Author Topic: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies  (Read 62756 times)

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #200 on: April 02, 2021, 12:33:41 PM »
I guess the bottom line of all of this is that it is one hell of a quandary.

I've met a lot of very smart people with a lot of varying positions on the issue.

And the bottom line is that there is no bottom line.   No one can figure it out.

And, so, if we collectively can't decide, why on earth do we collectively think we have the right to collectively decide (in the form of making laws by our government)?

I don't envy any woman in the position of figuring out a decision that baffles even our best legal scholars, philosophers, and ethicists. But if no one else is competent to make a clearly correct decision for her, why on earth should anyone else be allowed to make the decision for her?

Okham's razor explanations for the bolded question:
1. Lack of understanding of the risks involved to all parties (e.g. risk from pregnancy).
2. Lack of thinking through the implications.
3. Women are not equal citizens. Their body can and should be controlled.
4. How dare the bad women get away with having sex. Let them suffer!

Or perhaps a combination of these!

Sorry for ruining your subtle implication and almost putting words in your mouth. I prefer putting things in black and white and taking things to it's logical conclusion. While it causes much ruffled feathers, I personally find it forces people to think, more than leaving subtle clues!


ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #201 on: April 02, 2021, 01:15:41 PM »
Let's make the medical demand way milder and borderline. Let's say I am a deranged shooter who caused near fatal injury to someone, causing a lot of blood loss. Am I legally required to donate blood to the person I shot?

Ooooh.  That's a hard argument.  Way down in the sub-cockle area of my heart there's a little voice piping up 'FUCKING RIGHT YOU SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO'.  It makes sense as a kind of reparations for the damage done.  I'm going to have to ponder this one.

That is why I specifically said "legally".

Morally there is no question at all. But trying to mandate any such requirement legally will probably get you into so much slippery slope and have so many unpalatable unforeseen consequences that it should be considered a very bad idea.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 01:17:56 PM by ctuser1 »

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #202 on: April 03, 2021, 07:06:47 PM »
I believe the jackhammer subtle implication of my question was that since this is a difficult issue that society cannot collectively resolve, the decision should be left to individual women to decide for themselves
And yet, a large section of our society has decided such a decision can't be left to the women involved. Why do you think that is? Do the enumerated list I wrote above not provide the simplest possible explanations? Or are you aware of any other possibilities that are simpler?

Mockery is more effective when you have some idea what you are talking about.
It was a cynical take. Mockery wasn't actively or primarily intended, and definitely not towards you.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2021, 07:20:02 PM by ctuser1 »

ericrugiero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 740
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #203 on: April 05, 2021, 08:34:44 AM »
I believe the jackhammer subtle implication of my question was that since this is a difficult issue that society cannot collectively resolve, the decision should be left to individual women to decide for themselves
And yet, a large section of our society has decided such a decision can't be left to the women involved. Why do you think that is? Do the enumerated list I wrote above not provide the simplest possible explanations? Or are you aware of any other possibilities that are simpler?

Your list does a great job of assuming bad intentions for the pro-life crowd.  It's not very accurate.  Here is a simpler explanation:

Pro-life people believe abortion is killing an unborn human and think that killing an innocent human being is wrong.

As you can see, the basic believe is extremely simple.  There are specific situations that become very difficult as we think through how to implement this belief in a manner that is loving to both the mother and child.  But, at it's core, the basic premise is very simple and well intentioned.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #204 on: April 05, 2021, 08:51:13 AM »
I believe the jackhammer subtle implication of my question was that since this is a difficult issue that society cannot collectively resolve, the decision should be left to individual women to decide for themselves
And yet, a large section of our society has decided such a decision can't be left to the women involved. Why do you think that is? Do the enumerated list I wrote above not provide the simplest possible explanations? Or are you aware of any other possibilities that are simpler?

Your list does a great job of assuming bad intentions for the pro-life crowd.  It's not very accurate.  Here is a simpler explanation:

Pro-life people believe abortion is killing an unborn human and think that killing an innocent human being is wrong.

As you can see, the basic believe is extremely simple.  There are specific situations that become very difficult as we think through how to implement this belief in a manner that is loving to both the mother and child.  But, at it's core, the basic premise is very simple and well intentioned.

That's not really an accurate explanation, though. It could describe plenty of pro-choice people, frankly.

The very important part that you left out of that explanation is:

Pro-life people believe abortion is killing an unborn human and think that killing an innocent human being is wrong, and that they should be able to legislate others' beliefs about this and the choices they make, whether they share that belief or not.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #205 on: April 05, 2021, 09:02:55 AM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.
 
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 01:39:12 PM by partgypsy »

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #206 on: April 05, 2021, 09:12:40 AM »
I believe the jackhammer subtle implication of my question was that since this is a difficult issue that society cannot collectively resolve, the decision should be left to individual women to decide for themselves
And yet, a large section of our society has decided such a decision can't be left to the women involved. Why do you think that is? Do the enumerated list I wrote above not provide the simplest possible explanations? Or are you aware of any other possibilities that are simpler?

Your list does a great job of assuming bad intentions for the pro-life crowd.  It's not very accurate.  Here is a simpler explanation:

Pro-life people believe abortion is killing an unborn human and think that killing an innocent human being is wrong.

As you can see, the basic believe is extremely simple.  There are specific situations that become very difficult as we think through how to implement this belief in a manner that is loving to both the mother and child.  But, at it's core, the basic premise is very simple and well intentioned.

Two issues with this explanation that arises from the very basic premise ("not saving a person's life though continued providing of life support" = "killing"):
1. In real life, we see inconsistent application of this logic that leads to contradiction. Why no demand that all of us be forced to undergo a specific medical procedure (==pregnancy for the women) to save someone else? Forget the living, many more lives could be saved if we legally mandated organ harvesting from people who die in road accidents. It seems that the pro-life logic deems the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy to be less important to that of a corpse from a road accident. Why?

2. Imposing their own faith on others. But then I personally don't find this surprising or remarkable. It is a feature of Abrahamic religions and not a bug, which tends to make them very violent from time to time.

If you focus on Issue #1, that is covered by my list item #2 - "Lack of thinking through the implications".
Issue #2 is at best only tangentially related to this discussion and is a broader topic.   

The other part of the disconnect may be somewhat philosophical in nature. When I use the phrase bad faith - I use this definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism). If you are an essentialist instead (which most religious people would be, per my limited understanding), then the meaning of this term would likely be significantly different.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 09:39:04 AM by ctuser1 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #207 on: April 05, 2021, 10:23:52 AM »
I believe the jackhammer subtle implication of my question was that since this is a difficult issue that society cannot collectively resolve, the decision should be left to individual women to decide for themselves
And yet, a large section of our society has decided such a decision can't be left to the women involved. Why do you think that is? Do the enumerated list I wrote above not provide the simplest possible explanations? Or are you aware of any other possibilities that are simpler?

Your list does a great job of assuming bad intentions for the pro-life crowd.  It's not very accurate.  Here is a simpler explanation:

Pro-life people believe abortion is killing an unborn human and think that killing an innocent human being is wrong.

As you can see, the basic believe is extremely simple.  There are specific situations that become very difficult as we think through how to implement this belief in a manner that is loving to both the mother and child.  But, at it's core, the basic premise is very simple and well intentioned.

I think that an abortion kills an unborn human AND that killing an unborn human is wrong.  But I am pro-choice.

While fetuses are certainly alive and do qualify for some basic human rights - their human rights don't override the basic human right to autonomy of person of the mother.  No human being should be forced to risk their own life or to give up a part of their body for another human being without consent.

simonsez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #208 on: April 05, 2021, 01:02:53 PM »
I think that an abortion kills an unborn human AND that killing an unborn human is wrong.  But I am pro-choice.

While fetuses are certainly alive and do qualify for some basic human rights - their human rights don't override the basic human right to autonomy of person of the mother. No human being should be forced to risk their own life or to give up a part of their body for another human being without consent.
Is that a personal definition of what constitutes 'alive' or does it come from an organization?  I think being alive commences at birth and thus disagree about the status of fetuses.  But I'd imagine we have different definitions.  Otherwise, why not count age from conception or some other pre-birth point?  Of course, then tax benefits, Social Security, and life insurance for fetuses (which I guess would just be called humans after being defined as alive?) would be a normal part of society.  The fact that they're not, do you view that as inconsistent with your definition of fetuses that are 'alive' and/or just an instance of where society has not caught up?  I'm also pro-choice for the italicized part of the last sentence above - i.e. even if rape, incest, and physical complications could be eliminated I'd still be pro-choice.  Now, if we get to a point where all pregnancies happen in artificial uteri on top of no rape/incest/complications, that opens up more interesting talks but that's incredibly pie-in-the-sky.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #209 on: April 05, 2021, 03:21:15 PM »
I think that an abortion kills an unborn human AND that killing an unborn human is wrong.  But I am pro-choice.

While fetuses are certainly alive and do qualify for some basic human rights - their human rights don't override the basic human right to autonomy of person of the mother. No human being should be forced to risk their own life or to give up a part of their body for another human being without consent.
Is that a personal definition of what constitutes 'alive' or does it come from an organization?

Personal definition (and 'certainly' was probably improper language to use - that's more extreme than my real viewpoint).  There's somewhat of a spectrum . . . early on, it's difficult to argue a fetus is alive.  Later on it's difficult to argue against.  Since some fetuses are certainly alive by any rational definition, I was following from that train of thought.


I think being alive commences at birth and thus disagree about the status of fetuses.

I'd argue that this is rather extremist.  If a fetus is one day before expected due date you are therefore arguing that it's not alive.  But under what logic?  They have a functioning brain, viable lungs, functioning heart, functioning nervous system, and can live without the support of the mother.  It seems like a decision made arbitrarily.


But I'd imagine we have different definitions.  Otherwise, why not count age from conception or some other pre-birth point?  Of course, then tax benefits, Social Security, and life insurance for fetuses (which I guess would just be called humans after being defined as alive?) would be a normal part of society.  The fact that they're not, do you view that as inconsistent with your definition of fetuses that are 'alive' and/or just an instance of where society has not caught up?  I'm also pro-choice for the italicized part of the last sentence above - i.e. even if rape, incest, and physical complications could be eliminated I'd still be pro-choice.  Now, if we get to a point where all pregnancies happen in artificial uteri on top of no rape/incest/complications, that opens up more interesting talks but that's incredibly pie-in-the-sky.

There are few people claiming that life begins before conception.  Although I admire the simplicity of this argument, it makes every teenage boy with a copy of playboy somewhat of a mass murderer, so rather seems to fail in practice.

