Remind me again of how it is a fundamental human right to possess firearms or extinguish the lives of babies? And explain to me how one group wants guns, which are effective at killing people and/or threatening to kill people, but wants to avoid the killing of babies while the other group doesn’t like guns but is cool with the baby thing…
I think the Republicans and Democrats sat down in a smoky room back in the 1950s and drew straws for hot button issues, so that each could claim moral high-ground. I wonder why more people don’t find these positions mutually exclusive. It’s beyond me.
Furthermore, this is interesting.
Words 
Well, simply put, one group is spoken to directly by God, who tells them that since women are inferior and shouldn’t possess the full rights of a human being, the law needs to step in and dictate what happens in/around women’s bodies. God also tells this group that while it’s necessary to make sure that unborn babies are 100% cared for until they’ve drawn breath, it’s encouraged to buy a gun and shoot full-grown doctors who’ve been drawing breath for sixty years.
The second group has been driven so f-ing flabbergastedly insane by the first group’s complete lack of reason and logic that it wants to make sure that no handguns are readily, easily available for them to quickly obtain and shoot members of the first group every time they open their ignorant mouths to say things like, “The second group is FOR the killing of babies and demands that all pregnant women abort their fetuses NOW.”
The first group’s allowed to buy the gun, but they get the death penalty if they use it. It’s a test, you see. I wonder how many gun nuts go to bed every night hoping a home invader will try to steal their silverware so that they can shoot something legally.
But let’s not argue about abortion – here, tell you what, you have your rights. I suggest you exercise them by cutting out your liver. It’s your body and that damn liver keeps detoxifying the blood you spent a lot of money getting good and damn toxic, thankyouverymuchKthnxBai!
Interesting thought… I think that if you shared that thought with Texas that you would have a lot of interesting responses about the whole gun thing. But I agree with you about both issues!
I’m not seeing the liver parallel. Care to elaborate?
No one claims dominion over your body. To prove it, rip out your liver, you and me both – see if they treat us differently.
I’m a Texan. I’m not a die hard gun fanatic, but I’ve grown up around them. I see your side of the firearms issue. What gives people the fundamental right to own something that can so easily kill someone else. However, my dad has had tons of guns my entire life. We shoot them responsibly and it is a hobby or leisure activity for us. Never once have we pointed a gun at someone or used it in a threatening way. I see no reason why someone like my dad should not have the right to responsibly own a gun and pursue his hobbies.
If you want to take guns away it is no different in my mind than taking away bows and arrows, kitchen knives, advanced martial arts (or whatever the correct term for a “human weapon” would be), etc.
Some people are not responsible with weapons. Does that mean that we should take them away from everyone? Some people are not responsible with money. Should we let the government take that away from us and become communist?
I still really don’t understand what you’re trying to say, Furstie. I’m trying, but it seems to be way over my head.
I’m agreeing with you. You have dominion over your own body. Everyone believes that.
I would never advocate possessing firearms in order to kill babies. It just seems wrong.
The whole gun rights thing is tiresome. Part of the problem is that people quite literally idolize the constitution of the United States. I bet there are some who pray to it. I believe I have heard many people vilify George W. Bush for allegedly saying “the constitution is just a piece of paper.” What do these people actually think it is? 500 years ago it didn’t exist, and likely 500 years from now it won’t either. It changes with the whims of humans. How can you cling to that as your benchmark for what is true and just?
On the abortion issue:
Through grad school and at work I have had to use a computer constantly. Slowly my wrists and hands have become very painful. I have had multiple cortisone injections, and have bought different keyboards, braces, mouses, etc. Sometimes I fear that I am slowly destroying my hands, and I wonder if I will continue to subject myself to this for another few decades.
Then I remember; I want to provide for my future children. If that means working overtime, literally wearing cartilage to bone and destroying nerve, so that in the future my wife AND her unborn child can have proper medical care, then so be it. I have a choice over what to do with my body, just like any other human, but what kind of human would I be if I decided that it wasn’t worth hurting my hands at work so my pregnant wife can have medical care? Would the situation be any different if I didn’t want that child? Of course not. I would be a monster in each.
