Killing Babies No Different from Abortion

[Varqanir]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Varq, your argument doesn’t read so much as pro-choice as is it does pro-life. Except you want certain other primates included…[/quote]

It should read as pro-life, inasmuch as that was my intention. You want to expand the rights of personhood in one direction, I want to expand them even wider.

My only other option is to consider that you really aren’t angling for such widely inclusive rights. Instead you’re attempting to paint pro-lifers into a corner where they must adopt the cause of certain primates (and others), or abandon a ‘hypocritical’ position. Heck, even abandon infants and those slow-witted folks you bring up.

Nope, not my intention at all. Your first assumption was correct, with the proviso that you should have used the word “also” rather than “except”. I don’t advocate excluding the unborn or slow-witted from anything. Well, I do wish that the slow-witted would stay out of politics, but that’s an impossible dream.

We start with the natural order of things. The human embryo is a human life. It is conceived by our own, slow-witted or not. It is already “packaged” with its instructions as to how to order itself throughout its stages of human life. Human embryo. Human infant. Human child. Human adult. Elderly human. Not so with the bonobo. At every stage he is a bonobo.

Be very careful in invoking the natural order of things. Without trying too hard, I’m sure you can think of plenty of instances in history where great injustice and atrocity was committed by people who thought they understood the natural order of things.

Substitute the word “white” for “human”, and the word “negro” for “bonobo” in your statement above, and you have an argument that could have been made virtually unquestioned throughout the last three centuries, and indeed was, to justify all sorts of horrible things.

I’ll accept that you’re pro-life. But if you weren’t, how do YOU protect the infant and the DS adult? By welcoming the bonobos? Are do you even propose to protect them at all?

If I weren’t pro-life, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Again, our aims are the same. You want to protect the people on both sides of the birth canal, I want to protect the people on both sides of the chromosomal divide.

My point is that we have a better chance of saving the unborn babies from being thrown out with the bathwater if we use a wider net.

[Sloth]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]

Are we having a completely secular argument?

If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.

As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.

There are two ways to go, as I see it.

1. None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”

2. Faith-based.

[Sloth]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

It should read as pro-life, inasmuch as that was my intention. You want to expand the rights of personhood in one direction, I want to expand them even wider. [/quote]

I’ll question your sincerity no further.

Nope, not my intention at all. Your first assumption was correct, with the proviso that you should have used the word “also” rather than “except”. I don’t advocate excluding the unborn or slow-witted from anything. Well, I do wish that the slow-witted would stay out of politics, but that’s an impossible dream.

Apologies for a bit of earlier doubt on my side.

[quote]Be very careful in invoking the natural order of things. Without trying too hard, I’m sure you can think of plenty of instances in history where great injustice and atrocity was committed by people who thought they understood the natural order of things.

Substitute the word “white” for “human”, and the word “negro” for “bonobo” in your statement above, and you have an argument that could have been made virtually unquestioned throughout the last three centuries, and indeed was, to justify all sorts of horrible things.[/quote]

Honestly, I knew you’d say something like this. I won’t go into it further than saying the extent to which interracial coupling was reproductive should’ve been a clue for them. And then the fertility of those offspring being the same. Besides the ability of human speech, general bi-pedalism (for you), etc.

Anywho, I’m not really sure we have anything I’d like to debate further. I fully accept your identifying as a pro-lifer. As for protecting apes further…Recognizing them as human? I can’t follow you that far. But, the conservationist in me would welcome further protections.

I’m often seen arguing right-sided positions here, so I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m seen as some kind of free-market capitalist minarchist. Big stores, buildings, and wide, wide, paved roads. But I’m not. Not really. I don’t like stretches of concrete, metal, and mortar. I don’t marvel at the skyscraper, or the city statues. And, I’m not moved by the beauty and wonder of nature from the sight of selectively bred for rat-dogs riding in ladies’ purses.

No, I very much would like to see us preserve the green and the forested. And, the whale, the ape, the bear, the wolf, and the alligator, so future generations might marvel at them. So while I might not go all the way down the road with you, I don’t mind further laws to protect, say, the apes.

Now, to interject a bit of religious sentiment. A good steward would preserve, so that those who will inherent the earth next, inherent as much of its natural beauty as absolutely possible. No?

[sufiandy]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]

Are we having a completely secular argument?

If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.

As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.

There are two ways to go, as I see it.

