Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MonkeyHead]

But thats just it - people are people. Animals are not. But thats probably the carnivore in me speaking.

And blacks are blacks, and whites are whites. Men are men, and women are women. You do realize this is the exact line of thinking every racist and sexist has ever used right?

All spoons are cutlury, but not all cutlery is spoons. Humans are a special and wonderful kind of animal IMHO, far more so than any domesticated creatureFirstly, I shall ignore the potential insinuation that I am either a sexist or racist. Secondly, the point I was trying to make was that Homo Sapiens Sapiens ae not Canines, Felines, Bovines, or anything - we are far more. This is something that I was only aware of when I looked into the eyes of my first born when she was seconds old - human life is wonderful. This isnt to say that fish life, or lizard life or whatever isnt fantastic - they are, just not quite up there with us. I refuse wholehartedly that considering Humanity special and more important to humanity than pretty much any living organism that we know of is in any way, shape or form a negative behavioural trait.

Do not forget that the reason our offspring are so much more stunted than those of other species is due to our bipedal posture (infants needing to be born before brain develops due to narrowness of birth canal), which in part is probably responsible for our intelligence. You probably couldnt have such a smart species in our image without having babies that seemed uselessness. In tun this allwed stronger family units to develop, and all the benefits that come with it like langauge, culture etc.

Still, having said all this, the idea that it would be ok to kill near term babies because it is ok to kill pigs is absurd. At least pigs are killed for food - which brings us back to the whole "human need" thing...

.

Using the end of the first trimester as a benchmark has been an accepted measure for a long time, and one I don't see any reason to change.

I should do a little research on why this benchmark is accepted, because the fact that it's accepted doesn't do anything for me.

AFAIK its to do with the whole 12 weeks thing. Most parents are told not to announce thier preganacy until after 12 weeks. This is as most failed pregnancies miscarry before the 12th week. Its also the week in which parents are offered the first ultrasound scan to check the foetus is developing as expected - its early enough to spot most major issues, and early enough to allow any treatment not to be to damaging to the mother. Getting pregnant isnt quite as easy as badly educated teen parents make out. Most attempts lead to millions of dead sperm and an unfertilized egg. Even if it does get fertilized it probably wont even undergo mitosis correctly. Even if it does it probably wont make it to the uterine lining...

But it does have a human brain nonetheless, and that is why a baby is a person and a fetus isn't.

So as long as it's a human brain, and not an animal brain, it's a person. Because humans are humans, and animals are animals.

Yeah, pretty much. You don't see animals building skyscrapers, so it's not exactly subjective to say that we're kind of the odd species out when it comes to mentality.

You do realize, "it's moral because we are human and we say so" isn't actually a valid argument?

But who else gets to decide the morals? Arent they a constructed set of boundaries based on what behavoirs we are exposed to?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Using the end of the first trimester as a benchmark has been an accepted measure for a long time, and one I don't see any reason to change.

I should do a little research on why this benchmark is accepted, because the fact that it's accepted doesn't do anything for me.

There's not much to say for a fetus at the end of the first trimester. You could say that the initial cellular shape is finished, but there isn't much in the way of organs (although if I remember correctly the heart is formed by this point) or the brain.

You do realize, "it's moral because we are human and we say so" isn't actually a valid argument?

You do realize that isn't what I said?

Sometimes I really wonder if you're not just a troll.

Sometimes I really wonder if you aren't intentionally misunderstanding me to call me a troll.

[Pnx]

What you seem to be saying is that humans are superior therefore their brains are more entitled. I'm trying to understand but you seem to be carving one big cyclical argument.

[Bauglir]

I feel like the point here is that, from a biological perspective, there's no basis for drawing a clear line between human and non-human based on brain development. It's such a gradual thing that to go "Okay so she's been carrying for 12 weeks, the baby is human now" is as absurd as to go "Okay so the baby's born now, it's human all of a sudden" or "Okay so the sperm is mature enough to form an embryo, it's a human now". And any such line you draw will inevitably classify some humans who intuitively are clearly human as non-people.

And, of course, you pretty much have to define "Humans are better" as an axiom to do anything even if you do come to an acceptable definition, presumably by means of sorcery.

Or you can decide that the category of "humanity" isn't really important to why you treat individuals the way you do, but the qualities of that individual are. Since it seems like every reason for why humanity is important is stating that humanity is synonymous with some other value that is either less nebulous or more "obviously" good.