As mentioned, I think that a fetus transitions from something barely classifiable as alive (beyond being made of living cells) to something that meets any reasonable definition of life before being born.  That's part of what makes the debate about abortion difficult for many - they fixate on the concept of fetal life (which is extremely nuanced and difficult to conclusively argue for one way or the other) instead of simply focusing on the mother's right to autonomy of person.

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20747
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #210 on: April 05, 2021, 08:52:36 PM »

Now, if we get to a point where all pregnancies happen in artificial uteri on top of no rape/incest/complications, that opens up more interesting talks but that's incredibly pie-in-the-sky.

Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosiverse uses various social results of uterine replicators (and gene cleaning and manipulation) as part of her world building.

SF often does the thought experiments, what ifs.  Larry Niven looked as organ donor ethics before organ donation really got going, for example.  Plus his Cloak of Anarchy is a classic thought experiment on political anarchy/libertarianism.

Morning Glory

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4867
  • Location: The Garden Path
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #211 on: April 05, 2021, 09:31:47 PM »

Now, if we get to a point where all pregnancies happen in artificial uteri on top of no rape/incest/complications, that opens up more interesting talks but that's incredibly pie-in-the-sky.

Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosiverse uses various social results of uterine replicators (and gene cleaning and manipulation) as part of her world building.

SF often does the thought experiments, what ifs.  Larry Niven looked as organ donor ethics before organ donation really got going, for example.  Plus his Cloak of Anarchy is a classic thought experiment on political anarchy/libertarianism.

Aldous Huxley thought of that in the 20s. As soon as I read that book I noticed that my hospital used the same color scheme for uniforms. (suits for doctors (grey or black), blue for nurses, green for assistants, brown for housekeepers). Most big hospitals use it, must be an inside joke. Laugh-cry emoji goes here

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #212 on: April 06, 2021, 01:47:50 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #213 on: April 06, 2021, 03:33:08 PM »

Now, if we get to a point where all pregnancies happen in artificial uteri on top of no rape/incest/complications, that opens up more interesting talks but that's incredibly pie-in-the-sky.

Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosiverse uses various social results of uterine replicators (and gene cleaning and manipulation) as part of her world building.

SF often does the thought experiments, what ifs.  Larry Niven looked as organ donor ethics before organ donation really got going, for example.  Plus his Cloak of Anarchy is a classic thought experiment on political anarchy/libertarianism.

and organ legging is real, although rare.   I wish Mr  Niven had been wrong on that one.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #214 on: April 06, 2021, 06:05:14 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

This is the thing. I am a scientist. The more we learn, the more we understand that we are more similar, than disimilar to animals, and that this clear bright line between humanity, and other types of living intelligent creatures on this earth is not so bright and so clear. On so many levels. Feeling of pain. Feeling of emotions, and attachments. Altruistic behavior. Ability to lie and deceive. Tool use. Consciousness and self consciousness. It is true, so far as we know we do have language over other animals, but why that should be the differentiating factor whether one creature gets all the rights, and the others not, from an objective standpoint, doesn't make sense (unless it's simply, because we wrote the rules). I don't know anyone who has had a dog and looked into its eyes, would say the dog is souless. The videos I see of orangatans trying to fight bulldozers that are dozing the forest they live in, or a mother chimpanzee carrying its dead infant and refusing to leave it, is natural to feel how they are feeling, and also hearbreaking in exactly the same way seeing another human being experiencing a loss. And in turn whether it is a dolphin saving someone drowning or other cases, animals having compassion for us.

wolfpack depends on your religion. Buddhism believes for example all life is sacred. I do believe all of life is interconnected. And while yes I learned that God created man in his own image, does that mean that he looks like a big man sitting on a throne? Did they mean created in his image visually (which doesn't make sense if he is spirit, and invisible), or in some other aspect? I learned at the same time, from my priest and from the Bible, that God isn't male or female. And in fact is indescribable and actually unbearable to view. (for example is presented as a burning bush because his true form is unknowable). We know that God created the earth and all the other living things as well. At least to me, ALL those things are in his image, as well.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2021, 06:41:27 PM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #215 on: April 07, 2021, 07:40:46 AM »
A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.

Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.

A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life."  It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life.  But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.

I'd agree that a fetus starts out immediately after conception like an acorn (and that it's therefore difficult/problematic to classify it as a living human at this time), but by the end of the third trimester the fetus has certainly sprouted into a seedling/young human.  Is killing a young human the same as killing an old human?  I'd have to argue yes, yes it is.  How about half way through the pregnancy?  Or 3/4?  Hmm.  That gets really tricky to definitively answer.

Realization of this truth is probably the reason that huge amounts of support exist for regular (early term) abortion, and far less support for extremely late term abortion.

I'm not religious and don't get my reasoning from religious doctrine.  I don't entirely buy the argument that life begins as conception, but to argue that a fetus is not human/alive until it pops out of a mother seems to be equally flawed reasoning.  As mentioned earlier in the thread a fetus is somewhere on a mush spectrum from not human to human . . . and I'd argue that anyone arguing there is a clear and easy yes/no answer to how human a fetus (at all stages) is is misguided by whatever doctrine they're following.

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #216 on: April 07, 2021, 08:03:44 AM »
yes I'm as pro-abortion as you can get but it's hard to argue a foetus is not a human at all. If a fully realised adult human has 1.0 moral weight then a first trimester foetus might have ?0.2 and a third trimester foetus might have ?0.6 and a newborn might have ?0.8 and there are difficult gradients to be considered.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3791
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #217 on: April 07, 2021, 09:39:16 AM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

These kind of responses absolutely astonish me. Not that someone would object to abortion or killing humans, but that one would instantly dismiss the animals as being of lesser value.  I mean, I eat animals, but there is a serious philosophical discussion to be had about relative moral value.  There are plenty of animal species on the verge of extinction, and close to 8 billion people. There is a legit moral argument to be had whether the value of one individual of those species is 'worth' more than any individual human life.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #218 on: April 07, 2021, 10:12:39 AM »
This is the thing. I am a scientist. The more we learn, the more we understand that we are more similar, than disimilar to animals, and that this clear bright line between humanity, and other types of living intelligent creatures on this earth is not so bright and so clear.

Good post.

Oddly enough though we in 2021 we still have humans who think certain other humans are lesser beings. I would expect their opinions of furry beings to be even lower. 

I look forward to the day when the average person living in the USA is reliably sophisticated enough to see past gender, race, LGBTQ and other similar issues.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2021, 10:17:02 AM by Just Joe »

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #219 on: April 07, 2021, 12:30:24 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

These kind of responses absolutely astonish me. Not that someone would object to abortion or killing humans, but that one would instantly dismiss the animals as being of lesser value.  I mean, I eat animals, but there is a serious philosophical discussion to be had about relative moral value.  There are plenty of animal species on the verge of extinction, and close to 8 billion people. There is a legit moral argument to be had whether the value of one individual of those species is 'worth' more than any individual human life.

Agreed. Other than some religious beliefs about 'souls' and afterlife and creation and stuff, I'm not aware of any reason why anyone wouldn't just view all living things on a spectrum, from microbes to humans, or however you want to structure it. Sure there are large gaps on the spectrum in terms of intelligence and you can argue that perhaps 'self-awareness' could be some sort of division point, but when it comes down to it, I don't know that there's objectively anything to support the philosophical idea that "humans get rights, no other living creature out of the millions of other living species don't" other than just that's the way we want things.


Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #220 on: April 07, 2021, 05:13:18 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

This is the thing. I am a scientist. The more we learn, the more we understand that we are more similar, than disimilar to animals, and that this clear bright line between humanity, and other types of living intelligent creatures on this earth is not so bright and so clear. On so many levels. Feeling of pain. Feeling of emotions, and attachments. Altruistic behavior. Ability to lie and deceive. Tool use. Consciousness and self consciousness. It is true, so far as we know we do have language over other animals, but why that should be the differentiating factor whether one creature gets all the rights, and the others not, from an objective standpoint, doesn't make sense (unless it's simply, because we wrote the rules). I don't know anyone who has had a dog and looked into its eyes, would say the dog is souless. The videos I see of orangatans trying to fight bulldozers that are dozing the forest they live in, or a mother chimpanzee carrying its dead infant and refusing to leave it, is natural to feel how they are feeling, and also hearbreaking in exactly the same way seeing another human being experiencing a loss. And in turn whether it is a dolphin saving someone drowning or other cases, animals having compassion for us.

wolfpack depends on your religion. Buddhism believes for example all life is sacred. I do believe all of life is interconnected. And while yes I learned that God created man in his own image, does that mean that he looks like a big man sitting on a throne? Did they mean created in his image visually (which doesn't make sense if he is spirit, and invisible), or in some other aspect? I learned at the same time, from my priest and from the Bible, that God isn't male or female. And in fact is indescribable and actually unbearable to view. (for example is presented as a burning bush because his true form is unknowable). We know that God created the earth and all the other living things as well. At least to me, ALL those things are in his image, as well.

I realized after posting I was a little bit aggressive, so apologies for that. When you're arguing for the pro-life perspective, you get used to a lot of deflections. For example - the argument "if men got pregnant there would be abortion clinics on every corner." Well, the fact is, men don't get pregnant, and whether or not there would be a difference in policy doesn't affect the morality of the issue.

Whether you intended it this way or not, this felt very much like a deflection. It felt like you were throwing shade so to speak on people that eat meat and are against abortion, when they are entirely separate things. You also related the line of thought as if it was specific to evangelical thought, which is incorrect. That's another deflection, especially in light of your overall point. The fact of the matter is, it is almost 100% universally agreed upon that murder is bad and also that taking a human life is at least worse than taking an animal life. This is true historically and regardless of religious belief. I mean, for Pete's sake, even India, with the extreme esteem they place on cows have the crime of murder coming with higher punishments than the crime of killing a cow. It may be that you specifically believe that they are morally equivalent, but you are in a very small minority judging by how it is treated throughout the world and not just in America with Evangelicals. The refutation of your comparison to taking of animal life is based on a standard that spans the world around. Thus, it seemed like a significant deflection, especially with your specific calling out of Evangelicals.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #221 on: April 07, 2021, 05:20:38 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

Far more than 0.00000001% would like to make eating of animals illegal.   Probably even fewer than that meager percentage think it is a viable thing to propose, that it is a thing that society would collectively agree should be against the law at this time.  I am not alone in the opinion though that 100 years from now eating animals will be not only illegal, but unthinkable to most people. (In fact I think it'll be far fewer than 100 years.)  But not today.  And laws that apply to all of us should be based on things we collectively as a society agree on.

There are two separate issues with abortion: it's morality/ethicality and its legality.  Those are two separate things, just as the ethics of eating animals is separate from the legality of eating animals.

Dependency on the mother is one line of discussion, both morally/ethically and legally, but it is the only one. 

