ohiogrinder
New Metal Member
- Mar 15, 2006
- 5,392
- 13
- 0
kill crips and tards?
- Thread starter genocide roach
- Start date
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
supseudonymous
&
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
"It might be human/it might not be" etc.
Potentiality may be fine and all for judging whether something should be born or not (or when to decide a clump of damned cells is considered human)...in all logical aspects though, this type of measurement is intrinsically flawed.
I suggest that you measure the worth of a wo/man after the bastard/bitch is dead. That way you can at least judge the actions and thoughts of said people.
This is also incredibly flawed in many aspects (I'm not thinking very hard at the moment for a "supreme answer" or something - seeing as I have delicious chinese food that had the potential to be eaten by someone else, but is not, and is being eaten by me!) All in all though, at least with a life (somewhat) lived outside the womb, you can apply whatever methods you use to find value in arbitrary and subjective things like 'morals' & etc.
Fuck I love spicy chicken and eggrolls
Potentiality may be fine and all for judging whether something should be born or not (or when to decide a clump of damned cells is considered human)...in all logical aspects though, this type of measurement is intrinsically flawed.
I suggest that you measure the worth of a wo/man after the bastard/bitch is dead. That way you can at least judge the actions and thoughts of said people.
This is also incredibly flawed in many aspects (I'm not thinking very hard at the moment for a "supreme answer" or something - seeing as I have delicious chinese food that had the potential to be eaten by someone else, but is not, and is being eaten by me!) All in all though, at least with a life (somewhat) lived outside the womb, you can apply whatever methods you use to find value in arbitrary and subjective things like 'morals' & etc.
Fuck I love spicy chicken and eggrolls
Skepticism
Member
- Feb 14, 2006
- 2,177
- 4
- 38
That would be my brain inserting some random Dutch into my post apparently. I meant "on balance" (as in taking into account both gains and losses). But you inferred my meaning correctly.
Fair enough, but it illustrates that considering humans more important than (other) animals doesn't "come natural to humans" like you claimed previously.
They are intelligent enough to consider them sentient beings, capable of suffering and the more advanced ones being capable of experiencing the same basic emotions that humans do. Placing a cluster of cells that happen to have human DNA above a fully grown sentient animal with the above mentioned attributes is a hypocritical and irrational thing to do. The opposite of common sense, really.
Here's some things to consider.
- Most people would agree that ending the life of an entity that is capable of suffering is worse than ending the life of an entity that isn't
- Sentience is a prerequisite for the ability to suffer
- Certain sensory organs and at the very least some basic cognitive ability are prerequisites for being considered sentient (we don't consider a plant to be sentient, afterall)
- The more advanced the cognitive abilities, the more pronounced the suffering is likely to be
Following that, common sense would be that ending the life of a human zygote which has none of the attributes required for sentience is less severe than killing, well, any given fully grown mammal which are very much sentient and capable of suffering.
But the prevailing religious angle (people like Zephyrus being the exception) to this argument doesn't follow the consideration of individual suffering and rather goes by the unquestionable worth of mankind (regardless of what stage it is in) and favours speciesism instead. Again, the opposite of common sense.
combustion07
Weed and Metal baby!
Thats a hard question... I wouldn't abort a healthy child. But if it was not healthy and severely damaged then I think I would abort it. Due to the fact that when I die the child would still need to be cared for, and would have a hard time on its own. If the situation was actually happening though I'm not sure if I would do the same thing...
AchrisK
Weakling
To extend the potential argument to pre-fertilized egg is nothing short of a debate tactic, whether or not you mean it that way. What are the statistics on the potential for each individual sperm becoming a human? I'd say something like one in a few billion maybe? What are the stats on eggs? Maybe one in 500? How about the stats on a fertilized egg? I'd say it's along the lines of 1 in 1.
You can call the stages of a fertilized human egg's development whatever you want, but they are all stages of a human life. Zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, teenager, young adult, grown-up. old man, corpse. It's a progression that is 100% predictable and can be demonstrated in a laboratory. It's all simple logic...very simple.
I know you evolutionists love to preface everything with "Rational people...", or "Anyone with even a moderate level of intelligence...", but that's just another debating tactic and is extremely arrogant, insulting, and untrue.
