Kurgan, I try to keep things civil, but I get irritated when people make blanket statements like, "...animals are dumber than a box of rocks..." Clearly that's not accurate. I'm not a PETA member as those people are just a bit too over the edge for me. Besides, I do like meat with my vegetables. However, I do think very highly of animals, and recognize them as having thoughts and feelings not unlike our own.

But you'd probably expect this from me since I view animals as our brothers and sisters in the Animal Kingdom; this view based on the fact that I believe we Humans and all life evolved from a common anscestor.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

I view Reptiles as the true rulers of the world...

------------------
Mission Accepted...
http://gundamwing55.homestead.com/files/Deathscythe-Mega_Slash.gif)

'Not accurate'? If animals had a lick of common sense, they stay off the road. For example, my three cats are still nursing off of their mother and they're nearly as big as her. To make things worse, she LET"S them.

Your analogy is illogical as you are comparing education versus intelligence.

Said a different way, you're saying that if someone was plucked out of their home and dropped in the middle of a tropical rain forrest, that a person wouldn't have a lick of sense (as you so eloquently state it) if they didn't know which fruits were safe to eat and which were poisonous. I contend that most people would not know what's safe to eat in an unfamiliar place, however it is clear that Humans as a species are intelligent.

Just because some animals don't instinctively recognize moving vehicles as a threat, does not mean they do not possess a significant level of intelligence. Rather, they just don't know what they are - they are not educated yet as to what to expect.

------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

But if a deer cross' a road in front of a moving vehicle and gets hit, than it deserves it. You think I'm bad, you should meet my Drivers Ed teacher.

So now we go from discussing Abortion.. to animal rights?

It all depends on the animal you're talking about Vagabond.

Our constitution doesn't guarentee them any rights that I know of. Or maybe you can show me where I'm wrong there. ; )

Kurgan

I'm still sticking with what I said: I think abortion is totally wrong and illegal. I don't care what some of you guys think about me, I'm not changing my mind.

There's a girl on another talk board(I'm not saying what it is) and she got pregnant. When she told her mother, she told her to go down to a place to be taken care of. She arrives and told the people about her being pregnant. They put her to sleep and when she woke up, she saw a jar that contained what would have been her child. She was in tears and now she's a hard core christian who's totally against abortion. What I tell you is true. A life was taken because people are stupid. People like Vagabon have no concept at all. A fertillzed should have a chance to live, not to be murdered without doing anything about it.

If you want to talk about the true rulers of this world.. that would be the arthropods (especially insects).

I think thus abortion has been shown to be indefensible except in the rare case where a woman will die if her baby is allowed to live. This case is a very gray case to be sure, and I think would depend on the individual situation and the people involved.

An abortion is forcibly taking an innocent human life. In a post-industrialized, "enlightened" society such as our's, I think we should try to overcome our barbaric human past just a little bit and ban abortion. There are many solutions to it that will cure the problems it supposedly "solves."

Examples: Population Control

Birth control and sex education (not just silly "use condoms, ya morons!" type stuff, and not "abstinence only" either. Yes parents should have the right to teach their kids what's right and wrong, but the schools should provide the science to back it up, etc.

Adoption should be implemented as a way to overcome problem pregnancies. This way all the money that is often wasted on fertility problems people have (these people geniunely want to have children, so they spend thousands of dollars trying all kinds of remedies that don't work or are only sporadically effective, etc, then end up having 12 kids all at once). The babies will be taken into loving homes instead of hacked apart for fetal research (where's the logic in killing one innocent human being to save the life of another? Just ask the Nazi doctors!).

The other thing to do is make contraception (real contraception, not posionous drugs that do the same thing as having an abortion) more available to people who want it with information on how it works and the side effects, proper use, etc.

Yes, I realize many folks have issues with contraception, and I understand that. However, for those who find them acceptable, I think we should make that service available. Life is not destroyed, it is only prevented from being fertilized. A sperm and an egg don't matter.. anymore than a person's tonsils or hair matters. A human life does matter, and that's what should be protected.

Quit federal funding of abortion. Sure you'll have protests. The abortion agencies like Planned Parenthood will throw hissy fit. They'll wrangle money around to try to get the laws changed, but if the people have spoken and they get some influential folks behind them, those with money interests will eventually pack up and ship out (hey, it's working with Microsoft, and it's working with the Tobacco Companies.. right?). Without the encouragement, abortion won't be relied on as a "quick fix."

Maybe people, once they realize what sex is and what pregancy is, and that there ARE options, they won't be so eager to go out having casual sex.

I think abortion, next to the silent victim of the baby herself, hurts the woman the most. She's the one having her body messed with and being taken advantage of by an uncaring societal machine. This has to stop before all human beings can be treated with dignity and respect.

Conclusion:

With this plan, woman don't have to be bothered taking care of children they don't want (they can give birth then that's the end of it.. the child goes to be adopted by a loving family). Population doesn't have to explode beyond control (contraception and sex education). Nobody has their freedom trampled on (unborn babies protected and women saved from guilt). Sure abortion agencies lose potential profits, but screw them, right?