A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.

Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.

A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life."  It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life.  But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.

First, in my haste and typing on my phone I combined the 0.00001% for making murder legal with making eating animals illegal. My mistake. I mean only the first one not the second one.

The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).

We can argue all day long about whether it's a worthwhile human life or not, whether it's worthy of rights or not, and so on, but it is human, it is life, and it is different from but dependent on the mother. Those arguments tend to have some serious logical issues if we start asking, oh, can the unborn feel pain or think at this level of that level, because then we reach into issues of comparisons between how much it needs to develop to attain a human life worthy of rights and compare it to already born people who may not have attained those levels of development themselves. The most succinct difference and the only one that holds any water is that the unborn human is dependent on a woman to exist. That's where the debate lies.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #222 on: April 07, 2021, 05:30:45 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

These kind of responses absolutely astonish me. Not that someone would object to abortion or killing humans, but that one would instantly dismiss the animals as being of lesser value.  I mean, I eat animals, but there is a serious philosophical discussion to be had about relative moral value.  There are plenty of animal species on the verge of extinction, and close to 8 billion people. There is a legit moral argument to be had whether the value of one individual of those species is 'worth' more than any individual human life.

I find your take of astonishment to my response astonishing. I was arguing against using a periphery argument about killing of animals as somehow akin to abortion because it is such a universal concept that taking a human life is worse than taking an animal life. Do you really find astonishing the belief that a human life has more worth than an animal life? If so, you must be astonished all the time, as almost no one espouses the belief that they are equivalent, and even if they do, I don't see a groundswell of support to up the penalty for, say, deer hunting to be punishable by life in prison. My point was, it's a very commonly held belief that human life is worth more than animals, regardless of religious background, so I don't understand how this in any way applicable or a reason to give people crap that eat meat and are against abortion.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #223 on: April 07, 2021, 05:34:17 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

These kind of responses absolutely astonish me. Not that someone would object to abortion or killing humans, but that one would instantly dismiss the animals as being of lesser value.  I mean, I eat animals, but there is a serious philosophical discussion to be had about relative moral value.  There are plenty of animal species on the verge of extinction, and close to 8 billion people. There is a legit moral argument to be had whether the value of one individual of those species is 'worth' more than any individual human life.

Agreed. Other than some religious beliefs about 'souls' and afterlife and creation and stuff, I'm not aware of any reason why anyone wouldn't just view all living things on a spectrum, from microbes to humans, or however you want to structure it. Sure there are large gaps on the spectrum in terms of intelligence and you can argue that perhaps 'self-awareness' could be some sort of division point, but when it comes down to it, I don't know that there's objectively anything to support the philosophical idea that "humans get rights, no other living creature out of the millions of other living species don't" other than just that's the way we want things.

I never said that other living creatures get no rights. I said that it is virtually unanimous that human beings get more rights than other creatures, so equating killing an animal to killing a human is not a comparison worth making. Do you disagree that this is an almost universally held truth? Did I write something in my post that made you think that I was saying that animals get no rights (which would inevitably lead to people being able to do whatever they want, dog fights, whatever, without consequences and which I am firmly against)?

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Location: Australia
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #224 on: April 07, 2021, 06:05:52 PM »
It's a universally held truth that (1) all humans have the same intrinsic value and (2) humans have a moral weight greater than that of animals.  But I don't think it's actually true. A human in a vegetative state to me has far lower moral weight than, say, a healthy orangutan. The latter has more sentience and more capacity for pleasure or pain.

We elide these difficult moral value judgments because we don't want to get into brackish ethical waters. But for me if I had to choose to save the life of a vegetative human or a normal orangutan there would be no ethical dilemma whatsoever in which I chose. And I would challenge anyone to justify otherwise.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #225 on: April 07, 2021, 06:19:58 PM »
I think 1 can be argued against pretty easily just using historical examples (slavery, genocide, racial/religious/cultural divides leading to war and murder).  Or even people's reactions and attitudes around covid right now.  :P

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3791
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #226 on: April 07, 2021, 07:01:23 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

These kind of responses absolutely astonish me. Not that someone would object to abortion or killing humans, but that one would instantly dismiss the animals as being of lesser value.  I mean, I eat animals, but there is a serious philosophical discussion to be had about relative moral value.  There are plenty of animal species on the verge of extinction, and close to 8 billion people. There is a legit moral argument to be had whether the value of one individual of those species is 'worth' more than any individual human life.

I find your take of astonishment to my response astonishing. I was arguing against using a periphery argument about killing of animals as somehow akin to abortion because it is such a universal concept that taking a human life is worse than taking an animal life. Do you really find astonishing the belief that a human life has more worth than an animal life? If so, you must be astonished all the time, as almost no one espouses the belief that they are equivalent, and even if they do, I don't see a groundswell of support to up the penalty for, say, deer hunting to be punishable by life in prison. My point was, it's a very commonly held belief that human life is worth more than animals, regardless of religious background, so I don't understand how this in any way applicable or a reason to give people crap that eat meat and are against abortion.

This response is clearer.  I was confused by your comments about fetuses having distinctive DNA, as if that were the reason their lives are considered more valuable (which is obviously absurd b/c all living things have distinctive DNA). I understand what you are arguing better now. 

I am indeed continuously astonished at the moral values that society 'agrees upon', though.  Particularly in this area (relative value of human life over lives of other species, particularly rare or endangered species). 

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #227 on: April 08, 2021, 05:54:54 AM »
.... I was arguing against using a periphery argument(1) about killing of animals as somehow akin to abortion because it is such a universal concept that taking a human life is worse than taking an animal life(2). Do you really find astonishing the belief that a human life has more worth than an animal life? If so, you must be astonished all the time, as almost no one espouses the belief that they are equivalent(3), and even if they do, I don't see a groundswell of support to up the penalty for, say, deer hunting to be punishable by life in prison(4). My point was, it's a very commonly held belief that human life is worth more than animals, regardless of religious background, so I don't understand how this in any way applicable or a reason to give people crap that eat meat and are against abortion(5).

It is a bit of digression from the immediate thread of discussion, but do you realize that this one post of yours exemplifies almost everything that is wrong with even the the most well intentioned pro-life stance?

(1) -> There are probably a billion+ people in the world who sincerely believe that killing a cow == killing your mother. Is that a "periphery" belief, in your opinion? If so, why? Because they come from one of the "false" religions??
(2) -> Ah, those pesky billion odd people I mentioned in #1 don't matter, you see! They don't count, so it is "universal" as long as the "in group" of pro-life people don't believe it.
(3) -> Again, they don't matter, so who cares?
(4) -> Does this really say/imply what you think it does? Could it be perhaps that these people just aren't arrogant enough to try and impost their beliefs on you who might love to chomp on beef? But don't worry, stupid miscreants exist everywhere and pro-life people don't have exclusive rights to it (https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/19/india-vigilante-cow-protection-groups-attack-minorities).
(5) -> Hmmm, I see a lot of shit that the pro-life people throw, especially at women who are going through one of the most traumatic periods in their life. Whatever $$ you may have contributed to this cause in the past have almost certainly successfully further traumatized some already suffering woman somewhere. Congratulations on your success in furthering human misery! So, are you claiming that a bit of crap thrown back is somehow not fair game?

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #228 on: April 08, 2021, 09:12:13 AM »
The abortion debate is a little heavy, something a bit lighter that falls into the "other dichotomies"

How do we square people who want to raise taxes on the rich yet bring back the SALT tax deduction. SALT tax deduction is a huge tax cut for the rich. According to the brookings institute over 90% of the SALT tax deduction benefit goes to folks in the top 2 quintiles.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #229 on: April 08, 2021, 01:21:50 PM »
The abortion debate is a little heavy, something a bit lighter that falls into the "other dichotomies"

How do we square people who want to raise taxes on the rich yet bring back the SALT tax deduction. SALT tax deduction is a huge tax cut for the rich. According to the brookings institute over 90% of the SALT tax deduction benefit goes to folks in the top 2 quintiles.

I would suggest that when people want to “tax the rich” they are talking about the top 1% (or really the top 0.1% or 0.01%), not the top 40%.

According to Google, in 2017 the top 50% of taxpayers paid 97% of individual income taxes, so it would stand to reason that those who paid taxes got the biggest benefit from a tax “loophole” or deduction.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #230 on: April 08, 2021, 04:57:34 PM »
.... I was arguing against using a periphery argument(1) about killing of animals as somehow akin to abortion because it is such a universal concept that taking a human life is worse than taking an animal life(2). Do you really find astonishing the belief that a human life has more worth than an animal life? If so, you must be astonished all the time, as almost no one espouses the belief that they are equivalent(3), and even if they do, I don't see a groundswell of support to up the penalty for, say, deer hunting to be punishable by life in prison(4). My point was, it's a very commonly held belief that human life is worth more than animals, regardless of religious background, so I don't understand how this in any way applicable or a reason to give people crap that eat meat and are against abortion(5).

It is a bit of digression from the immediate thread of discussion, but do you realize that this one post of yours exemplifies almost everything that is wrong with even the the most well intentioned pro-life stance?

(1) -> There are probably a billion+ people in the world who sincerely believe that killing a cow == killing your mother. Is that a "periphery" belief, in your opinion? If so, why? Because they come from one of the "false" religions??
(2) -> Ah, those pesky billion odd people I mentioned in #1 don't matter, you see! They don't count, so it is "universal" as long as the "in group" of pro-life people don't believe it.
(3) -> Again, they don't matter, so who cares?
(4) -> Does this really say/imply what you think it does? Could it be perhaps that these people just aren't arrogant enough to try and impost their beliefs on you who might love to chomp on beef? But don't worry, stupid miscreants exist everywhere and pro-life people don't have exclusive rights to it (https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/19/india-vigilante-cow-protection-groups-attack-minorities).
(5) -> Hmmm, I see a lot of shit that the pro-life people throw, especially at women who are going through one of the most traumatic periods in their life. Whatever $$ you may have contributed to this cause in the past have almost certainly successfully further traumatized some already suffering woman somewhere. Congratulations on your success in furthering human misery! So, are you claiming that a bit of crap thrown back is somehow not fair game?

You got pretty snarky given that you apparently didn't read what I had written before, because I already addressed your first three points, and they are inaccurate. By 1 billion people, the only thing I can think of you're meaning by this is India. India actually bolsters my point and refutes what you're saying, and it just takes a quick google to do it. As I mentioned above, in India, killing a cow most certainly does not equal killing your mother by the fact that they are simply not punished the same. Killing a cow can get you as little as 10 years in prison. Killing a human - life in prison. Killing a cow can at most get you life in prison. Killing a human can get you the death penalty. That's just for cows, the animals whose killing is treated the harshest. For killing a dog, it's 2 years in prison. The point is, that no, 1 billion people do not equate killing a cow to killing your mother (certainly not killing any animal with it) or the punishments would line up. A fringe group like the one you mention can push for stuff, but it's not happening on a widespread scale. Since India, a place where the overwhelming religion itself emphasizes the extreme importance of animal life, still does not equate legally killing a person to killing an animal, that is proof enough for me that it is not one specific religion or some sort of limited belief that taking a human life is worse than taking an animal life - it's pretty dang near universal.