You can take the argument much further. What if this hypothetical spouse, who never learned to drive, had a disease that likely would force a miscarriage if left untreated. However, I just don’t want to drive her to a hospital because my luxury hair-piece is in the shop, and I don’t want to be seen without it on; I would never live down the shame. After all, it is my body, and I can choose what I want to do with it, and I don’t want it to be laughed at. Also, my shifting foot is acting up as well with gout, so it would be best if we just stayed home. I would be risking my reputation and health to drive! Plus, I never really fancied having a child anyway.
I’m with Weiss on this one…just seems gruesome and unnecessary.
We should use guns to kill (misbehaving) adults, and have doctors perform abortions. That’s tried and true – don’t mess with success, etc.
I feel like such a monster each month when my body spends two weeks preparing itself for implantation of an embryo, all for naught. I mean, that’s twelve babies a year whose murders I’m singlehandedly responsible for. Sorry, Archbishoptimothydolan.
I don’t think anyone made a point that extreme, Bess.
I wasn’t trying to one-up you, Carl — I really didn’t (and still don’t) understand your point, or for that matter, any of the internal organ / afflicted appendage metaphors that you & Furstie have taken to employing of late. I guess it’s just gotten to the point where I can’t even SEE what you’re saying, let alone begin to agree/relate.
Here’s an abridged version:
No one is trying to control your body. Everyone is fine with you removing your own spleen if it bugs you, for instance. Insure shouldn’t cover that either, for whatever it’s worth. I suppose it’s worth noting that it’s illegal to kill yourself, to legal to kill your baby up to a point.
I hope you understand that this entire issue comes down to whether or not one considers the baby in your belly something that is alive/has rights. Those who support the women’s right to choose to terminate said baby assume that the baby is the rightful property of the mother, and that she has the right to destroy that property should she so choose. Others don’t dispute the woman’s right to own property or manage her body. They dispute the assertion that the baby is owned by the mother. They say that the mother does not have the right to destroy the baby because it is a human being, not an object owned by the mother.
The pro-choice position runs aground for me because it fails to remain reasonable when considered in the limiting case. If it’s fine to abort a 2nd trimester baby, what would be the argument against terminating a 3rd trimester baby? What is the argument against terminating a week old (post womb) baby? It’s insulting to even suggest that, but there is no difference in the logic that could be used for the argument. Infanticide can be supported using the same terminology as abortion. In the limiting case, abortion becomes absurd and obscene.
So, to the people who dispute the assertion that the baby is property of the mother: if it’s not an object owned by the mother, then as soon as it’s out of her body, she’s free of it, right? Since the only thing connecting it to her is the fact that it’s inside her. When that’s gone, she’s no longer responsible for it and won’t get arrested if she neglects it. It becomes property of the state, of the people who decided it should live. Correct?
Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s how adoption works.
One day we should probably spend some time establishing how babies get inside of mothers – I’m not sure that we can thank the boogie-man federal govt for that, but I’m still fuzzy on how all that works.
So, all babies — since none are property of the mother — should be adopted?
Also, if babies are never property of the mother, why does the mother usually have to “sign them over” to be adopted? Why wouldn’t they just be snatched from her person upon drawing breath?
FURTHERMORE (sorry, but things keep coming to me sporadically), if the baby ISN’T property of the mother while it’s inside her, shouldn’t SHE have to adopt it from the state once it’s born?
You can’t own another person Bess. Didn’t we work this out 150 years ago?
My point was that just because my body and/or life may be adversely affected by the pregnancy or birth of a child does not mean that I have right to stop that child from being born.
Maybe “own” and “property” are the wrong kinds of words to use.
If someone besides the mother “answers for” this baby exclusively before it’s born, shouldn’t that person also be responsible for “answering for” it afterward?
And if not — if the person answering for this baby magically changes to a different entity upon birth — shouldn’t some kind of legal process be involved?
Carl, thank you for clarifying. I do get what you mean now.
My question remains: if this “baby” is a sovereign entity for the nine months prior to emerging from its vessel, shouldn’t there be some kind of system in place whereby the mother — upon expelling this independent third-party being from her nether regions and deciding to rear it — “adopts” it into her own (versus “the people’s”) care?
[…] usual, I’m completely outnumbered over at Eric Furst’s site. Feel free to lend a sister a hand. They haven’t answered my most recent question, which is: “If this ‘baby’ […]
I still don’t think you want to accept the opposite of what you suggest I’m advocating, but lets examine that. Before we get there, you can’t kill a baby since it is a human being. It doesn’t matter if you own it or not. Hell, you weren’t even allowed to kill your own slaves willy-nilly.
