I don't think our ability to reason is so special. My example of Alex the parrot still stands, maybe they can't do it as well as us but they can still manage it. Dogs have the same ability to puzzle solve as a ~4 year old. Apes have figured out how to use sticks to get ants, using their powers of reason or not? This blurs the line even more, at least according to your definition, since they can both reason and are genetically similar to us. Again, we stand out but we're not alone. Are all flying birds eagles? Are all amiphibians frogs? A single characteristic, no matter how much we excel, does not seem to qualify it. Are great athletes separate species? Walker, a famous NZ runner and gold medal winner, was also genetically different, having an abnormally large heart. New species? He excels, reasons and has a major genetic difference.
The examples you use are not synonymous with human reason, a trait unique to us. These animals are intelligent enough to be able to use simple tools/solve basic puzzles etc. this is really just their instinct helping them to perform a task (notice that your dog will perform a trick for you; it isn't reasoning whether or not it should do it, it's simply saying "if I do this, then I will receive praise/a cookie". They don't take the discussion any further than that). If animals were able to reason, they'd have formed actual civilizations and advanced just as we did. We are the only creature able to ask, to wonder about life itself.
Note that reason isn't the only thing separating us from other animals; in my opinion it is simply the most important one.
Yes, but they were simply an example. Some people I've talked to before have defined a human by the number of chromosomes (and one idiot by the number of cells).
Again, I feel that you are missing the point. Cancer is not the norm (though it is tragically common these days). In a normally functioning person, DNA is very ordered. I'm not sure how to explain this again. Also, white blood cells destroy pathogens; they can't stop a mutation of any kind from occurring - this happens at the nuclear level.
But to steer myself back on topic, what is the norm? Blue eyes were a mutation that deviated thousands of years ago, should they mean that you're not human (I hope not, I have them)? Now they are an accepted norm. White skin is a mutation, now a norm. Are all mutations disorders? No, Walker's one was an advantage. Should they result in our removal from the human race? How much difference is necessary?
This entire thing may sound a bit like I'm trolling but I believe that this way of defining humanity, whilst perfectly acceptable as an opinion, is on very shaky ground in my book.
Say you have three of the same car, say, a Viper, but each car is painted differently. You wouldn't say "well, the red one is a Viper, but since those two aren't colored the same, they must be different cars." In the same way, humans are different from one another, but we are all the same species. There really is no use in declaring one type of human as "the norm" either (the most recent example being Hitler). Yes, mutations happen and add new traits to the gene pool. No, it doesn't change the fact that we are human beings. What I'm trying to say is that there is no norm besides one undeniable similarity between us: our DNA. We're all different from one another, and yet we are all the same. Think about all the different varieties of dog there are. They're all still dogs.
Why force another unwanted baby into the world due to a silly accident. The life of an unwanted or resented child can be full of more pain than any abortion can cause.
So if I make a sandcastle, I have to keep it? I'm not within my rights to knock it over? Here's the impasse: he thinks it is or may as well be dead. You think there's something that makes it (a lot) more worthwhile than a sandcastle. Your response here didn't engage his point at all-- which is why my comparison to a sandcastle works; I made it, so I have to keep it. That view moves from ridiculous to plausible when you assume what he just denied, that the fetus should be considered as a person. Just asserting your point doesn't really do much.
^^ <--- See that? that means I was smiling and/or laughing means I wasn't serious, means I was only thinking it's ironic of people doing it instead of nature, means that I'm not a dumba## -_-''
( -_-'' <---means frustrated by attempts of smarta#s-ness)
And a heart-beat is relevant how? A large number of animals have a heart-beat, and we kill them all the time. I'm not a vegetarian, but a heart-beat isn't a very good criteria. As I said before, I think you can make a very solid argument for aborting a fetus which has never possessed any brain activity. (At 6 weeks or younger.)
Why force another unwanted baby into the world due to a silly accident. The life of an unwanted or resented child can be full of more pain than any abortion can cause.
So if I make a sandcastle, I have to keep it? I'm not within my rights to knock it over? Here's the impasse: he thinks it is or may as well be dead. You think there's something that makes it (a lot) more worthwhile than a sandcastle. Your response here didn't engage his point at all-- which is why my comparison to a sandcastle works; I made it, so I have to keep it. That view moves from ridiculous to plausible when you assume what he just denied, that the fetus should be considered as a person. Just asserting your point doesn't really do much.