In terms of your 4th point, you can speculate all you want as to why people aren't pushing laws to make killing a deer get you life in prison. All it will be is speculating. I however am not speculating. I just gave an example of where people are not pushing for equivalency. It was simply one example. There are countless examples of where a true equivalency between animal life and human life is not being pushed by any sort of broad coalition. People apparently think it's worth the government intervening to punish a person who goes out and kills a stranger with life in prison or death as the same government only intervenes for someone doing the same thing to an animal by punishing them to a much less degree. People are not campaigning for the government to up the penalty on animal deaths, or maybe if they're that intensely anti-government intervention they would campaign to reduce the penalty for the murder of people, but that's not happening either. The fact of the matter is, you have no practical evidence on your side of me excluding a billion people or some large section of the world population in my statement that almost universally, people feel that murdering a human is worse than murdering an animal.

I've said before, and I'll say again, I'm not defending the things people have done negatively to women about abortions. That being said, your assumptions about me are kind of a jerk move. You have no idea as to what money, time, or whatever I have contributed in what ways, but you seem very quick to jump to assume you know what I've done or at least imply since you said I "may" have done it. That's not furthering the discussion. I'm not offended or hurt by partgypsy's point. I was mildly frustrated because I saw it as a deflection, but I'm not worried about "crap being thrown back." I am, however, going to call out arguments that are flawed, though, and ethical animal comparisons of ending a human life to an animal life, especially when the assumption seems to be that it takes an Evangelical view of a soul to go against full equation of animal rights with human rights, is a flawed argument.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #231 on: April 08, 2021, 05:16:52 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

Far more than 0.00000001% would like to make eating of animals illegal.   Probably even fewer than that meager percentage think it is a viable thing to propose, that it is a thing that society would collectively agree should be against the law at this time.  I am not alone in the opinion though that 100 years from now eating animals will be not only illegal, but unthinkable to most people. (In fact I think it'll be far fewer than 100 years.)  But not today.  And laws that apply to all of us should be based on things we collectively as a society agree on.

There are two separate issues with abortion: it's morality/ethicality and its legality.  Those are two separate things, just as the ethics of eating animals is separate from the legality of eating animals.

Dependency on the mother is one line of discussion, both morally/ethically and legally, but it is the only one. 

A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.

Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.

A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life."  It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life.  But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.

First, in my haste and typing on my phone I combined the 0.00001% for making murder legal with making eating animals illegal. My mistake. I mean only the first one not the second one.

The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).


No worries on the typo, it happens.  I left out the word "not" in a significant place in the post you quoted (obvious where I think from context), so I'll see you your typo and raise you mine.

You are going even farther than the argument I cited, and are claiming that every acorn is an oak tree.  I guess it could be, depending on how you define "oak tree." But it is certainly not "scientifically irrefutable" that acorns are oak trees, and most people, including most scientists, would find that definition of "oak tree" more than a little odd.

Whatever the merits of this sort of definition, it is hardly "inarguable" and "scientifically irrefutable."

Simply asserting that something cannot be argued does not make it inarguable.  "Proof by vigorous assertion" is not a valid rule of logical inference.

Most, if not all, scientists would agree that the definition of "oak tree" or "living human being" is not a scientifically addressable question.  Forms and particulars have not been considered a question of "science" since before the modern era.

I should have addressed your acorn/oak tree analogy earlier. It seems to be a flawed analogy. It's about plants not animals. This is important because you have something very specific in plants that doesn't happen with animals - that of seeds.

It seems you're talking about potential versus something actualized. Yes, unborn humans do not have the same functionality as born people (and certainly adults) and have much more on the potential side of things than the actualized side. However, back to your analogy, the flaw to me is that an acorn is pure, 100% potential, separated from the life and growth process. That's why the analogy doesn't compute. An acorn can sit on a shelf and never be put into the ground to grow - it's not actively alive. At conception, the new DNA is present, and it's actively moving on with growth. It's already in the life cycle in a way that an acorn on a shelf may possibly never be if it stays up on the shelf. That unborn human can have something go wrong with it somewhere along the process of growth. It can then stop growing and die. In which case it would no longer be human life because the life part is out of the equation.

You're claiming I'm saying it's inarguable because of circular reasoning - that it's inarguable because it's inarguable. That's not it at all. I'm saying it's inarguable because there are simply no scientific arguments to refute it, and I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary in terms of specifically definable words - not a polling of people whose biases would come into play; just the actual words used and definitions for them. Scientists might say that the definition of a "living human being" is undefinable, but that's because it's merging with philosophy.

An unborn human is human life, and not just that, it's distinct, human life based on the definitions of the words. It's of the species of human. It's distance DNA wise, a separate, unique individual from its mother. It's life - it's living, growing, an active part of the cycle of growth. If people want to say it's not distinct, human life, they are going to have to reach outside of these very basic definitions to do so. That's why it's inarguable. I don't mean to be snarky, but if people want to mean something besides what comes out of those three words, they should use different words.

I 100% agree with you that science can only give so much input on it. However, they are completely able to give input that an unborn human is distinct, human life. They are not equipped to comment beyond that. People can say it's not of the same quality of human life, of the same worth of human life, of the same caliber or type of human life - but then, again, where do we make the distinction? Babies are totally reliant on their parents - at a different phase of the life cycle but certainly still not of the same caliber as a fully adult, self-sufficient person.

All of this can be argued, but it helps to start at a similar basic framework, and I have not seen any reasoning for why the label of distinct, human life can be taken away from an unborn human.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #232 on: April 08, 2021, 05:53:18 PM »
I did mention that my response was "a bit of digression from the immediate thread of discussion", but I did not clarify exactly why. That was a gap more than a flaw in my logic - something I will try to fill.

I was not arguing that it is an accepted human value in the present day and age to equate the value of an animal life with that of a human life. I was rather showing another set of sincerely held moral values as a counterfactual that Americans would find unpalatable if it was pushed with the same zeal that the pro-life evangelicals (or the cow vigilante's that I linked above) do. The point/hope of my argument is to show that pushing a certain set of religious/moral standard with the force of legal mandates on a country as big and diverse as the US, or even a single state in the US, is a very bad idea. When the demand is as severe as abrogation of such a basic human right - the freedom to do what one chooses with his/her body - then it is a particularly terrible idea.
 
India actually bolsters my point and refutes what you're saying, and it just takes a quick google to do it. As I mentioned above, in India, killing a cow most certainly does not equal killing your mother by the fact that they are simply not punished the same. Killing a cow can get you as little as 10 years in prison. Killing a human - life in prison. Killing a cow can at most get you life in prison. Killing a human can get you the death penalty. That's just for cows, the animals whose killing is treated the harshest. For killing a dog, it's 2 years in prison. The point is, that no, 1 billion people do not equate killing a cow to killing your mother (certainly not killing any animal with it) or the punishments would line up. A fringe group like the one you mention can push for stuff, but it's not happening on a widespread scale.
My point was not that the laws make it equivalent to treat a cow's life same as a human's, but that there is a religious view that does it.

India still fashions itself as a secular republic, so it is no wonder that their laws should not reflect the view of one specific religion - even the majority one. It is similar to the situation in the US, where women still have legal right to do as they choose with their body despite a strong religious sentiment against that freedom being granted to women.

In terms of your 4th point, you can speculate all you want as to why people aren't pushing laws to make killing a deer get you life in prison. All it will be is speculating. I however am not speculating. I just gave an example of where people are not pushing for equivalency. It was simply one example. There are countless examples of where a true equivalency between animal life and human life is not being pushed by any sort of broad coalition. People apparently think it's worth the government intervening to punish a person who goes out and kills a stranger with life in prison or death as the same government only intervenes for someone doing the same thing to an animal by punishing them to a much less degree. People are not campaigning for the government to up the penalty on animal deaths, or maybe if they're that intensely anti-government intervention they would campaign to reduce the penalty for the murder of people, but that's not happening either. The fact of the matter is, you have no practical evidence on your side of me excluding a billion people or some large section of the world population in my statement that almost universally, people feel that murdering a human is worse than murdering an animal.

Given the clarification above, do you still think my argument was flawed?

I'll stop the back and forth on the 5th point, as that was my frustration speaking rather than logic.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2021, 05:55:52 PM by ctuser1 »

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #233 on: April 08, 2021, 06:30:59 PM »
There seems to be a general pattern in our American politics that I find both infuriating and fascinating. It’s this strange dichotomy where a person can be rabidly anchored on a side of one position by using a certain logic, and then be rapidly on one side of a different position by using the exact opposite logic.

Progressives who criticize pro-lifers for "imposing their morality on other people".

I happen to disagree with the pro-life movement that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder; hence, I'm pro-choice. But I can't blame those who believe it is murder for trying to ban it; if you believe that, then trying to at least stringently restrict it is the most reasonable choice. I just disagree with the premise.

But many progressives demand that pro-lifers not take a stand against what they see as murder - while those same progressives are okay with imposing their own morality on everything from what services a charity's health plan must cover, to whether one can turn their house into a duplex or leave a rusted car on their lawn, to whom must make a wedding cake for whom, to, most obviously, what a person does with the fruits of their labor (their income) for which they traded scarce hours of their life. (Some may feel this last one belongs in a different category - but when many people have to work more hours or postpone their retirement, thus limiting their autonomy as to how they spend their limited time, for the sake of programs they may not support or may even actively abhor, I think it's a fair comparison.)

For the record, I'm not opposed to all of those laws, and I consider "people imposing their morality on one another" to be basically a definition of civilization. But many progressives are quite vehement about the "don't impose your morality on me" bit while being very heavy-handed with their own morality imposition (my impression is that they see their own impositions as reflections of The Morality not their morality, but, well, it always looks that way from the inside).

That's not to say there's anything morally inconsistent about being progressive and pro-choice, just that consistency would require saying, "Abortion should be legal because I don't see a problem with it/ I think it's not ideal but legal abortion beats the alternative; and if I can't change your mind, pro-lifer, I'll just have to beat you at the ballot box", not "I'm against people imposing morality on one another". Because unless you are legitimately a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, the second just isn't true.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2021, 06:35:31 PM by rosaz »

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #234 on: April 08, 2021, 06:34:27 PM »
India still fashions itself as a secular republic, so it is no wonder that their laws should not reflect the view of one specific religion - even the majority one. It is similar to the situation in the US, where women still have legal right to do as they choose with their body despite a strong religious sentiment against that freedom being granted to women.

