Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on April 9, 2012 at 9:18pm

I made a subjective statement of opinion, which does differ (and I can distinguish) from an objective perspective that there's no fundamental difference between a dog and a human.

I don't expect you to agree with my opinion, but I hold it nevertheless. I'm not even arguing that it's "right" because, yes, I think morality is relative to who we're asking. If you ask me, you should save the human in the burning building over the animal. If we ask you, you might say the opposite. We both have our reasons for our opinions, and both are based in logic.

We have to make a value judgment though, and I can't think of anything that would compel me to save the animal in the burning building before, or instead of, the human. What would be my basis for saving the animal? Like I said, I would even save the mentally handicapped person first; I would not be basing my decision on the intelligence of the lives in question. In fact, I think that's a really dangerous road to travel down. What other scenarios could we think of where we'd have to choose the life of the allegedly more intelligent over the less intelligent? Who would get to decide?

I understand that you've drawn parallels to racism, sexism, etc. I can see the parallel. However, I also see that we have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere... with abortion (20 wks), with the age we reach adulthood (18 yrs), etc. We can't become so objective that we don't value our own lives; it's starts bordering on fatalism. We have to have some sense of self-preservation. I'm not going to be guilted out of taking care of those closest to me first. If I were an alien or an ant, the same holds true. It's not about humans being special, but closer relations.

I'm not specist because I don't dislike other species, I don't wish bad things upon them, I am not actively seeking their destruction, etc. I want good things for them! We've got to be realistic, though, and realize we all have a scale by which we measure the importance of things and people.

Permalink Reply by John Kelly on April 9, 2012 at 9:24pm

Indeed, and taking care of those closest to you, were you married to a space alien, (or a sentient A.I. say 200 years into the future), you would chose the person closest to you rather than select based on species.

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on April 9, 2012 at 9:27pm

Right, absolutely. I never said humans have some special, inherent value.

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on April 9, 2012 at 3:12am

Abiogenesis.  It's pretty continuously life after that point.

I don't think that science or biology does a great deal to answer the question of abortion.  It seems to have more to do with ideas on personhood and the endowment of rights.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 9, 2012 at 9:10am

Biology would help if it were a matter of fact, but it's really a matter of definition, which is done by stipulation, not research.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on April 9, 2012 at 1:37pm

Biology does give us facts, it just doesn't give us the facts we need to resolve the question.  The little bugger is alive and it has human DNA different from either of its parents' DNA because it is a combo of parts of each, a pastiche.

The real question is, at what point do we think the little bugger has legal rights not to be killed?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 9, 2012 at 6:32pm

The real question is, at what point do we think the little bugger has legal rights not to be killed?

For sure, and at that point opinion and inclination sneaks in because you need a definition in the form of DEFINING (to your satisfaction) when the bugger has legal rights. And that (the defining) is an act, not a fact.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Afton Hardin on April 9, 2012 at 8:23pm

And again, that's where morality and logic come in, which John K. just explained rather clearly.

"Furthermore, morals are seen as relative.  They aren't really.  The best decision is not relative.  Moral reasoning is based on logical best decisions.  Logic is not relative, and eventually the more rational decisions become clear as humans evolve.  Even before this level is reached, the best decisions and best courses of action are still there."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roland Campbell on April 9, 2012 at 10:02am

Gametes are alive, the fertilized egg is alive.  The question is not when does life begin, it is a political question, at what point do we no longer allow a woman to abort a pregnancy.  Certainly, there is a huge difference of opinion here and rightfully so, but it is all opinion, not science.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 9, 2012 at 10:10am

I suppose one question one seldom hears asked is "What makes when a woman terminates a pregnancy the state's business at all?"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on April 9, 2012 at 1:13pm

IF it is a murder it is indeed the state's business.

The proposition that abortion is murder follows from the proposition that "the fetus is a person."  Which is why I think countering both statements should be the "pro choice" side's first order of business, rather than arguing about choice.  It doesn't and cannot become a matter of choice unless it is not a murder.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on April 9, 2012 at 6:33pm

"'The fetus is a person" is a definition, a stipulation, not a fact. I'm just sayin'.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• …
• 18
• Next ›
• Page