[SalmonGod]

Another consideration:  I wouldn't expect most people to be comfortable with the idea that at one point in their lives, their worth could have been considered as equal to a pig.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What you seem to be saying is that humans are superior therefore their brains are more entitled. I'm trying to understand but you seem to be carving one big cyclical argument.

I am saying that humans have the highest mental capacity of any known species by far. We are sapient, and this is because of our brains. It allows us the kind of awareness and knowledge that we have never observed in other living things. Even our closest living relatives are far, far below us in intellectual capacity. We mutually recognize each other as having inherent value in life because we instinctually wish to and because this understanding allows us to build societies. This is why a baby, while not as intellectually fulfilled as an adult, still retains that inherent value.

[MonkeyHead]

It's such a gradual thing that to go "Okay so she's been carrying for 12 weeks, the baby is human now" is as absurd as to go "Okay so the baby's born now, it's human all of a sudden" or "Okay so the sperm is mature enough to form an embryo, it's a human now".

Chinese culture (cant recall which particular bracnh) considers a baby to be one year old from its moment of birth... but that probably creates as many questrions as it answers really.

[ChairmanPoo]

The limits are in no small regard subjetive. Which doesn't make them unimportant.

[scriver]

All spoons are cutlury, but not all cutlery is spoons. Humans are a special and wonderful kind of animal IMHO, far more so than any domesticated creatureFirstly, I shall ignore the potential insinuation that I am either a sexist or racist. Secondly, the point I was trying to make was that Homo Sapiens Sapiens ae not Canines, Felines, Bovines, or anything - we are far more. This is something that I was only aware of when I looked into the eyes of my first born when she was seconds old - human life is wonderful. This isnt to say that fish life, or lizard life or whatever isnt fantastic - they are, just not quite up there with us. I refuse wholehartedly that considering Humanity special and more important to humanity than pretty much any living organism that we know of is in any way, shape or form a negative behavioural trait.

No. Just no. There is all kinds of things that makes the human species special. There is not a single thing that makes it superior to other animals. You're going to have to justify that claim with something far stronger than "I looked into the eyes of my baby and a natural instinct made me filled with love to him and therefore human life is worth more than other life."

Do not forget that the reason our offspring are so much more stunted than those of other species is due to our bipedal posture (infants needing to be born before brain develops due to narrowness of birth canal), which in part is probably responsible for our intelligence. You probably couldnt have such a smart species in our image without having babies that seemed uselessness. In tun this allwed stronger family units to develop, and all the benefits that come with it like langauge, culture etc.

The human brain is not fully developed until after 25-30 years. There is no connection between intelligence and family. Animals have both languages and culture, though not as advanced.

Also, are you on a phone? You're spelling seem to have degraded a lot from your standard.

I am saying that humans have the highest mental capacity of any known species by far. We are sapient, and this is because of our brains. It allows us the kind of awareness and knowledge that we have never observed in other living things. Even our closest living relatives are far, far below us in intellectual capacity. We mutually recognize each other as having inherent value in life because we instinctually wish to and because this understanding allows us to build societies. This is why a baby, while not as intellectually fulfilled as an adult, still retains that inherent value.

We do not know how much more intelligent humans are compared to the other high-intelligence animals. Mostly because there is quite a barrier of both ways of thinking and communication between us.

[Bauglir]

Well, I feel like if people are looking for a strict definition they're comfortable with, they're not going to find one. Humanity is an inherently fuzzy concept, because organisms aren't actually slotted into neat, well-defined categories. No matter how convenient it'd be, life is a big series of overlapping blurs. Sometimes they're far enough apart that you can make a meaningful judgment. Sometimes.

Any strict definition is going to include too many things we do horrible things to on the basis of their assumed inhumanity, or exclude too many things that we feel an obligation to on the basis of their assumed humanity.

What you seem to be saying is that humans are superior therefore their brains are more entitled. I'm trying to understand but you seem to be carving one big cyclical argument.

I am saying that humans have the highest mental capacity of any known species by far. We are sapient, and this is because of our brains. It allows us the kind of awareness and knowledge that we have never observed in other living things. Even our closest living relatives are far, far below us in intellectual capacity. We mutually recognize each other as having inherent value in life because we instinctually wish to and because this understanding allows us to build societies. This is why a baby, while not as intellectually fulfilled as an adult, still retains that inherent value.