Slaughtering cows is illegal in 20 out of 28 Indian states, just not nationally.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #235 on: April 08, 2021, 06:43:40 PM »
For the record, I'm not opposed to all of those laws, and I consider "people imposing their morality on one another" to be basically a definition of civilization. But many progressives are quite vehement about the "don't impose your morality on me" bit while being very heavy-handed with their own morality imposition (my impression is that they see their own impositions as reflections of The Morality not their morality, but, well, it always looks that way from the inside).

That's not to say there's anything morally inconsistent about being progressive and pro-choice, just that consistency would require saying, "Abortion should be legal because I don't see a problem with it/ I think it's not ideal but legal abortion beats the alternative; and if I can't change your mind, pro-lifer, I'll just have to beat you at the ballot box", not "I'm against people imposing morality on one another". Because unless you are legitimately a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, the second just isn't true.

For the record - I consider myself almost always a "progressive" (== change is desirable, a society that is static is better off dead) but not always a liberal (in the "liberalism" sense, "progress" should be always held accountable by it's impact on the society- in my view. if the "conservative" ideals do better in terms of their impact on the society as agreed upon by the society as reflected by democratic principles with sufficient safeguards - then that is the change we need.). I generally hate ideologies (including religious ideologies) with a passion - because they are too simplistic and are likely the single most destructive human invention.

From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2021, 06:52:46 PM by ctuser1 »

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #236 on: April 08, 2021, 06:59:27 PM »
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Amended to add: While yes, the right to bodily autonomy certainly carries higher stakes than the right to property, pro-lifers are weighing it against the right to life (which is also of course one of the most basic human rights). You may arrive at a different conclusion as to how to weigh those rights, but that doesn't mean those who disagree are guilty of over-reach.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2021, 07:05:18 PM by rosaz »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #237 on: April 08, 2021, 07:05:29 PM »
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #238 on: April 08, 2021, 07:32:27 PM »
Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.
I haven't met any such "progressive" you describe, in the wild.
You absolutely have a bloody right to practice your religion. Any progressive that demands otherwise is just as much an anti-social, almost as bad as a Trump-supporter IMO.
Is this "you" a single artisan organized as a sole-proprietorship business - same concept should apply as the individual! Nobody should force him/her to do anything against his/her conscience.
Is this "you" organized as some sort of "corporation" that takes the liability shield and the tax/other benefits from the society? Then you better make sure you comply with social norms and anti-discrimination laws. If all of your employees have a specific religious beliefs, you better hire someone else or lose your shirt in a lawsuit.
 
It's basically the fundamental human principle of "don't be a libertarian freeloader". If you take benefits from the society (liability protection, tax benefits over and above a sole-prop) then you owe some back.

Amended to add: While yes, the right to bodily autonomy certainly carries higher stakes than the right to property, pro-lifers are weighing it against the right to life (which is also of course one of the most basic human rights). You may arrive at a different conclusion as to how to weigh those rights, but that doesn't mean those who disagree are guilty of over-reach.

You are getting stuck in circular logic.

Nobody (other than themselves) gives a bloody shit what pro-lifers consider to be a "right to life". Indian cow-vigilante's are just as sincere in their belief that killing a cow is punishable by death, as are jihadi's. That is a shitty standard to organize a modern human society.

Unless you have a much wider acceptance on that value (e.g. that killing a human is really really bad), then you can impose your values inside your home, but NOT in the public square and especially NOT with the force of the law.
 

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #239 on: April 08, 2021, 07:38:52 PM »
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

Sorry for any lack of clarity in my post - as referenced, I wasn't talking about religious liberty in the context of passing laws that are, for example, pro-life; I meant in the context of the baker who wouldn't bake the cake for a gay marriage. The argument for making that illegal is that your right to practice your religion ends where discrimination begins. The pro-life argument for making abortion illegal is that your right to bodily autonomy ends where another's right to life begins. Both treat one of the basic human rights (the right to practice one's faith, the right to bodily autonomy) as less than absolute. One may well be good policy and the other bad, but I don't think you can argue that one is an illegitimate use of the law because it abrogates a human right, while approving of the other.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #240 on: April 08, 2021, 08:05:23 PM »
From this background and vantage point - you may be missing the second part of the logical jigsaw puzzle leading to progressive intransigence on this one point:
The pro-life demand is to abrogate a basic human right - the right to choose what one does with his/her body.

If it was just about property rights (like the "slavery" question, from the slave owner's perspective) - then the stakes are lower, and the weightage attached to the liberty question is much lower.

Calibrate your logical weightage with this principle that basic human rights trump other types of rights (e.g. property rights), and the perceived "progressive hypocrisy" on this topic goes away.

Ok, but ignoring the property rights examples, the freedom to practice one's religion (not as far as passing laws, but simply as far as how one's own conduct is guided) is also considered a basic human right with very high stakes, and progressives often seem pretty comfortable with abrogating that where it contradicts their own morality.

Practicing one’s religion is one thing. Trying to impose it on someone else is another.

You practice your religion. That in no way should affect my decisions.

Sorry for any lack of clarity in my post - as referenced, I wasn't talking about religious liberty in the context of passing laws that are, for example, pro-life; I meant in the context of the baker who wouldn't bake the cake for a gay marriage. The argument for making that illegal is that your right to practice your religion ends where discrimination begins. The pro-life argument for making abortion illegal is that your right to bodily autonomy ends where another's right to life begins. Both treat one of the basic human rights (the right to practice one's faith, the right to bodily autonomy) as less than absolute. One may well be good policy and the other bad, but I don't think you can argue that one is an illegitimate use of the law because it abrogates a human right, while approving of the other.

I have serious issue with your whole argument.

If bodily autonomy ends when another's right to life begins, then if I will die without a kidney and you're a match . . . I should be legally allowed to compel you to give me your kidney.  Otherwise we're being inconsistent.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #241 on: April 09, 2021, 05:30:14 AM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

Far more than 0.00000001% would like to make eating of animals illegal.   Probably even fewer than that meager percentage think it is a viable thing to propose, that it is a thing that society would collectively agree should be against the law at this time.  I am not alone in the opinion though that 100 years from now eating animals will be not only illegal, but unthinkable to most people. (In fact I think it'll be far fewer than 100 years.)  But not today.  And laws that apply to all of us should be based on things we collectively as a society agree on.

There are two separate issues with abortion: it's morality/ethicality and its legality.  Those are two separate things, just as the ethics of eating animals is separate from the legality of eating animals.

Dependency on the mother is one line of discussion, both morally/ethically and legally, but it is the only one. 

A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.

Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.

A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life."  It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life.  But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.

First, in my haste and typing on my phone I combined the 0.00001% for making murder legal with making eating animals illegal. My mistake. I mean only the first one not the second one.

The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).


No worries on the typo, it happens.  I left out the word "not" in a significant place in the post you quoted (obvious where I think from context), so I'll see you your typo and raise you mine.

You are going even farther than the argument I cited, and are claiming that every acorn is an oak tree.  I guess it could be, depending on how you define "oak tree." But it is certainly not "scientifically irrefutable" that acorns are oak trees, and most people, including most scientists, would find that definition of "oak tree" more than a little odd.

Whatever the merits of this sort of definition, it is hardly "inarguable" and "scientifically irrefutable."

Simply asserting that something cannot be argued does not make it inarguable.  "Proof by vigorous assertion" is not a valid rule of logical inference.

Most, if not all, scientists would agree that the definition of "oak tree" or "living human being" is not a scientifically addressable question.  Forms and particulars have not been considered a question of "science" since before the modern era.

I'll add two more thoughts to this. First, another reason why the analogy is imprecise and scientists would find the definition of an acorn as an oak tree as odd is that the word tree has innate connotations of maturity. They probably wouldn't call a sprouted acorn that's a few inches up a tree either, because tree has connotations of adulthood. Just like I wouldn't call even a 3 year old an adult human. I would call him a preschooler or whatnot. I'm pretty sure most scientists would say a sprouted acorn (again already on the growth cycle) is alive (because it's growing) and is an oak.

I also wanted to add that I'm not just being pedantic here. There's a reason why it's extremely important in this discussion to accurately scientifically define this situation, because hey, we all should agree with science, right?

An unborn human is by word definition distinct - as in it's not of the same DNA of the mother. It's alive by any scientific definition I know of. It's of the species of human by any scientific definition I know of.

This is so important because some (not saying everyone here or even anyone here but certainly some) pro-choice people take such a hard stance on not wanting to define an unborn human as a distinct human life (or at least dodging the issue), because it makes it easier to separate yourself from the issue. Again, we can argue if it's life worthy of rights or of the same caliber as an adult human or whatever, but those come with their own complications as I've mentioned before). That's not a fair thing to do; nor is it accurate. Pro-choicers want pro-lifers to own the fact that carrying pregnancies to term causes more risks for the mother than people want to consider. I agree pro-lifers should, and I own that. Pro-choicers need to not try to parse words or distance themselves from the reality that abortion ends a distinct human that's alive. Own it. Then we can have a legitimate discussion. Guitarstv, for example, does, and I've found his points, although he is firmly pro-choice, to be some of the most worthy of consideration of any pro-choice points.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #242 on: April 09, 2021, 05:42:50 AM »
I did mention that my response was "a bit of digression from the immediate thread of discussion", but I did not clarify exactly why. That was a gap more than a flaw in my logic - something I will try to fill.

I was not arguing that it is an accepted human value in the present day and age to equate the value of an animal life with that of a human life. I was rather showing another set of sincerely held moral values as a counterfactual that Americans would find unpalatable if it was pushed with the same zeal that the pro-life evangelicals (or the cow vigilante's that I linked above) do. The point/hope of my argument is to show that pushing a certain set of religious/moral standard with the force of legal mandates on a country as big and diverse as the US, or even a single state in the US, is a very bad idea. When the demand is as severe as abrogation of such a basic human right - the freedom to do what one chooses with his/her body - then it is a particularly terrible idea.
 
India actually bolsters my point and refutes what you're saying, and it just takes a quick google to do it. As I mentioned above, in India, killing a cow most certainly does not equal killing your mother by the fact that they are simply not punished the same. Killing a cow can get you as little as 10 years in prison. Killing a human - life in prison. Killing a cow can at most get you life in prison. Killing a human can get you the death penalty. That's just for cows, the animals whose killing is treated the harshest. For killing a dog, it's 2 years in prison. The point is, that no, 1 billion people do not equate killing a cow to killing your mother (certainly not killing any animal with it) or the punishments would line up. A fringe group like the one you mention can push for stuff, but it's not happening on a widespread scale.
My point was not that the laws make it equivalent to treat a cow's life same as a human's, but that there is a religious view that does it.