So lets say that I’m wrong. You can kill your baby because it’s your domain. It’s your thing. It came from your body, you made it, etc etc. The sperm donor is long gone, and you own that child. When can you no longer eliminate it? 6 months into gestation? 8 months? Prior to when it first learns to speak, the earliest hallmark of humanity? I’d venture to say that I child doesn’t have the capacity to be self-sufficient until, I dunno, age 6 maybe? Can you kill the child all the way up to age 6, as it is still your domain, your thing, from your body, dependent on you for its existence?
It’s insulting and ridiculous for me to attribute that argument to your position…but it’s the limiting case of your line of logic. Call in all the reinforcements that you want. The only argument that makes any sense to me is for you to claim that your fetus is not a human being. Otherwise you’re killing a human being. And most people think that’s wrong. The people that think it acceptable to kill a human being because he or she is inconvenient to their lifestyle can’t really approach the topic on any moral footing. Take the scientific argument about fetus viability etc etc, that’s how you’ll stay in this game.
You’re still totally avoiding my question.
Let’s say that everyone (me, you, lions, xtians, the world) agrees that a cluster of cells is a human being from conception onward.
If this human being doesn’t belong to its physical host for the entire nine months that it exists prior to drawing breath, but instead is its own independent human being entity with full rights, then where is the legal paperwork that then allows a random, objectively appointed, third-party mother-vessel to “adopt”‘ it, so that she can then assume responsibility for it until it turns 18?
I’m just asking you whether you agree that such a legal process should be in place. Why don’t women have to adopt the babies they’ve given birth to?
http://www.answers.com/topic/child-custody-laws
That is to say that there is a legal framework under which children become the charge of their parents, biological or otherwise.
BTW, one doesn’t get out of the hospital with a baby without signing something. For instance, many states use a handy little document called a birth certificate to identify the child with a mother and father.
So, up until the parents sign the paperwork to physically remove the baby from the hospital, it isn’t really theirs, correct? It could be anyone’s? Nothing in the nine months up until that point identifies them as being the parents?
And if, in fact, life begins at conception, why isn’t there a “conception” certificate instead?
In response to the second part there, because birth entails the physical separation of the new born from the mother. Technically, it can go wherever there’s oxygen, food and water (and when a child gets old enough, it sometimes does, much to everyone’s chagrin). The certificate declares where this separation took place and the parties involved. There might be documentation for miscarriages – health records of the mother, etc. – but it’s not necessary for, say, the State Department to know that since it won’t be issuing a passport to a child that died because of miscarriage.
Life, however, begins at conception. Any other argument is absurd on its face. How we deal with that life prior to it being a sentient and separate being is the question that you are all discussing.
Fair enough, Sps. I can work with that.
We are discussing whose right it is TO deal with “that life”, legally. I want to be able to sign a piece of paper when I get knocked up that says either, (a) I will listen to whatever Society / God / the Law feels is correct for the environment in my uterus for nine months and adhere to it unquestioningly, despite what I personally believe, or (b) I myself am the sole decisionmaker regarding what becomes of the potential life forming in my organs, and I will proceed accordingly, using whatever I personally believe to be the correct manner, be it following the ways of God, Lucifer, Archbishoptimothydolan, or Ashlee Simpson.
It can’t be both, is my point.
Sure it could be both. Right now there is a large section of part (a) that claims that the pregnant woman (part (b) ) is the sole decision maker.
But, I don’t understand where your argument is going. Opponents of pro choice have never let the law change their mind.
And that’s the beauty of it! You can disagree with the law all you want, and everybody still wins, because nobody is forcing your mother/sister/daughter/wife/friend to undergo an abortion! The law is just saying that SHE gets to DECIDE not to have one, instead of it being dictated!
end func;
I don’t get what you’re saying about (a) including (b), but I do appreciate that you’re even attempting to follow my train of thought at this point, so thank you.
A baby pretty much is the prototypical parasite:
“Parasite: an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.”
Its like aborting barnacles off a whale, or a tick off your leg. Does the host (whale, human, etc) have the responsibility to let them mooch as long as they desire?
And Bess, there is no way you can follow the teachings of Ashley Simpson. We must at least be reasonable.