Yes this argument comes down to your views on what life is, the existence of the soul/spirit, and the meaning of human life. If you embrace natural evolution then I don't know why anything is off limits. Why not just kill the inferior or leave them out to die? But I think that even you evolutionists hold human life in high regard.
I never said human life was sacred beyond anything else, but I do think it is much more than evolved animal life.
The argument for abortion is typically for the value or convenience of one human life over another. I don't think that is a simple decision.
And I want to reiterate that I don't see abortion as a simple issue. I understand people's lives are their realities and are full of complications and intricacies. Yes I see abortion as killing a human, and I don’t think all of the abortions that are done are justified. Yes I think that if we lived by certain moral standards this would be a much smaller issue, but I realize we don’t. Thus it is not a small issue: it’s a big hairy complicated one. I am not trying to judge people or their decisions, as I have already stated.
You are the one who starts slinging around the term "common sense" like you know what it means.
But fuck it, if you're going to play like that (the usual "atheist/evolutionists are immoral" baseless ad hominum argument) then I'm done with this discussion. I've said everything I needed to say and I stand by every word of it.
But fuck it, if you're going to play like that (the usual "atheist/evolutionists are immoral" baseless ad hominum argument) then I'm done with this discussion. I've said everything I needed to say and I stand by every word of it.
combustion07
Weed and Metal baby!
But if you were having a child that was severely damaged wouldn't you but them out of their misery if they were going to suffer severely throughout their life?
AchrisK
Weakling
I don't know, it's never happened to me. But I think that suffering is overrated and overstated. Read this post by Έρεβος. Also I think that convenience more often plays a role than suffering. I think people with Down Syndrome are generally very happy, but it's a huge burden on the parents.
Actually there's one more thing I will say, if you are constantly relying on concepts like a "soul" and a "God" to get you through arguments then you shouldn't be so quick to get your panties in a bunch when people differentiate themselves from you by calling themselves rational. Whether you like it or not the basis of your argument does not lie in the realm of reason and rational thought, it lies in the realm of pre-established baseless notions handed down by your religious doctrine and nothing else. They are not the foundation for a rational argument or for "common sense" (the M-W definition of which being "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts").
AchrisK
Weakling
So you can speak condescendingly to me, but I cant make logical arguments to you? I didn't say Atheists/evolutionists are immoral. I do think the belief system taken to its logical end should result in a lack of morals and a lack of value attributed to human life. But I dont believe in Atheism or the claims that natural evolution accounts for human life, therefore I believe that you and most other people (including Atheists) value human life and have morals (and I implied/said as much in my post).
You can stand by your views, and I will stand by mine at this point.
AchrisK
Weakling
It's what I believe and it seems to mesh well with life in general. Amazingly well. I am not relying on them to get me through arguments. I only brought them up to concede that with worldviews as different as yours and mine, there is no way to come to any type of consensus on an issue like this. At least not regarding the essence of the issue.
Science helps us understand reality, but there is reality outside of science. Reality that science can't explain. It is not irrational to understand this. In fact it may be irrational not to admit it.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
This is a foolish statement. Understanding evolution has nothing to do with whether you think sex should only be done for procreation. Only religious and/or wierd people think that.
By mentioning souls you automatically become irrational. Belief in souls is irrational plain and simple. If you don't want to be called irrational, don't mention irrational things.
Also you severely misunderstand evolution. We've talked about that topic enough but your quote here clearly indicate your continued ignorance.
No there isn't until you can show ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that this is true. Until then it is irrational to believe it. Why do you even make this claim? There is absolutely no reason to believe it.
AchrisK
Weakling
If we are merely evolved animals, you would think we might mate like them, for the same reasons. But we don't. Sex is much more to humans (including Christians) than procreation. That was my point.
This is only your opinion and your belief system. That doesn't make it true.
I think I am quite rational.
I understand that evolution must explain the seemingly irrational (the range of human emotions and motivations, etc) because it must have evolved since it exists. Circular logic at its finest.
If there are things that exist outside of the scientific realm, then how can science hope to be presented with evidence? There is reality outside of science.