If it was never alive then how is it a doctor can kill it. A lot of people use terms like "get rid" but you are in fact killing a baby. You're DNA has been mapped out from the moment of conception. Just because you're alive in your mother's womb doesn't mean you're not alive. At what exact point do you believe a fetus becomes a baby? When it is born? It has a heartbeat a long time before that. Also, in the case of rape victims, I don't believe the baby should be punished for the crimes of the father. However I'm a man so I can never say for sure that's how I'd feel if it happened to me.
I have two beautiful kids, and I can't look at them and imagine what life would be like if they weren't there. The thing that gets me, however, is I could have had them killed. Legally. Those two awesome kids would never have been born had some circumstance came into my wife and I's life where we didn't want them, just for that reason. Not wanting them.
No, I don't support most abortion, only in extreme circumstances.
I have two beautiful kids, and I can't look at them and imagine what life would be like if they weren't there. The thing that gets me, however, is I could have had them killed. Legally. Those two awesome kids would never have been born had some circumstance came into my wife and I's life where we didn't want them, just for that reason. Not wanting them.
Of course you love your kids. However, if you had aborted one of your children, and had another child later, so that you still had two children, you'd probably love your latter child as much as you love your current children. Most people will only raise a certain number of children in their life time, so if they're forced to have a child due to abortion being illegal, that doesn't mean that the law disallowing abortion helped bring a wonderful bundle of joy into the world. No, the law simply forced the parent(s) to have a child sooner than they would have chosen to. Whether abortion is legal or not, it's not significantly impacting the number of wonderful children in the world. Finally, overpopulation will probably be a problem some day (I think so, at least, unless European countries are having negative growth, I forget whether or not that's true.) You see it in China. You're arguing that more people are good (because your children are wonderful, and it'd be a tragedy if they did not exist), but once overpopulation becomes a problem, that's no longer true. Overpopulation can cause a decrease in happiness, and if you don't think happiness matters, then you're saying that an infinitely large population that's infinitely unhappy is better than a limited population of happy people.
Of course you love your kids. However, if you had aborted one of your children, and had another child later, so that you still had two children, you'd probably love your latter child as much as you love your current children. Most people will only raise a certain number of children in their life time, so if they're forced to have a child due to abortion being illegal, that doesn't mean that the law disallowing abortion helped bring a wonderful bundle of joy into the world. No, the law simply forced the parent(s) to have a child sooner than they would have chosen to. Whether abortion is legal or not, it's not significantly impacting the number of wonderful children in the world. Finally, overpopulation will probably be a problem some day (I think so, at least, unless European countries are having negative growth, I forget whether or not that's true.) You see it in China. You're arguing that more people are good (because your children are wonderful, and it'd be a tragedy if they did not exist), but once overpopulation becomes a problem, that's no longer true. Overpopulation can cause a decrease in happiness, and if you don't think happiness matters, then you're saying that an infinitely large population that's infinitely unhappy is better than a limited population of happy people.
Overpopulation isn't as big a problem as you make it out to be, at least not for a long while. The bigger problem is allocation of resources to help those in affected areas, but birth rates around the world have been on a decline for at least 40 years if I'm not mistaken. Also, I never said more people were good, I was just talking about my two kids, not the entire globe.
Also, maybe I shouldn't have made it so personal, as experience doesn't make my thoughts more relevant than anyone else's, the only thing experience gives me is the thought that I would not have kids if I "just didn't feel like it". That's the whole thing about abortion I don't like, are the people that refuse to practice safe sex and the people who see the abortion clinic as a birth control method.
You make kind of a jump by saying "overpopulation can cause a decrease in happiness, and if you don't think happiness matters...", to which I would respond:
1. Yes, it can, "can" being the key word.
2. I do think happiness matters.
If we're going to make jumps to conclusions, I could very well say your post makes it sound like abortion is a good method of controlling overpopulation, as this seems to be your main bone of contention, which would be a ridiculous and disgusting thing to think.
The examples you use are not synonymous with human reason, a trait unique to us. These animals are intelligent enough to be able to use simple tools/solve basic puzzles etc. this is really just their instinct helping them to perform a task (notice that your dog will perform a trick for you; it isn't reasoning whether or not it should do it, it's simply saying "if I do this, then I will receive praise/a cookie". They don't take the discussion any further than that). If animals were able to reason, they'd have formed actual civilizations and advanced just as we did. We are the only creature able to ask, to wonder about life itself.