India still fashions itself as a secular republic, so it is no wonder that their laws should not reflect the view of one specific religion - even the majority one. It is similar to the situation in the US, where women still have legal right to do as they choose with their body despite a strong religious sentiment against that freedom being granted to women.

In terms of your 4th point, you can speculate all you want as to why people aren't pushing laws to make killing a deer get you life in prison. All it will be is speculating. I however am not speculating. I just gave an example of where people are not pushing for equivalency. It was simply one example. There are countless examples of where a true equivalency between animal life and human life is not being pushed by any sort of broad coalition. People apparently think it's worth the government intervening to punish a person who goes out and kills a stranger with life in prison or death as the same government only intervenes for someone doing the same thing to an animal by punishing them to a much less degree. People are not campaigning for the government to up the penalty on animal deaths, or maybe if they're that intensely anti-government intervention they would campaign to reduce the penalty for the murder of people, but that's not happening either. The fact of the matter is, you have no practical evidence on your side of me excluding a billion people or some large section of the world population in my statement that almost universally, people feel that murdering a human is worse than murdering an animal.

Given the clarification above, do you still think my argument was flawed?

I'll stop the back and forth on the 5th point, as that was my frustration speaking rather than logic.

First, I want to say, I will give this some more thought, and thanks for the clarification. I understand your point better.

Off the cuff, I would say that the Indian laws differentiating the penalty for killing a cow and killing a person seem to be less about it being a secular republic (from my very brief research) and more about there being dissension within India, even within interpretations of the Hindu religion about the true equation of killing of a person with killing of a cow. I also base this very rough estimation off of two friends I had in college who were at least nominally of the Hindu religion but who I am very certain would not have equated killing a cow with killing their mother, as you said. I know, a sample size of 2, but still. I may be completely wrong on this, but I've not seen enough to believe that truly 1 billion people believe that killing a cow equals morally killing a person.

I'll also say that I don't think that the support of a sizeable minority or even majority of the population means something is right or not. I'm pretty sure a majority of Americans at one point in time or another supported slavery or at least didn't feel it was that bad. And before you latch onto this, I'm not trying to make an argument of slavery = abortion; literally just using it to show that majority doesn't equal morality, which I imagine you agree on.

All I was trying to say about the original comments was that it's ridiculous to disparage people for being against abortion while eating meat when the overwhelming majority (even giving you 1 billion people saying killing animals is just as bad) of the world's population think that killing humans is at least worse than killing animals. That argument against pro-lifers is not an applicable argument. That's the narrow limitation of scope from what I was saying. Again, I'll have to give some more thought to the rest of what you said.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #243 on: April 09, 2021, 07:33:06 AM »
An unborn human is by word definition distinct - as in it's not of the same DNA of the mother. It's alive by any scientific definition I know of. It's of the species of human by any scientific definition I know of.

Pedantically picking a small nit here - technically sperm is also alive by any scientific definition that I know of.  The DNA it contains is a random mix of only half the DNA of the father which is unique from sperm to sperm and different than that of the father.  Nobody cares about the billions of sperm that teenage boys massacre on a regular basis though.

While certainly it could be argued that sperm is alive but not human (as it only has half the chromosome count) I'd say that a similar argument could be made that a fertilized ovum isn't necessarily human until <insert desired indicator of maturity here - brain/nervous system/heart/lungs> with the same sort of logic.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #244 on: April 09, 2021, 08:11:00 AM »
Wolfpack your are entirely right at this time laws, etc give much much higher weight to humans, while little thought to other life. I am arguing against that status quo. Especially in the case of endangered animals.

If you are going to talk about dna, consensus research shows that Chimpanzees and humans are very very close. Humans and chimpanzees are more similar genetically, than subspecies of fruit flies.

If you are going by a genetics argument, should not chimpanzees have 96% the rights of humans? Should not all mammals which are genetically very close to humans, basically sisters and brothers of humans, have some level of rights, versus to 100%- to 0? You're argument that no one cares about animals, or that of course humans life is sacred while other life is not, is extremely centric if your own religious upbringing and by no means the only religious viewpoint on this subject. And I would argue from a scientific point of view, also not supported.

Why have I been thinking of this? I was raised Greek Orthodox, and while I am not religious (I don't attend church, feel inspired by other texts in addition to the Bible such as Taoism) I still practice Lent, which involves not eating any animal matter (meat, fish, eggs, dairy). And - it made me realize that a small sacrifice on my side, means avoiding a much greater sacrifice on some other living creature's side.  If you want a Christian argument Lenten fast is done for spiritual reasons. To make you a better person. Refraining from animal products during Lent, is literally meant to bring you closer to God. Think about that. (Again, I don't think I will ever be 100% vegetarian or vegan my body seems to need some level of dairy, egg).
ALL religions and philosophies teach in one way or another, to maximize beneficence, and minimize harm. The hallmark of a good religion- philosophy I would argue is one that does that maximally (the most good, for the least harm).

 https://www.genome.gov/15515096/2005-release-new-genome-comparison-finds-chimps-humans-very-similar-at-dna-level#:~:text=The%20consortium%20found%20that%20the,is%20almost%2099%20percent%20identical.&text=At%20the%20protein%20level%2C%2029,sequences%20in%20chimps%20and%20humans.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2021, 08:21:44 AM by partgypsy »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #245 on: April 09, 2021, 02:28:24 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

Far more than 0.00000001% would like to make eating of animals illegal.   Probably even fewer than that meager percentage think it is a viable thing to propose, that it is a thing that society would collectively agree should be against the law at this time.  I am not alone in the opinion though that 100 years from now eating animals will be not only illegal, but unthinkable to most people. (In fact I think it'll be far fewer than 100 years.)  But not today.  And laws that apply to all of us should be based on things we collectively as a society agree on.

There are two separate issues with abortion: it's morality/ethicality and its legality.  Those are two separate things, just as the ethics of eating animals is separate from the legality of eating animals.

Dependency on the mother is one line of discussion, both morally/ethically and legally, but it is the only one. 

A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.

Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.

A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life."  It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life.  But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.

First, in my haste and typing on my phone I combined the 0.00001% for making murder legal with making eating animals illegal. My mistake. I mean only the first one not the second one.

The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).


No worries on the typo, it happens.  I left out the word "not" in a significant place in the post you quoted (obvious where I think from context), so I'll see you your typo and raise you mine.

You are going even farther than the argument I cited, and are claiming that every acorn is an oak tree.  I guess it could be, depending on how you define "oak tree." But it is certainly not "scientifically irrefutable" that acorns are oak trees, and most people, including most scientists, would find that definition of "oak tree" more than a little odd.

Whatever the merits of this sort of definition, it is hardly "inarguable" and "scientifically irrefutable."

Simply asserting that something cannot be argued does not make it inarguable.  "Proof by vigorous assertion" is not a valid rule of logical inference.

Most, if not all, scientists would agree that the definition of "oak tree" or "living human being" is not a scientifically addressable question.  Forms and particulars have not been considered a question of "science" since before the modern era.

I should have addressed your acorn/oak tree analogy earlier. It seems to be a flawed analogy. It's about plants not animals. This is important because you have something very specific in plants that doesn't happen with animals - that of seeds.

It seems you're talking about potential versus something actualized. Yes, unborn humans do not have the same functionality as born people (and certainly adults) and have much more on the potential side of things than the actualized side. However, back to your analogy, the flaw to me is that an acorn is pure, 100% potential, separated from the life and growth process. That's why the analogy doesn't compute. An acorn can sit on a shelf and never be put into the ground to grow - it's not actively alive. At conception, the new DNA is present, and it's actively moving on with growth. It's already in the life cycle in a way that an acorn on a shelf may possibly never be if it stays up on the shelf. That unborn human can have something go wrong with it somewhere along the process of growth. It can then stop growing and die. In which case it would no longer be human life because the life part is out of the equation.

You're claiming I'm saying it's inarguable because of circular reasoning - that it's inarguable because it's inarguable. That's not it at all. I'm saying it's inarguable because there are simply no scientific arguments to refute it, and I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary in terms of specifically definable words - not a polling of people whose biases would come into play; just the actual words used and definitions for them. Scientists might say that the definition of a "living human being" is undefinable, but that's because it's merging with philosophy.

An unborn human is human life, and not just that, it's distinct, human life based on the definitions of the words. It's of the species of human. It's distance DNA wise, a separate, unique individual from its mother. It's life - it's living, growing, an active part of the cycle of growth. If people want to say it's not distinct, human life, they are going to have to reach outside of these very basic definitions to do so. That's why it's inarguable. I don't mean to be snarky, but if people want to mean something besides what comes out of those three words, they should use different words.

I 100% agree with you that science can only give so much input on it. However, they are completely able to give input that an unborn human is distinct, human life. They are not equipped to comment beyond that. People can say it's not of the same quality of human life, of the same worth of human life, of the same caliber or type of human life - but then, again, where do we make the distinction? Babies are totally reliant on their parents - at a different phase of the life cycle but certainly still not of the same caliber as a fully adult, self-sufficient person.

All of this can be argued, but it helps to start at a similar basic framework, and I have not seen any reasoning for why the label of distinct, human life can be taken away from an unborn human.

My original analogy was a *sprouted* acorn.   I removed the sprouted part because you appeared to be saying that simply having a distinct set of human DNA was sufficient to be a full human being. If that's all you need, then the analogy works just fine. Every acorn has a distinct set of oak tree DNA.

I only removed the *sprouted* condition because it seemed like you were doing so. Much if not all of your objection above applies to the acorn being unsprouted.

So:  Ok, so let's sprout it. Is it an oak tree then?

As for the rest:  I don't mean to be harsh, but you are either being or unintentionally giving the impression of being (based on what I know of you so far, I assume the latter) intellectually dishonest about your use of "inarguable" and "irrefutable".   If by those words you mean what you seem to be saying the second time, then I agree with you.  Science does not and cannot argue that a fetus is not a living human being, nor does it nor can it refute the claim that a fetus is a living human being, because those sorts of claims are not scientifically addressable..  If you mean that the question of whether or not a fetus is a living human being is not a scientific question, and cannot be addressed by science, and that science does not and cannot establish whether it is or isn't, then we are in agreement.   But if that is what you really mean, that is not what you gave the impression of meaning in the original quote.

If it is not a scientific question, that also means that science does not and cannot argue that a fetus is a living human being, nor does it nor can it refute the claim that a fetus is not a living human being.