Oh, Young Jayko. The barnacle comparison is a very Matt thing to say, except that Matt (aka. “Hank”) would *mean* it.
And it’s AshlEE Simpson. Miss Simpson, if you’re nasty.
Oh, I mean it. I really am a libertarian.
Oh, and few things annoy me more than making up “interesting spellings” for a name. Names are generally only spelled one way. Ashley is spelled Ashley. Period.
I love it when things are black and white.
Jayko,
There’s a distinct problem with your argument:
“Parasite: an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.”
A fetus is not a different species from the mother; therefore, it cannot be a parasite (biologically speaking).
While several websites neglect to include the species stipulation, well refereed reference sites, including Britannica and Biology-online.org, do cite this key component.
If you care to argue whether or not a fetus can be considered the same species, please refer to the following site before making any claims, as I would hate to waste time repeating such an asinine debate:
http://www.debate.org/debates/A-Fetus-is-Parasite-When-Inside-Its-Mother/
Ahem.
parasite: an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
According to the more general definition, it doesn’t have to be a different species.
Take it away, Jaykie.
It’d be like when those wasps lay their eggs in the caterpillar, except for instead of a wasp laying eggs in a caterpillar, it’s a dude injecting sperm into a receptive uterus. Can we talk about how these things come about, these parasitic babies? Cause I don’t really understand. There’s a lot about choice, but, not for nothin, but the choice happened a little further upstream.
The ACLU just knocked on our door, and asked for money. Unfortunately, my wife dismissed them before I knew what was going on. The confrontation would have been awesome!
I think the parasite angle is interesting. This must be why the chipmunk population is dying out in these parts. Too many of them are being infested by cute, baby chipmunk parasites. If we could just eliminate the parasites, then the chipmunk population would obviously rebound. The same goes for every other live-birth species.
Anyway, I do agree that a woman has a right to choose whether to have a baby. If she chose to have sex, then she made that choice. If she didn’t, then that is a different discussion.
For what it’s worth, I’m with Carl on that one.
This is a ridiculous detour, but…
If you’re pulling that from thefreedictionary.com, then note that the first entry comes from the American Heritage Dictionary, while the second entry, which specifies that the organisms be different in kind, comes from the American Heritage Science Dictionary. The first is overly broad, and I doubt you could cite a legitimate scientific source that would use that definition in biology.
1) While a fetus shares characteristics with parasites (i.e., parasitic behavior, dependence, etc), this does not by definition make it a parasite.
2) A parasite is of a different species than the host organism; after a bunch of searching I could not find one scientific reference to intraspecific parasitism of this kind
3) “” is a parasite for life, it is by nature a parasitic species and cannot be anything else; a human fetus, a fetus of any creature, is in a temporary state of dependence.
4) “” enters the host from an outside source and is generally not intentionally brought into or into assocation with the body (at least, I couldn’t find any examples of parasites being intentionally brought in in nature). While 1 of the two haploid cells necessary for a zygote is supplied from outside the “hosts” body, the other haploid cell is provided by the “host” and together, within the “host”, a separate organism is created. This definition is where, I’d argue, you can cleave the difference between a fetus and the broad category of symbiote or symbiont, between species reproduction and interspecies co-operation/interaction.
a) I can find no reference to any example in nature of any species creating its own parasite
5) If we were to categorize a fetus as a symbiote, it would be an example of a mutualistic relationship, if anything – the mother and father benefit by passing along their genes, the fetus receives nourishment until its gestation period ends.
6) If we are going to categorize a fetus as a parasite (particularly if you want to keep the overly broad definition that doesn’t include “different species”), then we must also categorize a human infant as a parasite – and a particularly draining one at that – because it is utterly dependent on other organisms, and for longer than most (maybe all, I can’t remember) other species (thanks to our giant, complex brains that need bigger skulls). You can see where this line of reasoning would then take you…
Now, ahem…can we move along?
RE: tons of slammin hot chicks having sex just for the babies — what if the guy was really cute?
Carl carl co-carl, banana-fana fo-farl, mi, my, mo marl — Carl!
Ahh. That felt good.
Carl, the thing about all of this is that it’s probably 100% true that no woman in your life would ever choose to have sex if she didn’t want a baby. So I don’t understand what you’re worried about! Or why you would think that a choice made by any woman outside of your life has any bearing whatsoever on you! I’m really trying to understand why you would care, or think that it’s any of your personal business.
