|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
71 members (Abdulrohmanoman, Charles Cohen, accordeur, BWV846, Animisha, benkeys, Anglagard44, 14 invisible),
2,333
guests, and
426
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265 |
Oddly enough some people still support abortion.
That's because not everyone is religious. (not that all religious people are anti-abortion mind you). If one values human life above other life, because of our greater ability to feel joy, to suffer, to experience, then abortion becomes a complete non-issue. A fertlised egg might be considered a human individual by arbitrary definition but unless one believes in soul type things then that definition does not carry any ethical weight.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
1000 Post Club Member
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730 |
Originally posted by The 89th Key: She is probably saying "gee, I shouldn't have slept with that guy because he wasn't wearing a rubber, oh well, time to kill a growing human so that my life can be better."
I truly doubt that this crosses her mind. Most women (I would venture) are victims of this highky profitable industry which obfuscates the reality behind Orwellian newspeak like "human genetic material", "uterine contents", "fetal protoplasm", etc. I would err on the side of compassion for the women, but imprisonment for the abortionists -- they KNOW what they are doing.
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
1000 Post Club Member
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730 |
Originally posted by Moonbat: Oddly enough some people still support abortion.
That's because not everyone is religious. (not that all religious people are anti-abortion mind you).
If one values human life above other life, because of our greater ability to feel joy, to suffer, to experience, then abortion becomes a complete non-issue.
A fertlised egg might be considered a human individual by arbitrary definition but unless one believes in soul type things then that definition does not carry any ethical weight. Moonbat: I've met many atheists, agnostics, and marginally religious folks who also see that abortion kills a human being. It is not a religious question and does not require any understanding of "ensoulment". It is simply that the zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo/born baby is part of the human continuum of development. Look at any embryology text book. You should also look at Bernard Nathanson's videos of interuterine development Silent Scream Link -- the foetus is clearly able to feel pain, to suffer (think about getting your skin burned off and lungs burned in a saline injection) and to experience. All the things that make us -- in your definition "human".
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265 |
I've met many atheists, agnostics, and marginally religious folks who also see that abortion kills a human being
I'm sure that's true, it's just not well thought through IMO. It is not a religious question and does not require any understanding of "ensoulment".
Oh i think ultimately it is, i think ultimately, atheism leads to a humanitarian view of ethics, that means the basis for anti-abotion disappears, and given time abortion becomes a non-issue. I would assert that the more secular a group or population the less likely they are to be antiabortion, granted i don't have any figures to back up my assertation, only my own experiences and intuition. It is simply that the zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo/born baby is part of the human continuum of development.
Look at any embryology text book.
The starting point is arbitrary, a starting point has to be chosen on pragmatic grounds, it is _usefull_ to consider individuation occuring at fertilisation, that does not mean the point of fertilisation becomes meaningfull outside the context of taxonomy. the foetus is clearly able to feel pain, to suffer (think about getting your skin burned off and lungs burned in a saline injection) and to experience. All the things that make us -- in your definition "human".
Mammals feel pain yet we happily slaughter them, i do not think an embryo with a partially developed nervous system merits no ethical consideration, just as i do not think a cow mertis no ethical consideration. (though a newly fertlised egg is another matter).
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 725
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 725 |
Originally posted by Moonbat: If one values human life above other life, because of our greater ability to feel joy, to suffer, to experience, ... Phooey. A pig can do any of those things. The only things we do better than pigs are waging war, polluting the environment and making up remarkably self-important belief systems. (Oh, and square-dancing).
"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests." - Santayana
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
1000 Post Club Member
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730 |
I am just not following you, Moonbat. How can fertilization not be the starting point since before this your have two different things (a sperm and an ovum), and afterward you have one thing (a zygote)? Why is this starting point arbitary? Use Occam's razor. EDIT FWIW, I think all animals deserve ethical consideration even if we eat them -- that is also part of our humanity.
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265 |
Do you think a pig is as aware as you are?
Perhaps you are right, perhaps we should grant pigs equal ethical status. However as far as i know the behaviour and neurology of pigs indicate a diminished comprension and awareness of the world (compared to humans).
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,773
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,773 |
Kenny, you know I'm for the most part against war, but I don't see casualties of war as comparable to aborted babies. I think there are similarities though, and I see what you're saying. Your point is in principle valid, and brings up questions as to the sanctity of life. So I would ask you a couple of questions.
As long as I've been part of this thread (arguable not that long) you haven't argued about choice or rights, you've picked apart the pro-lifer's argument instead. So how about this, does your view point change if I hypothetically agree with your other positions? Let's say I agree that even the sperm and egg cells are sacred, and that killing in war time is equally as bad. If I agree with these things does that put us on the same page, or would you simply have another point to make about an inconsistency on my end?