1. None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”

2. Faith-based.[/quote]

So atheists have no reason to be pro life?

[Varqanir]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

I’m against abortion ONLY because I look at it as a freedom issue.[/quote]

Fair enough.

People have rights to life, liberty, and property unless they forfeit them by violating another’s rights. The unborn child has not violated anyone’s rights because he/she did not create himself, so he/she deserves the chance to live.

No argument there. Your definition of “people” just differs from mine. Just as Jefferson’s probably differed from Martin Luther King’s.

A bonobo is not a human and I would say the chances of a bonobo/human baby being created are zero. If a bonobo and human are able to reproduce, then a bonobo is a human and I am wrong.

I would say the chances of anything are probably greater than zero.

What I am suggesting is that bonobos are “persons”, not necessarily that they are human, a philosophical rather than strictly biological assertion. Sticking to biology, though, I would also assert that chimps and bonobos belong in our genus, if not necessarily our species. Taxonomers and geneticists are beginning to agree, and so did Linnaeus, the inventor of our taxonomical classification system. He only refrained from lumping apes and humans too closely together to avoid criticism from the church: “if I called man an ape, or vice versa, I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of natural history.” Linnaeus was, of course, a creationist Christian.

Different species can’t reproduce. Different breeds and varieties can. The evolutionists have convinced people otherwise, but I don’t pay attention to their crap. A liger can be created because a lion and tiger are the same species.

Again, it depends on your definition of “species”. You may believe that a lion and a tiger are the same species, or that a horse, a zebra and a donkey are all the same species, or that a peacock, a grouse and a chicken are all the same species, but the taxonomers and the geneticists would disagree.

Having said that, I will concede that the taxonomic classifications invented by Linnaeus are relatively arbitrary, and based on assumptions that predated our understanding of genomics. A bonobo and a chimp are placed in different species, but in fact they only differ from one another genetically about as much as, say, Nelson Mandela and Pieter Botha.

Which is, by the way, about how much our genome differs, on aggregate, from that of chimps and bonobos.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Are you convinced they do?[/quote]

My conclusion is that killing babies is wrong. I was under the assumption that this was your conclusion as well. Was I mistaken?

He lives in the world of exceptions.

Very true. I generally refrain from befriending obstinate blowhards, but I make an exception in your case.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

This bonobo/human/Jefferson/King deal is making me think that somewhere down the road you’re going to get on a gun rights thread and lobby that bonobos have a right to carry firearms. And vote. And be free from searches without warrants.[/quote]

Let’s see what the former President of the NRA has to say…

…oops! Sorry, Mr. Heston. Didn’t realize you were busy.

[Sloth]

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]

Are we having a completely secular argument?

If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.

As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.

There are two ways to go, as I see it.

1. None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”

2. Faith-based.[/quote]

So atheists have no reason to be pro life?[/quote]

Well, yes and no. There is no obligation for an atheist to be pro life, whatever stage that life might be in.

Borrowing the viewpoint of a skeptic, he has no reason to be pro-life (at any stage of a life). To be clear he might wish to continue to live himself, so not make moves against others capable of doing harm back to him. A convenient peace-keeping. Or, he might not. Neither position would be good or evil. No fancies of inherent right to life (at any life stage). Just cold hard risk-assessment. And, possibly the might on his side to enforce his view.

The other atheists would also have no faith in deities for whatever reason, obviously. Yet, maintain faith in other things they can’t observe, measure, and demonstrate. Rights inherent to the individual. Acts that are inherently evil or good. The last obviously requiring the existence of good evil. Lately this position seems to be unfashionable, since it allows the religious to stay at the big boy table. Can’t put inherent rights, good and evil, on a scale or under a microscope, after all. And it begs for an ongoing debate about the necessity of an intelligent author, as these moral laws are meant to govern the behavior of intelligent creatures.

[Varqanir]

All right then, seeing as Charleton Heston is otherwise occupied, let’s ask anti-gun advocate Mark Wahlberg what his stance is…

WHOAH! Jeez, what the…?

[Varqanir]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]

Are we having a completely secular argument?

If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.

As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.

There are two ways to go, as I see it.

1. None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”

2. Faith-based.[/quote]

So atheists have no reason to be pro life?[/quote]

Well, yes and no. There is no obligation for an atheist to be pro life, whatever stage that life might be in.

