Abortion and capital punishment

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Heresson
What You call "being pro-choice" is simply letting mothers murder their babies.

I am assuming you are talking about humans, not tigers or anything else.

Okay, so how do we define "babies?"

[DinoDoc]

He's probably thinking of Kroppy.

[SlowwHand]

Tigers don't murder their babies, if healthy.
Only humans do that.

[RGBVideo]

Tigers don't murder their babies, if healthy.
Only humans do that.

Tigers don't write, read, or play PC, if healthy.
Only humans do that.



...ok, to be serious, I still don't get your point there.

[SlowwHand]

Mine?
My point is that humans are the dumbest animal on earth.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Carnivores frequently DO kill (and eat) their babies if they feel that the conditions aren't right for rearing cubs. Herbivores abandon them.

Infanticide is perfectly natural.

[SlowwHand]

Did you read my 2nd to last post?
"Tigers don't murder their babies, if healthy.
Only humans do that."

Essentially, what you said.

[Jack the Bodiless]

No, healthy carnivores will kill healthy cubs when stressed. It depends on how you define "healthy".

Human women who seek abortions are essentially making the same decision. They're convinced that the conditions aren't right. Maybe they wouldn't do it if a pro-lifer gives them $100,000 or whatever (analogous to a well-fed, happy tiger deciding that conditions ARE right after all), but that's reality.

[gunkulator]

Um no. Most male cats, including semi-feral barn cats, prefer to kill young cats for the most selfish of reasons: to breed with the mother. Females generally won't accept a male if they are taking care of young. Kill her young and the female goes into heat again within days.

Females kill the young of others to avoid competition.

All of this is perfectly "natural" however I doubt anyone here would advocate such behavior. In other words: we shouldn't use animal behavior as a model for humans.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I know of a female cat that killed her own young.

She was a feral cat with two kittens. She pushed one out. We rescued it and put it back. So then she pushed the other one out instead. By the time we noticed that, it was dead.

I also had a couple of pet ferrets as a kid. I didn't know the female was pregnant until I saw her nursing a batch of baby ferrets. The following day, they were gone: killed and eaten. Apparently it's a normal reaction if the parents feel that their cage isn't big enough for the family, but I never got the chance to get a bigger cage.

[Chemical Ollie]

I can understand why religious people don't like abortion. I don't either. But did Jesus really support death penalty?

[Ben Kenobi]

A "human" is a new organism, i.e. a zygote. I'm using "person" to mean "a reasoning, thinking being that is ethically equivalent to all other reasoning, thinking beings."

Loinburger:

So not all human beings are persons?

You realise what happens when we extend your arguments.

You assume brain waves = rationality, but some people, Kropotkin in this thread specifically, apply a higher standard of rationality.

What makes your definition better than theirs?

How would you argue against Kropotkin that children at the age of 1 are fully rational, and therefore, fully persons?

As for human beings having intrinsic value, I fully assume this throughout my arguments. If you are willing to concede that human persons have no worth or value, than I have nothing to say.

UR:
Commentary or contribution?

[Grins2Pain]

My vote...

I support the death penalty and am pro-choice.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
So not all human beings are persons?

Correct. I'd thought that you agreed with me that there is no moral imperative to maintain the brain-dead patient's life, i.e. that the brain-dead patient was a "human" but not a "person." If you want to argue that there the zygote/embryo is a "person," then you might as well start out by arguing that the brain-dead patient is a "person," since the two are exhibiting equivalent levels of brain activity.

What makes your definition better than theirs?

A definition that does not account for brain activity does not apply to a person who is asleep, which is (to say the least) problematic.

As for human beings having intrinsic value, I fully assume this throughout my arguments. If you are willing to concede that human persons have no worth or value, than I have nothing to say.

You're mixing and matching the terms "human being" and "human person," which isn't very sporting (since these are the terms that are under dispute). I believe that there is a distinction between the two terms, e.g. that a brain-dead patient is really and truly dead for all intents and purposes (despite still technically being a "human being"), and that there is no substantive distinction between the level of brain activity exhibited by a brain-dead patient and the level of brain activity exhibited by a zygote/embryo (and thus that the two are ethically equivalent).

1. Is a brain-dead patient ethically equivalent to you and me?
2. If not, then why is a zygote/embryo a "person" when a brain-dead patient is a "non-person"?
3. If the zygote/embryo is to be considered a person because there exists the possibility that it will develop into a person, then why is a zygote/embryo a "person" while a sperm/egg cell is a "non-person"?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
So not all human beings are persons?

Uh, not all humans are persons, if you define "humans" as any clusters of cells with human DNA.

Originally posted by obiwan18
You assume brain waves = rationality, but some people, Kropotkin in this thread specifically, apply a higher standard of rationality.

What makes your definition better than theirs?

I am not saying mine is better, just that you are now debating this point with me, so I am using my definition. Which, by the way, is probably different from loinburger's.

I put my cut off line at the exhibition of sentience, so that is probably different from yours.

Originally posted by obiwan18
How would you argue against Kropotkin that children at the age of 1 are fully rational, and therefore, fully persons.

Do you see me arguing with him?