But the problem is, how're you defining what is human? Why do you seem to be claiming sapience as a binary value? How can you claim that intelligence is linear, when brief reflection should make clear that even within humans it's a huge array of different ways of thinking, and when expanded to the entire spectrum of life it is incomprehensibly vast a concept?

[Leafsnail]

I thought the abortion debate was framed more in terms of "A woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body", since an embryo is pretty much a part of her and it's pretty problematic to treat people as incubators without rights of their own.  It becomes way more complicated once the fetus becomes viable on its own, but it's a completely sepatate issue to whether we should kill pigs or whatever.  Intelligence doesn't come into it, in my opinion.

[SalmonGod]

The limits are in no small regard subjetive. Which doesn't make them unimportant.

Something that should have been brought up a long time ago.  I've tried to make every one of my comments as objective as possible, but there are limits to how far objectivity can go and still be useful.  Any notion of anything having value is subjective in nature, but being subjective causes its nature to vary between individuals, which is why we need objectivity to bridge the gaps.  I think this is the major reason discussions like this are so difficult, because everyone tries to strike a different balance of objectivity vs subjectivity.  When we're talking about the value of a human being, it's easy to go waaay into objectivity and try to say that there's no reason to value human beings above any other organism, and on the other end of the spectrum to say that the value of a human being is intrinsic to my own status as a human being and no further justification is required.  You have to meet in the middle somewhere or the debate is pointless.

[Bauglir]

I thought the abortion debate was framed more in terms of "A woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body", since an embryo is pretty much a part of her and it's pretty problematic to treat people as incubators without rights of their own.  It becomes way more complicated once the fetus becomes viable on its own, but it's a completely sepatate issue to whether we should kill pigs or whatever.  Intelligence doesn't come into it, in my opinion.

Generally, yes, I agree. It's just that when an argument gets brought up, it's good to address it on its own terms when it's possible. If somebody thinks capacity for intelligence is relevant, then I feel like it's better to say "Okay, but here's why that's actually a lot more problematic..." than to just skip right to discussing the woman's rights and continuing to talk past each other. That way you don't just get two people who are convinced they are right, and that the other person is being deliberately obtuse to avoid conceding.

[MonkeyHead]

No. Just no. There is all kinds of things that makes the human species special. There is not a single thing that makes it superior to other animals. You're going to have to justify that claim with something far stronger than "I looked into the eyes of my baby and a natural instinct made me filled with love to him and therefore human life is worth more than other life."

Geuss what I am trying to say is that I never have and never will get that feeling about any other species... and strongly doubt that any other animal species is capable of such a complex/advanced response. I know its not a great justification, but us giving such a big shit about the well being of other humans (be it in a positive or negative way) to me seems like an important thing. We are driven by our emotions, which frame our experiences. You can play "Angus Dei" to any number of animals with minimal response, but play it to a human and it will produce sorrow, loss, anger, joy... ignoring the selection effect that the aforementioned bit of music was created by a human for humans with the intent of stirring the soul. Mind you, snakes havent quite got around to making art just yet.

The human brain is not fully developed until after 25-30 years. There is no connection between intelligence and family. Animals have both languages and culture, though not as advanced.

Yes, but fully developed is not the same as "developed enough to move and communicate", the general state that other mammals are born in, ignoring the fact that thier brains never reach the level of complexity that ours do. If humans were born at a level of 18 months development a lot of the issues raised here about how useless babies are compared to a pig would be irrelevant, ignoring the fact that giving birth to such a baby would be impossible due to its head diameter (hell, thats big enough in a to-term baby anyway in terms of body proportionality).

AFAIK animal species that display rudimentary intelligence and communication also form some form social grouping... maybe I am wrong in assuming that the two form some kind of feedback loop.

And apologies for my lack of verbosity, I am taking a night off from proof reading my posts 3 times. Its new year after all.

Still, after all this, I am pro choice.

[SalmonGod]

AFAIK animal species that display rudimentary intelligence and communication also form some form social grouping... maybe I am wrong in assuming that the two form some kind of feedback loop.

I was very surprised to learn recently that octopi are incredibly solitary creatures, very rarely having any interaction with others of their own species.