Back to what we were talking about regarding conception. Do you honestly not see a difference between the potential of the cells on their own and their potential once joined together? It's kind of like not seeing a difference between the potential of a loaded gun, and one that's empty. Sure an empty gun has the potential to be dangerous, but not really. As it is it does not have that potential.
an egg is not a potential life, nor is every sperm... at least not in their original state. The potential is not potential until conception, surely you see that.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265 |
I am just not following you, Moonbat. How can fertilization not be the starting point since before this your have two different things (a sperm and an ovum), and afterward you have one thing (a zygote)? Why is this starting point arbitary?
Because my friend in reality there it not "two" different things before and "one" thing afterwards, YOU and I are the ones doing the classification, YOU and I decide to call the billions of different atoms jiggling around together "one" thing. We are responsible for grouping nature into objects, nature simply _is_. One could arbitrary _define_ the egg/sperm combination as a single object if we so chose, just as we choose to define a fertlised egg that has divived into two cells as a single object: the foetus. Classifying nature into objects incredibly usefull, but it can become a problem when we loose sight of the line between the language we use to decribe a phonemena and the phenomena itself. (The same issue manifests itself in evolution when people think that there is a big jump between chronospecies, when in fact there is not, we are simply choosing to draw the line in a specific place, ie. - we will consider species A ending here and species B beginning -).
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265 |
an egg is not a potential life, nor is every sperm... at least not in their original state. The potential is not potential until conception, surely you see that.
Imagine a sperm just about to fertlise an egg, then you step in and stop that event occuring, clearly had you not done so the result would have been a fertlised egg, now if a fertilised egg represents a potential human being, it follows that a sperm just about to fertlise an egg MUST also represent a potential human being.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
1000 Post Club Member
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730 |
Originally posted by Moonbat: an egg is not a potential life, nor is every sperm... at least not in their original state. The potential is not potential until conception, surely you see that.
Imagine a sperm just about to fertlise an egg, then you step in and stop that event occuring, clearly had you not done so the result would have been a fertlised egg, now if a fertilised egg represents a potential human being, it follows that a sperm just about to fertlise an egg MUST also represent a potential human being. no. the fertilized egg is not a potential human being. it is a human being -- a distinct and individual being of a human nature.
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,773
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,773 |
Imagine a sperm just about to fertlise an egg, then you step in and stop that event occuring, clearly had you not done so the result would have been a fertlised egg, now if a fertilised egg represents a potential human being, it follows that a sperm just about to fertlise an egg MUST also represent a potential human being. no, it must not. Now you're doing what you've accused others of doing, transferring their human "filters" onto nature that simply "is". Nature in it's pure state is not potential anything is it? a sperm just before penetrating the outter area of the egg is just that, nothing else right? You're making the assumption that left alone it would become a fertilized egg. How can you call it that until it has happened? It seems very arbitrary to me...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265 |
no. the fertilized egg is not a potential human being. it is a human being -- a distinct and individual being of a human nature.
Ah ok when i say potential human "being", i am referring to a fully formed human person, who feels, contemplates, wonders, etc. because to me that is what matters, that is, to me, the basis of ethics. I accept that a fertlised egg is a human cell, a human cell with a distinct genetic makeup, but then.. so what? If one is not basing one's ethics on faculties, then what is so special about a "human" being? Why value a human being over any other kind of being? The only answer that i can see, is a religious answer ie. the prescence of an immortal soul. Which explains the (statistical) religious opposition and secular acceptance of abortion.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,400
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,400 |
Originally posted by Moonbat: Oddly enough some people still support abortion.
That's because not everyone is religious. (not that all religious people are anti-abortion mind you). First off, I appreciate your calm and intellectual voice, your posts are well written, even if I do disagree with you. Secondly, I don't argue against abortion based on my religious views. Yes it says murder is wrong, but who would disagree with that? Well, maybe yabadabado, but even most atheists would say murder is wrong (trust me, I've met some who dont think it is wrong). So my point is that this isn't really an issue regarding murder, rather the opinion of each person as to whether or not the growing human is indeed a "life", synonymous with any of our lives here in PW or anywhere in the world. I dont see how religion is any part of that, although I'm sure there is a statistical correlation for some reason. Kenny, I still dont understand why you think it's awful to crush the heads of babies, yet support abortion. Just because you dont see the brain being sucked out, or because you dont see the fetus withering up, its suddenly ok in your book? Hmmm, you might wanna think about that one.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
1000 Post Club Member
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730 |
Originally posted by Moonbat: I am just not following you, Moonbat. How can fertilization not be the starting point since before this your have two different things (a sperm and an ovum), and afterward you have one thing (a zygote)? Why is this starting point arbitary?
Because my friend in reality there it not "two" different things before and "one" thing afterwards, YOU and I are the ones doing the classification, YOU and I decide to call the billions of different atoms jiggling around together "one" thing. We are responsible for grouping nature into objects, nature simply _is_.
One could arbitrary _define_ the egg/sperm combination as a single object if we so chose, just as we choose to define a fertlised egg that has divived into two cells as a single object: the foetus.
Classifying nature into objects incredibly usefull, but it can become a problem when we loose sight of the line between the language we use to decribe a phonemena and the phenomena itself.