And Furstie, people make mistakes. But again, back to my earlier point: if you want women to do as you say from the moment egg and sperm meet, try advocating a conception certificate.
“No one is trying to control your body. Everyone is fine with you removing your own spleen if it bugs you, for instance. Insure shouldn’t cover that either, for whatever”….
Insurance does cover abortions! Maybe not insurance provided by a religiously affliated organization, but your typical public AND private plan covers them. Because it’s not the insurance companies place to judge. And really, they are cheaper than covering a child for 18 years.
I find the pro-life / for the death penalty vs the pro-choice / against the death penalty much more confusing than guns and abortions.
Finally, I want to ask my dentist for a certificate of the separation of my wisdom teeth from my head.
I know they cover it – I’m saying they shouldn’t. Different discussion.
As for your pro-life/death penalty and pro-choice/anti-death penalty thing to be very confusing myself – I’m sure I’ve said that somewhere too. We have some common ground there. I really feel like they just drew straws so that each party could claim moral high ground in different issues.
The conservatives consistently pick the viewpoint with the most suffering and sacrifice for the most people; the liberals consistently pick the viewpoint with the least responsibility for the most people.
Conservatives — having a baby you dont want, or being put to death for something you did, is “your cross to bear”, so to speak.
Liberals — clearly there are environmental factors which make the baby or the crime “not your fault”, and we can blame how you were raised or what someone else made you do, and not ask the person to bear their own burden.
Doesn’t insurance also cover Viagra, birth control pills, and diaphragms? Why should it?
WTF? I just posted a comment and it’s gone. Was it spammed because it contained the word “viagra” or something?
As a matter of fact, it was spammed.
That’s hilarious. Of all the offensive garbage I spew, a brand name is what ultimately gets me spammed. I love it.
“It depends on what your definition of is is.”
The point was that if something cannot support itself and needs another organism to survive, is the supporting organism obliged to support it ad infinitum? If all life is sacred/holy/A Precious Gift From God/whatnot, the lives of ticks/barnacles/lice/your average bacteria matter just as much as the life of a fetus which cannot support itself, no?
“Jay-ayyy-ko-oh… whatchyou doin’ now, whatchyou doin’ now, boy? Please please tell me — ’cause I need to know, I need to know now.”
I’m leaving here in about half an hour, and expect an answer to Young Jayko’s question by the time I’m back on the computer tonight (if I remember to check this site — hehe) or first thing tomorrow, latest.
I would also really love to hear everyone’s opinions on whether insurance should cover sex-drive enhancement drugs and birth control.
Cheers!
Should cover birth control, because it is for the public good. Should not include Viagra, because, I mean, your peep stops working for a reason, and if you want to fix it, it should be on your dime.
If you invite a tick into your uterus, then you should support it until it is done doing what uteral ticks do.
There you go Bess.
Also, Matt’s description is apt.
“The point was that if something cannot support itself and needs another organism to survive, is the supporting organism obliged to support it ad infinitum?”
When it comes to humans, YES! How could it be any other way? How cruel would it be if we were legally allowed to neglect young children, the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped? I would be dead a few times over by now if this is where true, and I know most of you would be too.
“Or why you would think that a choice made by any woman outside of your life has any bearing whatsoever on you! I’m really trying to understand why you would care, or think that it’s any of your personal business.”
It doesn’t have any bearing on me; unfortunately it DOES have bearing on the child.
Bess, this is why I recently changed my [/b] political [b] view of gay marriage from “I oppose it” to “I won’t actively support it.” Why? Because I can’t really come up with a good argument for why gay marriage may potentially harm me or an unconsenting person. See, I do really think about these issues, and I do change my mind.
However, there is a huge difference between these two issues, and that is that the unborn child is not consenting to this! That’s the reason. If this was someone who wanted to be put to death by a doctor, well then I would find it hard to politically oppose it (although I may personally oppose it in some cases).
I believe that the fetus is human. The only way you will ever get me to switch sides in this debate is if you convince me that it is not.
Why anyone would actively have an opinion on gay marriage is beyond me. If two people want to get married (gay or straight), it has absolutely no bearing on me. Marry away. As a straight guy, it does not affect me in any way whatsoever, so I’m not entitled to an opinion against.