You said:

<<The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).>>

The wording of this, as it would normally be understood, indicates that you are saying that science irrefutably demonstrates that human life begins at conception.   To say that something is "irrefutable in scientific terms" would normally be taken to mean that the scientific evidence FOR the claim is conclusive. Within the context in which this statement was made, even moreso.

Likewise "it cannot be argued that it's not life" would normally be taken to mean that the claim that it is life is so abundantly established that it is scientifically absurd to think otherwise.

You do not appear to be taking the position that science is agnostic about this question in general, and you cannot possibly be so naive as to not know what your phrasing means in ordinary English. 

If this is all just a matter of disagreement as to phrasing and language, which most disagreements in this world seem to be, the remedy is easy, even if not all that popular in this world with regard to controversial things. Natural language relies on context and nuance and etc. That's what makes poetry fun but it sure leads to plenty of pointless controversies.  Language can be unclear, so just clarify the language and come to agreement about what is really meant and move on.

So: is the point at which human life begins a question science does or can answer?

Sorry about missing the sprouting acorn part from before in your comments. I mean to address the issue with even a sprouted oak but forgot. The difference is in the nuance of tree having connotations of adulthood. We typically wouldn't call a sprouted acorn a tree because the word tree has connotations of maturity. I do think we could very rationally call it an oak and call it alive just like we would call an infant an infant human and alive but not an adult. So, no, I wouldn't call a sprouted acorn an oak tree, but I certainly would say it's an oak and it's alive.

Thanks for the explanation. I believe I see how I was unclear and chose poorly in my wording. I would say this, there is absolutely nothing inarguable philosophically - that's kind of the point :-), but there are certain things that we are on pretty solid ground scientifically. Inarguable even on a scientific standpoint is probably a poor term because science tries to continually improve and learn, so even previous thought certainties can be deemed incorrect. So, inarguable or irrefutable were poor choices to begin with.

Hopefully, this will make my point clearer. To break down human life, human would mean of the species of homo sapien. It would seem hard to argue scientifically that an unborn child is not of our species. It would seem to me that by all scientific definitions of what life is that I have seen, an unborn human meets them all. It is growing, takes in energy, self repairing, etc. So, yes, science can answer the question of at which point human life begins - with the caveat that it can only do it scientifically in scientific terms - but it can answer it, if not inarguably :-), then at least on pretty solid ground.

What it means to be really human is also a philosophical question, and that's what is debatable and has been discussed in everything from science fiction books about programmed robots to any number of other things. Science cannot speak to this. This is what I was alluding to about what rationally be debated - whether or not an unborn human is a "worthwhile" life or of "what caliber" of human life it is, and so on. That's debatable because that's philosophy.

The reason this issue is so much on my mind is because I feel that when people argue against calling an unborn human - human life or when they are adamant in arguing against pro-lifers who say that abortion is ending a human life, it's because, ultimately, they want to distance themselves from unborn humans. They want to make them an "other." Not worthy or worthwhile - and history has shown it's much easier to do that when you try to dehumanize the person first. Numerous atrocities have occurred because a certain group of people have been made out to be "other than me," and, as I see it, unborn humans have been put into that category to make things easier. If the topic of abortion is discussed rationally and thought about, I can't fathom how it can't at least be a gut-wrenching decision on whichever side you come on. Pro-life people often do a poor job of empathizing with the mother. They tend to focus on consequences of having sex and all that, but I do know that I can only imagine how terrifying it must be to be in many situations that surround abortions. On the flip side, pro-choicers, in my view, often do a poor job of realizing the seriousness of the allowance that a mother can end a human life. It's treated with a cliche her body her choice, which is an oversimplification because of the very thing we're talking about. It's her body yes, but it's her body in that it's supporting another human life, distinct from her. I think the wording and avoiding the concept of the unborn human being an actual, real, human life is done to make it easier to wash one's hands of the seriousness of the issue.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #246 on: April 09, 2021, 02:39:29 PM »
Wolfpack your are entirely right at this time laws, etc give much much higher weight to humans, while little thought to other life. I am arguing against that status quo. Especially in the case of endangered animals.

If you are going to talk about dna, consensus research shows that Chimpanzees and humans are very very close. Humans and chimpanzees are more similar genetically, than subspecies of fruit flies.

If you are going by a genetics argument, should not chimpanzees have 96% the rights of humans? Should not all mammals which are genetically very close to humans, basically sisters and brothers of humans, have some level of rights, versus to 100%- to 0? You're argument that no one cares about animals, or that of course humans life is sacred while other life is not, is extremely centric if your own religious upbringing and by no means the only religious viewpoint on this subject. And I would argue from a scientific point of view, also not supported.

Why have I been thinking of this? I was raised Greek Orthodox, and while I am not religious (I don't attend church, feel inspired by other texts in addition to the Bible such as Taoism) I still practice Lent, which involves not eating any animal matter (meat, fish, eggs, dairy). And - it made me realize that a small sacrifice on my side, means avoiding a much greater sacrifice on some other living creature's side.  If you want a Christian argument Lenten fast is done for spiritual reasons. To make you a better person. Refraining from animal products during Lent, is literally meant to bring you closer to God. Think about that. (Again, I don't think I will ever be 100% vegetarian or vegan my body seems to need some level of dairy, egg).
ALL religions and philosophies teach in one way or another, to maximize beneficence, and minimize harm. The hallmark of a good religion- philosophy I would argue is one that does that maximally (the most good, for the least harm).

 https://www.genome.gov/15515096/2005-release-new-genome-comparison-finds-chimps-humans-very-similar-at-dna-level#:~:text=The%20consortium%20found%20that%20the,is%20almost%2099%20percent%20identical.&text=At%20the%20protein%20level%2C%2029,sequences%20in%20chimps%20and%20humans.

Thank you for your measured and informative feedback. I don't feel that I have made the argument that no one cares about animals - just that there's a significant general consensus that taking human life is worse than taking animal life. If I gave the impression that I think no one cares about animals (myself included) that was not my intent. I was raised with a rural farming background - in that context, animals were both less and more appreciated than in other people's views in general at the time I was raised. They were both viewed utilitarianly - in terms of what value they could bring to you through milk, eggs, etc. but also valued and humanized in some ways as much or maybe more so than some people today view them.

I can speak for me personally that I am pained by the loss of life of animals not related to food - from me not being able to avoid a squirrel on the road to hunting done purely for sport. That being said, I still kill bugs if they're eating up a fruit tree I have in my yard or wasps if they make a nest at my house, even if they're not directly attacking me. I think reducing meat consumption is a positive for society, but I don't do it very well in my life - although I do eat less meat than I did in my childhood. I'm a mess of contradictions, but it is something I put thought into and wrestle with.

EvenSteven

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
  • Location: St. Louis
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #247 on: April 09, 2021, 02:43:42 PM »
an unborn human (aka fetus) is not a legally recognized human. It is not a citizen nor does it have the rights of a citizen or borned person. In the same way people who are vegetarians are horrified that we are killing alive sentient beings (pigs, cows, etc) who can be scientifically shown to to be clearly aware, feel pain, communicate that pain, have emotions (while these are not necessarily true for a first, 2nd trimester fetus). In the same way an abortion video would be disturbing, it is also disturbing to see invasive surgeries, or to see animals slaughtered and hung up for food.

Killing animals to eat them is legal. So, vegetarians and vegans then, for themselves make the decision not to partake. However at this time they cannot legally coerce other people from eating meat.

While I am not a vegetarian I am trying to eat less meat. And I honestly do not get why "humans" get extra elevated rights, even to the extent that the pro life crowd are disturbed by abortions yet having pig pickings. I can only surmise the reason is not based on science and reality, but one  belief that humans are "special" the only ones with souls etc. We are a country that people are free to practice a religion, or not practice a religion. Basing the right to abortion and other reproductive access such as birth control on religious reasons (and a particular subset of a religion aka evangelical or fundamentalist christianity) is entirely wrong decision for the United States and for what our constitution states.

To try to throw a question of why humans get elevated rights in for this discussion is ridiculous and requires absolutely no tie in to any specific religion to refute. We're talking about ending a human life here. Unless you're part of some 0.0000001% of people that want murder of humans made legal or eating of animals illegal, you're whole line of logic has absolutely no application. An unborn human is a distinctive human from a DNA standpoint. The only line of discussion that makes any case whatsoever that abortions aren't morally abhorrent is the dependency of the unborn on the mother.

Far more than 0.00000001% would like to make eating of animals illegal.   Probably even fewer than that meager percentage think it is a viable thing to propose, that it is a thing that society would collectively agree should be against the law at this time.  I am not alone in the opinion though that 100 years from now eating animals will be not only illegal, but unthinkable to most people. (In fact I think it'll be far fewer than 100 years.)  But not today.  And laws that apply to all of us should be based on things we collectively as a society agree on.

There are two separate issues with abortion: it's morality/ethicality and its legality.  Those are two separate things, just as the ethics of eating animals is separate from the legality of eating animals.

Dependency on the mother is one line of discussion, both morally/ethically and legally, but it is the only one. 

A fetus is no more a human being than a sprouted acorn is an oak tree.

Whatever you may think of the sentence above, most people would agree with it unless their religion tells them otherwise, and even a lot of people whose religion tells them otherwise would agree with it.

A lot of people, I daresay the majority in this country, would agree that while abortion is not a trivial or frivolous thing, it is most certainly not "ending a human life."  It is clearly ending a process leading to a human life.  But the idea that life begins at conception is one hard to establish apart from certain religion's doctrines, and we are not supposed to be legislating religion in this country.

First, in my haste and typing on my phone I combined the 0.00001% for making murder legal with making eating animals illegal. My mistake. I mean only the first one not the second one.

The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).


No worries on the typo, it happens.  I left out the word "not" in a significant place in the post you quoted (obvious where I think from context), so I'll see you your typo and raise you mine.

You are going even farther than the argument I cited, and are claiming that every acorn is an oak tree.  I guess it could be, depending on how you define "oak tree." But it is certainly not "scientifically irrefutable" that acorns are oak trees, and most people, including most scientists, would find that definition of "oak tree" more than a little odd.

Whatever the merits of this sort of definition, it is hardly "inarguable" and "scientifically irrefutable."

Simply asserting that something cannot be argued does not make it inarguable.  "Proof by vigorous assertion" is not a valid rule of logical inference.

Most, if not all, scientists would agree that the definition of "oak tree" or "living human being" is not a scientifically addressable question.  Forms and particulars have not been considered a question of "science" since before the modern era.

I should have addressed your acorn/oak tree analogy earlier. It seems to be a flawed analogy. It's about plants not animals. This is important because you have something very specific in plants that doesn't happen with animals - that of seeds.