Borrowing the viewpoint of a skeptic, he has no reason to be pro-life (at any stage of a life). To be clear he might wish to continue to live himself, so not make moves against others capable of doing harm back to him. A convenient peace-keeping. Or, he might not. Neither position would be good or evil. No fancies of inherent right to life (at any life stage). Just cold hard risk-assessment. And, possibly the might on his side to enforce his view.

The other atheists would also have no faith in deities for whatever reason, obviously. Yet, maintain faith in other things they can’t observe, measure, and demonstrate. Rights inherent to the individual. Acts that are inherently evil or good. The last obviously requiring the existence of good evil. Lately this position seems to be unfashionable, since it allows the religious to stay at the big boy table. Can’t put inherent rights, good, and evil on a scale or under a microscope, after all. And it begs for an ongoing debate about the necessity of an intelligent author for these moral laws are meant to govern the behavior of intelligent beings.
[/quote]

The bones of the “morality of atheists” horse having been beaten into fine gray dust by now, I will turn the question around. Would you say that a Christian has an obligation to be pro-life?

[Sloth]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]

Are we having a completely secular argument?

If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.

As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.

There are two ways to go, as I see it.

1. None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”

2. Faith-based.[/quote]

So atheists have no reason to be pro life?[/quote]

Well, yes and no. There is no obligation for an atheist to be pro life, whatever stage that life might be in.

Borrowing the viewpoint of a skeptic, he has no reason to be pro-life (at any stage of a life). To be clear he might wish to continue to live himself, so not make moves against others capable of doing harm back to him. A convenient peace-keeping. Or, he might not. Neither position would be good or evil. No fancies of inherent right to life (at any life stage). Just cold hard risk-assessment. And, possibly the might on his side to enforce his view.

The other atheists would also have no faith in deities for whatever reason, obviously. Yet, maintain faith in other things they can’t observe, measure, and demonstrate. Rights inherent to the individual. Acts that are inherently evil or good. The last obviously requiring the existence of good evil. Lately this position seems to be unfashionable, since it allows the religious to stay at the big boy table. Can’t put inherent rights, good, and evil on a scale or under a microscope, after all. And it begs for an ongoing debate about the necessity of an intelligent author for these moral laws are meant to govern the behavior of intelligent beings.
[/quote]

The bones of the “morality of atheists” horse having been beaten into fine gray dust by now, I will turn the question around. Would you say that a Christian has an obligation to be pro-life? [/quote]

A Christian. And, any person with a faith in an inherent right to life.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

This bonobo/human/Jefferson/King deal is making me think that somewhere down the road you’re going to get on a gun rights thread and lobby that bonobos have a right to carry firearms. And vote. And be free from searches without warrants.[/quote]

Monkey shooting AK-47 Between Soldiers in Africa!!!

Power to the people.

[Varqanir]

Yes, many animals have been known, like Pharaoh, Herod, and Annekin Skywalker, to “kill the younglings” in order to take future contenders out of the gene pool. A male lion will kill cubs sired by another male lion, and a male chimp will similarly kill off another dude’s kids before he gets busy with their now-unencumbered mama.

Interesting thing is, whereas chimpanzees regularly practice infanticide (also murder, torture, kidnapping, and gang rape, other behavioral traits they share in common with our species), bonobos do not.

They are, you might say, pro-life in that regard.

And I’m sure you of all people can’t criticize their sexual proclivities.

[Karado]

“That doesn’t mean I’m not delighted you are pro-life but the fact that you arrived at that conclusion via some funky mechanism of philosophy, ethics and the Swiss cheese theory of macroevolution puzzles me.”

YEAH!!!..Um,what he said…That date night Bonobo/Human sex and offspring thing was just WAY
off big time, hypotheticals usually should have a basis in some fuckin reality, but then again Reagan used the Alien Invasion
theory at the U.N. to strongly suggest a unity in all of Mankind in the unlikely scenario we’ll be invaded by
little green men.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

my concern is that if you arrive at this common conclusion via shaky ground do you really belong here?[/quote]

Sloth seems to think so. But then he’s Catholic, and he probably believes in evolution, so I doubt you put much stock in his opinion.

Even though you have eloquently presented your case for being pro-life I can’t make it work in my head.

So it would appear. But I don’t see how that’s my problem.

Sorry.

Yeah, me too.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Very true. I generally refrain from befriending obstinate blowhards… :-)[/quote]

Then how do you live with yourself?

[/quote]

Same as you, I imagine. Day by day.