So, Carl, you’re saying that human life is different/better than other life? I’m pretty sure JC would disagree.
Yes, Jayko, Biblically human life IS better/different than other life. Humans are made in the image of God, other creatures are not. Old Testament law is pretty specific – the punishments for the death of an ox are relatively little (fines), while the punishments for the death of a man are great (death).
As for Jesus, take Matthew 10 for instance…
28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
32″Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
Humans are qualitatively different than animals because we are children of God who have the capacity to bear his Spirit.
For whatever it’s worth, you’d have a hard time finding any Christian denomination, from Catholic, to Orthodox, to Protestant including all Pentecostal and Evavgelical and Liberal who believe humans and non-humans to have equal “value”.
No one cares, though, Furstie. This issue can’t be argued in terms of what God says is correct, because not everybody covered by the laws of this great country believes in a higher power — hence separation of church & state.
Scientifically, how is human life different/better than any other form of life? Without quoting scripture… ready? Go.
And yeah, Matt knows how to turn a phrase. He could also come back in three days and write exactly the opposite of that, and it would ring just as true.
I’m sorry, I thought Jayko was referring to Jesus Christ when he said “JC”. Once you start talking about Jesus, the Bible becomes relevant, supremely so in fact.
As for your challenge to prove it, I dare you to practice what you preach. Once you do that for a while, we’ll talk. You best not so much as swat a fly. You’re lucky that no government in the history of the planet has held the same opinion that you do (this particular minute at least) – would it still be called “homicide” if it were a colony of fleas? And anti-bacterial soap…cold blooded mass murder, a hate crime even.
It’s great that Jayko is personally interested in how Jesus Christ feels about certain issues, but by “no one” caring, I meant that since religion doesn’t govern this nation, using bible verses as examples for how the law should play out falls on deaf ears.
Exodus 21: And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. I think JC is saying that fetus and human are, in fact, different.
Bess, religion DOES rule this nation. Two religions, in fact. One is the Rebublican, Jesus based religion; the other is Democrat, Al Gore/environmentalism based. In both cases, everything was swell until we stupid humans screwed it up (garden of eden, polar ice caps, whatnot).
On a side note, has anyone heard this about how much the south pole’s ice coverage has grown? Apparently it has far outpaced the melting of the north pole ice. Does this mean that the world is in fact getting colder? Discuss.
Jayko, glad you found that verse. It’s an excellent prooftext supporting your point. There are similar ones supporting slavery, and yet Christianity supposedly brought down slavery too.
Your religion/politics connection is apt. I agree with it, mostly, though there is nothing inherently Jesus-y about the Republican party. It’s just the party’s adopted moral expedient. The Dems snatched up the environmental stuff, though they’re hardly monolithic in their support for Al Gore, who is certifiably insane.
As for the temperature of the earth,
http://www.icecap.us/
There is a systemic warm bias in the brains of scientists right now, and it’s leading them to throw out half of the data that they get…the cool half. It’s gotten less warmer, if not downright cooler in the last few years. The Soviets saw a mini-ice age coming in the next few decades (like what we saw in the 1700s), and I tend to agree with them.
“So, Carl, you’re saying that human life is different/better than other life?”
“Scientifically, how is human life different/better than any other form of life? Without quoting scripture… ready? Go.”
Yes, I am saying that human life is better.
Science doesn’t judge the worth of species, it only explains behavior.
I’m pretty sure that didn’t answer any of the questions posed.
“…you’re saying that human life is different/better than other life?”
My answer was: Yes, I believe it is better.
“Scientifically, how is human life different/better than any other form of life?”
My answer was: Based on the requirements of the question, it cannot be answered.
It is not possible to respond to the 2nd question in a scientific manner. By this, I mean that you cannot propose a falsifiable hypothesis concerning the grounds on which to judge the worth of differing forms of life. For example, how could you perform an experiment to disprove the claim: “Species A is ‘better’ that species B when A is more intelligent that B” ? No experiment will falsify it; likewise no experiment will support it.
I could answer the question philosphically or morally or religiously; I cannot answer it scientifically. No one can.
Then philosophically, what makes your life more “valuable” than, say, a horse’s life? And the answer cannot include references to a soul or higher power or being made in the likeness of something.
Because you have the capacity to ask that question, you are more valuable than a horse.