Other animals form social groups, to me that is the same as a civilisation on a small scale. Sure, it doesn't span a nation but size seems to be the only distinguishing factor between the two.
Advanced as we did? Technologically? I think I need some clarification here.
You highlight parts of us that are reasonable without remembering that which is not. Our irrational hatreds, homophobia racism and sexism, our self-destructive nature, vices like greed and drugs, petty social rules that no-one dares to break, leaving some food to show you apreachiated it in some cultures or the opposite in others.
Have we risen above these? No, we still operate on a fear/favour level like other animals, we garb it as justice, religion or social norms but it is the same as animals. Why turn on a light switch? For reward. Why go to work? For reward. Why not kill someone? For fear of punishment, be it from your conscience, social stygma or a judical system, it is what holds us back.
This is not merely the perrogative of the small minded, martyrs for their religion anticipate a reward and they are remembered as heroes. Socrates, considered a great philosopher, accepted martyrdom in the belief that he could not abandon his divine mission from the oracle at Delphi (Apollo's messenger). Reward and punishment.
cowbell40 said:
Again, I feel that you are missing the point. Cancer is not the norm (though it is tragically common these days). In a normally functioning person, DNA is very ordered. I'm not sure how to explain this again. Also, white blood cells destroy pathogens; they can't stop a mutation of any kind from occurring - this happens at the nuclear level.
I apologise for that tangent, I was really just making a point that mutations are common and not necessarily distinguishing, another reason for me not liking dna as a distinguishing factor.
White blood cells do destroy cancerous cells though if it causes the outside proteins (anitgens) to change shape and make the cell appear different from the rest of your tissues (like a pathogen) or if they damage surrounding cells and those cells release histamine (I'm a bio nerd). So you are right, they can't stop it from happening, they just mop up the mess.
Say you have three of the same car, say, a Viper, but each car is painted differently. You wouldn't say "well, the red one is a Viper, but since those two aren't colored the same, they must be different cars." In the same way, humans are different from one another, but we are all the same species. There really is no use in declaring one type of human as "the norm" either (the most recent example being Hitler). Yes, mutations happen and add new traits to the gene pool. No, it doesn't change the fact that we are human beings. What I'm trying to say is that there is no norm besides one undeniable similarity between us: our DNA. We're all different from one another, and yet we are all the same. Think about all the different varieties of dog there are. They're all still dogs.
And we have arrived at Godwin's Law Sorry, I'm just surprised how often that comes true. Must be because the nazis are very good examples for just about everything.
Being serious now, how far do we have to change to be a new species is my point. Those dogs are very similar but we're very similar to apes. Look at the following.
Where do you draw the line? I know I can't. Which of these are humans? I don't know. This is why I don't like using dna to measure a man. Not only does it, as you said, open up eugenics but it raises the question as to whether any of the above are brothers or sub-human or if they are animals.
Sorry for the image dump by the way but it illustrates the point (no pun intended).
Why force another unwanted baby into the world due to a silly accident. The life of an unwanted or resented child can be full of more pain than any abortion can cause.
So if I make a sandcastle, I have to keep it? I'm not within my rights to knock it over? Here's the impasse: he thinks it is or may as well be dead. You think there's something that makes it (a lot) more worthwhile than a sandcastle. Your response here didn't engage his point at all-- which is why my comparison to a sandcastle works; I made it, so I have to keep it. That view moves from ridiculous to plausible when you assume what he just denied, that the fetus should be considered as a person. Just asserting your point doesn't really do much.
Why is it a mistake? After all, it might as well be dead, there's no harm done, really; or are you just assuming that isn't true, that-- again-- there is something more to the fetus than there is to a sandcastle? The point of disagreement here is that it either should be considered as a person or it shouldn't. Mistakes, blame, etc. don't apply unless you can come up with a good reason that a fetus should be considered as a person with interests and not just a clump of cells without awareness or understanding or consequence.
My only question to you is how would you deal with someone who got raped and got pregnant as a result?
Or a someone who really shouldn't have children having children, like someone who is heavy into drugs?
Would you want that child to suffer through life? To mean its case by case really.