(The same issue manifests itself in evolution when people think that there is a big jump between chronospecies, when in fact there is not, we are simply choosing to draw the line in a specific place, ie. - we will consider species A ending here and species B beginning -). And so what is the phenomenon itself? The phenomenon is that which is observed. Language is a tool for classification of being. Blurring the distinction between the language of the phenomenon and the phenomenon itself is not a problem here. And if you are getting Wittgensteinian on us, I am just not interested in going there. You regularly distinguish and make moral choices and actions based on your perceptions of this billion jiggling atoms from that billion of jiggling atoms. If not, you wouldn't care about walking in front of an oncoming truck. In fact, the reality of the being that is constituted by this particular set of billions of jiggling atoms is very real indeed, and determinative of how we choose to interact with. So I don't get you point, once again.
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,400
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,400 |
Originally posted by Moonbat: no. the fertilized egg is not a potential human being. it is a human being -- a distinct and individual being of a human nature.
Ah ok when i say potential human "being", i am referring to a fully formed human person, who feels, contemplates, wonders, etc. because to me that is what matters, that is, to me, the basis of ethics. Do infants meet these requirements?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 725
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 725 |
Originally posted by The 89th Key: Originally posted by Moonbat: [b] no. the fertilized egg is not a potential human being. it is a human being -- a distinct and individual being of a human nature.
Ah ok when i say potential human "being", i am referring to a fully formed human person, who feels, contemplates, wonders, etc. because to me that is what matters, that is, to me, the basis of ethics. Do infants meet these requirements? [/b]I would say yes. If you asked about newly formed embryos, I'd say no.
"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests." - Santayana
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 265 |
Now you're doing what you've accused others of doing, transferring their human "filters" onto nature that simply "is".
I really don't think I am. Nature in it's pure state is not potential anything is it?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Potential simply refers to behaviour at some future point. a sperm just before penetrating the outter area of the egg is just that, nothing else right?
You're making the assumption that left alone it would become a fertilized egg. How can you call it that until it has happened? It seems very arbitrary to me...
I do not believe you are grasping the central tennent of what i'm saying: i'm not calling a sperm about to fertlise an egg, a "fertlised egg", what i'm saying is that BOTH systems, have the potential to develop into a human being. Singling out the point of fertilisation as significant, is arbitrary because of the above statement. A fertilised egg, is closer to becoming an actual human being that a just about to be fertlised egg, but then a fertlised egg that has just divided is closer to becoming a human being than one that has yet to divide. You correctly point out that it is an assumption that the sperm will infact succeed in fertlising the egg, but then it is just as true that it is an assumption that the fertlised egg will develop into a human being, after all many self abort.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730
1000 Post Club Member
|
OP
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,730 |
Originally posted by Moonbat: no. the fertilized egg is not a potential human being. it is a human being -- a distinct and individual being of a human nature.
Ah ok when i say potential human "being", i am referring to a fully formed human person, who feels, contemplates, wonders, etc. because to me that is what matters, that is, to me, the basis of ethics.
I accept that a fertlised egg is a human cell, a human cell with a distinct genetic makeup, but then.. so what? If one is not basing one's ethics on faculties, then what is so special about a "human" being? Why value a human being over any other kind of being?
The only answer that i can see, is a religious answer ie. the prescence of an immortal soul.
Which explains the (statistical) religious opposition and secular acceptance of abortion. The answers need not be religious -- they can be entirely pragmatic. If one is not basing one's ethics on faculties, then what is so special about a "human" being?
(1) In return, I can only ask you if you think that human dignity is a social construct, and rights are only to be accorded to those who meet the standards of certain faculties. Should the handicapped and retarded be killed? Should those with sub par intelligence, or with emotional truncation be destroyed? Do we really have to defend human life against an arbitrary standard of existence to accord basic rights? Why value a human being over any other kind of being?
Because: (2) It is obviously in our nature to do so (you might run into the street to rescue a child who is about to be run over, but you probably won't do so for a dog). (Now is this culturally conditioned? I don't think so). (3) Social order requires that all humanity be treated in justice and equity. Social order does not require that all lower life forms be treated in justice and equity.
Estonically yours,
Ivorythumper
"Man without mysticism is a monster"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,773
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,773 |
So if the debate comes down to one of "soul", and you believe there is nothing differentiating human life from other life, what is the problem with murder? What makes it wrongful death?
Why oppose the death penalty?
If indeed these entities are special, and deserve to live over other forms of life, what makes them so? And at what point do they become special? In terms of science we can see within days the formation of the beginnings of a nervous system and spinal cord. We know that at 25 weeks the baby is feeling its surroundings, identifying personal space, and recognizing it's place relative to the space around it. It seems to be self aware (touching its own head and playing with its nose). I just don't see science indicating that this is anything but a human life, even if at a different stage of production. If anyone's assigning arbitrary definitions and lines it seems to be the people arguing that this being is anything other than what it appears to be, a human.
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,405
Posts3,349,434
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|