, you'd still be here...more or less...or at least the consciousness that is the most important part of you. It would merely exist in other people. You would still exist...just not trivial, unique, genetic traits. The fact that someone would still be thinking of themselves as "Me" though, means you'd still have everything you want out of life, even if you were aborted.

Originally Posted by Stepnking

Is this something you've formulated, or from one of your 'abstract thinking' sites.

I don't go to "abstract thinking" sites. It's something I've formulated. I'm pretty smart, aren't I

__________________________________________________ ________________________________
I was not thinking of Heaven when I said that. I don't think Heaven's existence is possible. I am an atheist who believes in no traditional afterlife. I can imagine no alternative besides our memories all fading after we die.

What I meant was that after we die, our consciousness still exists within other people. That's provable, regardless of what religious view is true. I call myself "me." So do you. Our sentience, in that sense, continues on after our deaths in other people...just without our trivial genetic traits.

Then I ask for your proof.

I provided proof in that very statement you quoted. I call myself "me." So do you. In that sense, my sentience continues on after I die, in you, just without my trivial genetic traits. The point is, someone calling themselves "me" is still here after I die. Their awareness feels pretty much the same to them as mine does to me, merely because they'll be a human adult.