What is your opinion?
Overpopulation isn't as big a problem as you make it out to be, at least not for a long while. The bigger problem is allocation of resources to help those in affected areas, but birth rates around the world have been on a decline for at least 40 years if I'm not mistaken.
I'm sure you're right, though just because growth rates are declining, doesn't necessarily mean overpopulation won't be a problem. Growth rates are declining, but the world population has been increasing. Still, we may eventually reach an equilibrium population size and overpopulation won't be an issue.
That's the whole thing about abortion I don't like, are the people that refuse to practice safe sex and the people who see the abortion clinic as a birth control method.
I agree whole-heartedly, I suppose, at best, you could limit the number of abortions an individual could have, but that'd take administrative overhead, and I'm not sure if people are seriously abusing abortion. That is, what would the cap on abortions be, and how many people actually violate that number?
You make kind of a jump by saying "overpopulation can cause a decrease in happiness, and if you don't think happiness matters...", to which I would respond:
1. Yes, it can, "can" being the key word.
2. I do think happiness matters.
Yeah, it was a jump, and I'm sorry if I was making assumptions about your views, I'm probably more reasonable than my above post indicates.
If we're going to make jumps to conclusions, I could very well say your post makes it sound like abortion is a good method of controlling overpopulation, as this seems to be your main bone of contention, which would be a ridiculous and disgusting thing to think.
I'm used to my girlfriend bringing up her baby brother when it comes to abortion. She believes in its legalization, but would never make do it personally. I think abortion is acceptable for several reasons, but you made the point that your children are wonderful (and I'm sure they are), but my contention with that sort of argument is that people willingly restrict their number of offspring (hence the decline in the growth percentage), so aborting one child, isn't reducing the number of wonderful children in the world. It's simply a replacement, and as I said elsewhere: if you abort a child before it has brain activity (6 weeks of age), that strikes me as solidly ethical.
As for a "good" way of preventing overpopulation? No, it's not, there are much more efficient, healthy and ethical ways to do so, and, just so we're clear, government mandated abortions are something that's pretty abhorrent.
Well I’m catholic, so naturally I’m against anything that prevents or kills life; wouldn’t you feel angry if someone started killing the plants and digging up the seeds in your garden? Well that’s how God feels about the people who selfishly kill their babies for their own benefit. You do not have your own body, and when you die it will cease being yours again, so what right do you have to question what happens to it?
I'm Pro choice but if they wait for several months before making an abortion then I find it wrong. Like when the baby is actually kicking.
But before that, the baby is just a sludge of cells trying to put together a body. It doesn't have any brain activity for quite some time. So it's not "Alive" at all because it's braindead.
The Selfish part, sorry but why should young girls get their lives ruined by something they don't want? Not to mention you'll ruin two lives in one hit. The baby is gonna feel unwanted and alone because his mother couldn't take care of him. During School the girl would probably get into a special class. If she was raped that stomach would remind her every single time for the next 9 months.
It doesn't get selfish to kill one life to save the other. She was here first and it's HER body. Not God, not the Governments, not the mans. It's Hers.
dontlooknow said:
I think what people do is their own business in a way, but I really do get quite frustrated with people who can’t appreciate the value of God’s will, and refuse to accept events, even events that seem evil or wrong or accidental, have been decided by our lord. I can only hope that I have touched a handful of people with this message.
This Gods will would be quite cruel to a 16 year old girl get raped and then getting pregnant and then being able to finish school normally. MIGHT die during the birth giving part. But ALL this is Gods will. It just begs to question, what kind of asshole wants this to happen to a 16 year old girl? :/
Oh and it has happened to younger ones too.
Sounds like Gods will can be pretty sadistic and what is there to learn from it? Don't get raped? Sorry but that's just not gonna work. She will learn NOTHING from it.
Some people claim those are most of the time the minority but it DOES happen so abortion should available.
You can always get a new one when you are MORE ready for it. Life is not as sacred as people make it out to be. We are just another animal on this planet.
I do believe murder is wrong and so forth but in my mind(no matter how small or primitive), there are three criteria for something to be alive: brain activity, breath, and a heart beat. A fetus has brain activity, a fetus also has a heart beat, however the fetus cannot draw breathe and it is not considered alive in my mind. Therefore, abortion is okay in my book.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