It seems you're talking about potential versus something actualized. Yes, unborn humans do not have the same functionality as born people (and certainly adults) and have much more on the potential side of things than the actualized side. However, back to your analogy, the flaw to me is that an acorn is pure, 100% potential, separated from the life and growth process. That's why the analogy doesn't compute. An acorn can sit on a shelf and never be put into the ground to grow - it's not actively alive. At conception, the new DNA is present, and it's actively moving on with growth. It's already in the life cycle in a way that an acorn on a shelf may possibly never be if it stays up on the shelf. That unborn human can have something go wrong with it somewhere along the process of growth. It can then stop growing and die. In which case it would no longer be human life because the life part is out of the equation.

You're claiming I'm saying it's inarguable because of circular reasoning - that it's inarguable because it's inarguable. That's not it at all. I'm saying it's inarguable because there are simply no scientific arguments to refute it, and I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary in terms of specifically definable words - not a polling of people whose biases would come into play; just the actual words used and definitions for them. Scientists might say that the definition of a "living human being" is undefinable, but that's because it's merging with philosophy.

An unborn human is human life, and not just that, it's distinct, human life based on the definitions of the words. It's of the species of human. It's distance DNA wise, a separate, unique individual from its mother. It's life - it's living, growing, an active part of the cycle of growth. If people want to say it's not distinct, human life, they are going to have to reach outside of these very basic definitions to do so. That's why it's inarguable. I don't mean to be snarky, but if people want to mean something besides what comes out of those three words, they should use different words.

I 100% agree with you that science can only give so much input on it. However, they are completely able to give input that an unborn human is distinct, human life. They are not equipped to comment beyond that. People can say it's not of the same quality of human life, of the same worth of human life, of the same caliber or type of human life - but then, again, where do we make the distinction? Babies are totally reliant on their parents - at a different phase of the life cycle but certainly still not of the same caliber as a fully adult, self-sufficient person.

All of this can be argued, but it helps to start at a similar basic framework, and I have not seen any reasoning for why the label of distinct, human life can be taken away from an unborn human.

My original analogy was a *sprouted* acorn.   I removed the sprouted part because you appeared to be saying that simply having a distinct set of human DNA was sufficient to be a full human being. If that's all you need, then the analogy works just fine. Every acorn has a distinct set of oak tree DNA.

I only removed the *sprouted* condition because it seemed like you were doing so. Much if not all of your objection above applies to the acorn being unsprouted.

So:  Ok, so let's sprout it. Is it an oak tree then?

As for the rest:  I don't mean to be harsh, but you are either being or unintentionally giving the impression of being (based on what I know of you so far, I assume the latter) intellectually dishonest about your use of "inarguable" and "irrefutable".   If by those words you mean what you seem to be saying the second time, then I agree with you.  Science does not and cannot argue that a fetus is not a living human being, nor does it nor can it refute the claim that a fetus is a living human being, because those sorts of claims are not scientifically addressable..  If you mean that the question of whether or not a fetus is a living human being is not a scientific question, and cannot be addressed by science, and that science does not and cannot establish whether it is or isn't, then we are in agreement.   But if that is what you really mean, that is not what you gave the impression of meaning in the original quote.

If it is not a scientific question, that also means that science does not and cannot argue that a fetus is a living human being, nor does it nor can it refute the claim that a fetus is not a living human being.

You said:

<<The idea of a new human life beginning at conception is irrefutable in scientific terms. A new set of DNA - an entirely different organism from the mother is created at conception. It cannot be argued that it's not life. It cannot be argued that it's not human (as in the species).>>

The wording of this, as it would normally be understood, indicates that you are saying that science irrefutably demonstrates that human life begins at conception.   To say that something is "irrefutable in scientific terms" would normally be taken to mean that the scientific evidence FOR the claim is conclusive. Within the context in which this statement was made, even moreso.

Likewise "it cannot be argued that it's not life" would normally be taken to mean that the claim that it is life is so abundantly established that it is scientifically absurd to think otherwise.

You do not appear to be taking the position that science is agnostic about this question in general, and you cannot possibly be so naive as to not know what your phrasing means in ordinary English. 

If this is all just a matter of disagreement as to phrasing and language, which most disagreements in this world seem to be, the remedy is easy, even if not all that popular in this world with regard to controversial things. Natural language relies on context and nuance and etc. That's what makes poetry fun but it sure leads to plenty of pointless controversies.  Language can be unclear, so just clarify the language and come to agreement about what is really meant and move on.

So: is the point at which human life begins a question science does or can answer?

Sorry about missing the sprouting acorn part from before in your comments. I mean to address the issue with even a sprouted oak but forgot. The difference is in the nuance of tree having connotations of adulthood. We typically wouldn't call a sprouted acorn a tree because the word tree has connotations of maturity. I do think we could very rationally call it an oak and call it alive just like we would call an infant an infant human and alive but not an adult. So, no, I wouldn't call a sprouted acorn an oak tree, but I certainly would say it's an oak and it's alive.

There is at least some irony in you making the point above in the same comment that you call an embryo a child.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #248 on: April 09, 2021, 03:00:21 PM »
Sorry about missing the sprouting acorn part from before in your comments. I mean to address the issue with even a sprouted oak but forgot. The difference is in the nuance of tree having connotations of adulthood. We typically wouldn't call a sprouted acorn a tree because the word tree has connotations of maturity. I do think we could very rationally call it an oak and call it alive just like we would call an infant an infant human and alive but not an adult. So, no, I wouldn't call a sprouted acorn an oak tree, but I certainly would say it's an oak and it's alive.

Thanks for the explanation. I believe I see how I was unclear and chose poorly in my wording. I would say this, there is absolutely nothing inarguable philosophically - that's kind of the point :-), but there are certain things that we are on pretty solid ground scientifically. Inarguable even on a scientific standpoint is probably a poor term because science tries to continually improve and learn, so even previous thought certainties can be deemed incorrect. So, inarguable or irrefutable were poor choices to begin with.

Hopefully, this will make my point clearer. To break down human life, human would mean of the species of homo sapien. It would seem hard to argue scientifically that an unborn child is not of our species. It would seem to me that by all scientific definitions of what life is that I have seen, an unborn human meets them all. It is growing, takes in energy, self repairing, etc. So, yes, science can answer the question of at which point human life begins - with the caveat that it can only do it scientifically in scientific terms - but it can answer it, if not inarguably :-), then at least on pretty solid ground.

What it means to be really human is also a philosophical question, and that's what is debatable and has been discussed in everything from science fiction books about programmed robots to any number of other things. Science cannot speak to this. This is what I was alluding to about what rationally be debated - whether or not an unborn human is a "worthwhile" life or of "what caliber" of human life it is, and so on. That's debatable because that's philosophy.

The reason this issue is so much on my mind is because I feel that when people argue against calling an unborn human - human life or when they are adamant in arguing against pro-lifers who say that abortion is ending a human life, it's because, ultimately, they want to distance themselves from unborn humans. They want to make them an "other." Not worthy or worthwhile - and history has shown it's much easier to do that when you try to dehumanize the person first. Numerous atrocities have occurred because a certain group of people have been made out to be "other than me," and, as I see it, unborn humans have been put into that category to make things easier. If the topic of abortion is discussed rationally and thought about, I can't fathom how it can't at least be a gut-wrenching decision on whichever side you come on. Pro-life people often do a poor job of empathizing with the mother. They tend to focus on consequences of having sex and all that, but I do know that I can only imagine how terrifying it must be to be in many situations that surround abortions. On the flip side, pro-choicers, in my view, often do a poor job of realizing the seriousness of the allowance that a mother can end a human life. It's treated with a cliche her body her choice, which is an oversimplification because of the very thing we're talking about. It's her body yes, but it's her body in that it's supporting another human life, distinct from her. I think the wording and avoiding the concept of the unborn human being an actual, real, human life is done to make it easier to wash one's hands of the seriousness of the issue.
You seem to be breaking the definition of "living human" into two distinct parts.  The "living" and the "human".

I agree, "alive" has an arguably pretty clear definition most would agree on.  So a sprouted acorn would definitely meet most people's definition of "alive" and so would a fetus I think.

So you are on pretty clear and solid ground with the "living" part I think.

Considering the "human" part you address the sprouted acorn analogy by stating "tree" has a certain connotation of maturity.  So I would agree that a sprouted acorn would not normally be called an "oak tree" by many people.

On the other hand "human" also has certain connotations.  Your suggestion that "human" simply means anything that has a complete set of distinct human DNA I think is an attempt to simply ignore the connotations the word has.  I think it is disingenuous to consider the connotations of "tree" and ignore the connotations of "human" when convenient.

I don't know of anyone who would consider a severed hand a "human" yet it contains a complete set of human DNA.  So why should a single cell of distinct human DNA be considered a "human"?   

If you want accuracy of terms, particularly when talking in scientific terms as you seem to be suggesting people do, I think perhaps you should use the actual scientific terms already in use.  Such words as zygote (a single cell of uniquely distinct human DNA), embryo (early multi-cell stage of uniquely distinct human DNA), and fetus (embryo that has reached the 11th week of gestation).

Further, I don't know of any pro-choice person on this board that has argued an "unborn human" is less worthy of rights or less "calibre" of a human or is not a "worthwhile" life.  In fact many of specifically stated there is no reason at all to give any fewer rights to an "unborn human" or to treat them any differently.  They have simply argued that the "unborn human" not be given any more rights, or be considered more worthy, or considered a higher calibre human than anyone else.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Pro-life but not pro-mask, and other dichotomies
« Reply #249 on: April 09, 2021, 03:03:24 PM »
On the flip side, pro-choicers, in my view, often do a poor job of realizing the seriousness of the allowance that a mother can end a human life. It's treated with a cliche her body her choice, which is an oversimplification because of the very thing we're talking about. It's her body yes, but it's her body in that it's supporting another human life, distinct from her. I think the wording and avoiding the concept of the unborn human being an actual, real, human life is done to make it easier to wash one's hands of the seriousness of the issue.

A woman opting to have an abortion is the only "pro-choice" person who matter - right? Have you ever met any such woman who does not display any care or connection in the world for the fetus in her?

I think I mentioned upthread about a colleague who had to undergo late term partial birth abortion for her dead fetus - a "boy" for who she already had the nursery ready - and that she went into depression and dropped out of her (rather lucrative and very well-paying) career for 4-5 years. Is it your position that a random "pro-life" bible-thumping weirdo would empathize more with her dead fetus and should have more of a say on what medical procedure she may or may not be able to undergo?

I am sure psychopathic women exist, even those who can overcome their biological urges and feel no connection to the fetus they may be carrying. Is it your intention to use those examples to restrict the basic human rights of all women?

No sire! I don't think you are thinking this through. The lack of human empathy among the pro-life people is the ONLY real problem we are dealing with here!


 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!