Because you have the capacity to induce many horses to provide you with valuable labor, and, conversely, because no horse has the capacity to induce many humans to provide him with like labor, you are more valuable than a horse.
Because you think that you have the authority to impose arbitrary restrictions on your question, as though your opinion of the ground rules for the debate somehow supersedes those used by the rest of mankind throughout history, you clearly believe yourself to be more valuable than said horse. And the rest of us.
Now, convince me that I’m wrong, only you can’t use the letter “e” in your answer.
This should read
““Species A is ‘better’ THAN species B when A is more intelligent THAN B” ?”
Philosophically, I would start with an axiom or axioms, and then draw logical conclusions from them. These axioms would hopefully be agreeable to almost everybody, so that almost everybody would then agree with the conclusions.
I have a feeling you wont agree with any set of axioms I propose, unless they lead to the conclusion that humans are less than or equal to other life. If that is the case, there’s nothing to argue about; you would just disagree with me and most of everyone else. End of story.
Furst, by your logic, is my life more valuable than one of another human, say one with Downs Syndrome? Because they might have a very different capacity to domesticate a horse than I might.
By the same logic, you might conclude that white people’s lives are more valuable than black people’s, because whitey was able to induce labor from African slaves. I don’t think thats where you were going, but the logic is still the same (that is, flawed).
“Furst, by your logic, is my life more valuable than one of another human, say one with Downs Syndrome?”
I count 5 e’s in there Jayko. That’s just the first sentence. Come back to me when you’re willing to discuss this using terms that make sense, namely those not involving the letter e.
I changed to “capacity” so get around the slavery thing, though not the Down’s thing. This, of course, is why neo-Pagan dictators of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc) routinely have embraced practices such as euthanasia – because you are correct, without God, the elderly, infirm, uneducated, etc etc ARE worth less than you. Philosophically, you’ll have to come to grips with that. If you have a problem with that conclusion, you should consider probing the moral issues that you have with it, as there is no place for morality such in an objectivist worldview.
At least Carl has the balls to admit that thinking humans are above any/all other living things is strictly religious and therefore opinion-based.
And no, Furstie, giving an answer without using the letter ‘e’ is not the same thing as giving an answer without referencing a pretend set of beliefs that exists outside of reality. Letters of the alphabet are a key, logical element of real-life black-and-white communication via language.
I love that “using the letter e” is being used to proxy soul/ ‘made in the likeness of…’/higher power/tooth fairy. Thats quite a leap.
Yes, I am happy to admit that in a meaningless world, there is no “higher” meaning to human existence, beyond, at least, biological reproduction of ones genes.
Feel free to examine the ramifications of a meaningless world. What has always impressed me about some is how little they actually believe what they claim to believe. The knife cuts both ways, to be sure.
Here’s the question I heard, “Explain to me how humans have a special existence in this world, without mentioning that thing which gives them the special existence.” While humanity’s superior position can be argued any number of other ways, not in the least by the fact that you yourself intrinsically believe it to be true, it is still pointless. Without a reason for existence, man is only the pinnacle of biological achievement.
Of course, without a higher power lending a reason for existence and a rightness of action, it is impossible for you to explain to me the feeling of right and wrong that you experience. Why should we not euthanize the elderly? Why should one who can’t contribute to his own existence be allowed to continue to exist by the charity of others? Bitterness against one side of this argument has clouded your opinion of your own tenuous position. The only way for you to address this is to ignore it.
We’ll make it a generic “you” so that you can make believe you, in particular, are somehow exempt.
I guess my point was that if you take out “because God says so”, there really is no justification as to why you should have greater rights to exist than any other animal. It is a matter of survival, and luckily, I am smarter than other animals in the animal kingdom. So I eat them. But I feel bad about it.
I think that the meaning of existence is derived from one of two things:
1) a God/higher power that exists
2) a God/higher power that people created
It’s hard to argue the concept without one of those gods.
I’ve also often thought that reproduction works from a biological perspective – namely, we, as individuals within a species, exist to reproduce in proportion with our genomes viability.
Your viewpoint falls within the natural realm; we don’t have greater rights, per se, but because of our brain we have found ways to put ourselves at the top of the food chain.
This is all really beautiful. It’s a shame that only about .003% of the population gives a rat’s ass. No one deciding whether or not to have an abortion has the time, energy, or presence of mind to go study advanced level Theology for a few hours to discover that her human fetus is superior to a pig fetus, and that therefore she should promptly sign on the dotted conception certificate line without passing “Go [Anti-Choice Picketers]!” or collecting several gunshot wounds to the heart on her way into the clinic.
I guess that’s why it’s more popular to hand out pamphlets depicting comic strips of Satan ass-raping you in hell if you go through with it.
Okay, sorry, Carl — that was too extreme. Nobody deserved that. Let me try that again…
I guess what it comes down to is that you must not care that much about saving souls and turning everybody & their brother on to god if your only two approaches are:
1. Uber-philosophical intellectualizing to the point that 99% of your audience is promptly alienated and you’re back at square one.
2. Convincing people through sweet, simple, thoroughly patronizing persuasions to do what you say, which they’re only doing because you’ve succeeded at blindsiding them — not because they actually arrived at the conclusion themselves.
I kinda feel like as Christians with heads on your shoulders you should be able to do better than that. It’s almost like you don’t WANT to do better than that. Because then you wouldn’t be able play father guiding-shepherd superior to all your wayward lambs anymore.
Bess, precise questions demand a precise response. You asked a precise question (“scientifically”), and I gave a precise response. I even intentionally toned down the uber-philosphying. I was then told that I did not answer the question, so I elaborated. The only other ways of responding either avoid the question or are incorrect.
By the way, I completely disagree that 99% of the population would be turned off, since the falsifiability of hypotheses is exactly what I used to teach to the non-honors 9th grade science students to start the year, and they loved it, and got the corresponding questions right on their exams. As a comparison, more of them had trouble understanding why two objects of the same volume may not have the same mass, although to be honest I didn’t spend too much time on that (I hoped they could figure it out on their own).
As for your other statement: “I guess what it comes down to is that you must not care that much about saving souls and turning everybody & their brother on to god if your only two approaches are:”
Well, I do care, but I agree that I haven’t demonstrated that. Here are the reasons:
1 – I am a fallible human being. I have faults.
2 – When communicating on the internet with people I have never met, I emotionally distance myself. It’s too stressful to not do that. Just look some of the things you’ve written in my direction. The consequence of this distancing is that I rely on logic. It is cold, and tends to do just fine without emotion supercharging things.
3 – You have asked for responses conditioned on the fact that I don’t mention anything regarding my faith. The only reason why I have love for anyone is because of my Christian beliefs. How am I supposed to demonstrate love in my response when you have required that I do not?
Didn’t we go through all of these discussions 8 years ago? How about we all shake hands and call it a draw.
(Just my two cents…bowing out now)
“How am I supposed to demonstrate love in my response when you have required that I do not?”
= This is going to be my new response to everything
Carl, I wasn’t directing all of that specifically toward you — more just toward Christians as a whole. I was just apologizing for being extreme. In fact, you’ve done an awesome job of answering all of my/our questions in a straightforward manner. It’s Furstie who always insists on bringing things back to a make-believe world wherein it’s impossible to have a fair discussion because one entire side is playing by made-up whimsical non-rules.
Anyway, what were we even arguing about again?
The other side views your rules as equally whimsical. So, both sides think the other one foolishly relies on whimsical non-rules. Progress in a discussion cannot be made until both sides understand where the other is coming from.
From the theist point of view, I can fairly accuse you of arguing with whimsical non-rules. You want to have a discussion on human life while leaving out God. If a god does exist, that’s about as whimsically non-rulish as one can get. Likewise, if one doesn’t, then referring to one is equally foolish.
So then the question is, what I do to see your side more clearly, and what can you do to understand mine?
I’ll go first:
1 – Assume, for the sake of the exercise, that there is a God who created the universe and everything in it, and is omnipotent and omniscient (forgetting the niggling details of what the entails for now). This god is infitely superior to everything else.
2 – Given this assumption, what is a reasonable definition of right, wrong, good, and evil?
3 – What if this God spoke to you directly, and told you to do something you would otherwise think is ridiculous? What would you do?
If you post a similar list from your point of view then I will do my best to follow/answer them.
I confess to not reading all these comments, and simply commenting on Furst’s original post –
I was curious as to your take on equating the two original issues of guns versus abortion. Maybe you weren’t equating the two, but if you would weigh back in, which is worse in your opinion? I left that last question pretty open, so I imagine you could answer on several levels.