And finally, again I will reasert the only possible instance where I can say that abortion would be justifiable is in the case where the mother will die unless the baby is killed. Again, in this case you're trading a life for a life, and it is a gray situation that can't be decided arbitrarily.

Kurgan

[Flames deleted... consider this a warning Vaggy, sorry bud.]

Kid, we've been having a rather intelligent and mature discussion, but if you're just going to resort to bad-mouthing the people who hold different opinions, then just do us a favor and format your C: drive.

Back to intelligent discussion:

So then, if you were stuck in a rain forest and ate a poisonous apple, then you'd deserve it because that would clearly demonstrate that you don't have a lick of common sense.

And to my esteemed colleague, Kurgan, animals are really no different than us, other than the fact that we are more intelligent than they are. The only rights we have are the ones we've given ourselves. We don't have any inate or natural rights that are unique to us in the Animal kingdom - only those that we've decided we should have due to our perceived view of our own specialness.

This topic actually does tie into the topic of this thread: I view Humans as just another animal, while many here tend to view Humans as quasi-divine in some way. Obviously I'm more fond of Humans than say, those in the Porcine species, but our only differences lie in our genes - our DNA. That being the case, I don't view the termination of an early to mid pregnancy as a genocidal event. Further, I view the killing of an adult animal of any species as more significant than the death of an early-stage fetus.

Have you ever visited a slaughter house? I have. I used to work for a company called Excel, the meat-packing division of Cargill Foods. Even though I worked as a software developer at their corporate HQ in Wichita, KS, we had occasion to visit the beef and pork plants during the course of our duties. They march the cattle up a long ramp; toward the top a man shackles one hind leg with a chain, which is attached to an overhead rail; at the ramp's summit stands a man holding what looks like a mini-jack hammer; the cattle down the ramp see what's happening ahead and their eyes get big; they're scared but they can't move due to tight, confining walls; they can't go backward as the ramp's conveyor moves them closer and closer to that which they fear; in their final moments the man does his best to place the tool flush against their writhing skull; he depressed the trigger and a six-inch metal rod is thrust into their skull, a high powered ejection of air blasted into their skull cavity; often a fountain of blood squirts out the wound; on a cold day one can see a trail of billowy steam streaming from their skull cavity; next the conveyor pushes them off the other side of the ramp, and the leg chain catches them, hanging them upside down, kicking; often they urinate and deficate all over themselves; sometimes they vomit; a man, with a sharp blade attached to a long pole, jabs the cow in the neck to bleed it; they're supposed to be dead by the time they reach this point, but from my observations this didn't always seem to be the case, which resulted in animals being cut apart while they're still alive.

As you're standing at the top of the stairway to heaven, and you watch the assembly line death of 1000 pound animals, unbrilliant as they might be, you can't help but feel profound sadness. You can sense their extreme fear. You can almost sense their lives being extinguished. All they want is to just stand around in green fields and eat grass, and be happy. One seriously questions what authority we have to submit any living thing, much less an entire species, to such barbarious treatment.

As we toured the rest of the plant, I saw hoof guillotines that would slice the feet off the legs; I saw bodies sliced open and the intestines eject themselves onto a huge, waiting table; I saw sides of beef, still warm, with muscles still reflexively twitching; I saw heads on hooks, striped of hide, again with muscles twitching, the eyes staring at me; I waded through dark hallways, flooded with warm blood. It was Hell.

My eyes have seen a sureal world of fear and carnage on an industrial scale, and given me new insight to the depths of Human arrogance and ignorance.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...



[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited July 19, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited July 19, 2000).]

That is a big consideration, that Christians at least do believe people are beloved of God (enough to make us His spiritual children and heirs anyway) and that every single human life is sacred. Abortion is impossible to support in any logical way if one believes this.

But if you don't...what do you respect? The law I suppose. Well then, abortion is also impossible to support if you accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the UN (they themselves contradict it, but they are a rather incompetent and stupid organization most of the time).

So, Vagabond, how do you justify in your mind which laws you are going to follow? The laws put forward by the UN as well as the US that state every human has the right to life, or the laws that say some humans can be destroyed en masse simply because of their age?

If you consider democratic law to be paramount, you have a dilemma I cannot see a way out of, save to reject your belief that the law is final. I would like to 'hear' how you have solved this dilemma, because I am stumped by it (of course I have no problem rejecting a man-made law as immoral and unacceptable, as I consider man incapable of deciding morality for himself, that is God's job).

------------------
"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."
-Ted Byfield

And Darth Prime, please be patient. I know how you feel, and I have trouble sometimes not blowing up on people who stick with abortion in defiance of (how I see it) all logic.

It doesn't help to call people names, nor to get angry. Even though I have almost punched through a wall or my monitor (seriously) when I think about what abortion is doing to humanity, I always cool myself down. It is better in the long run.

Conor, the solution is simple, although I'm confident you won't agree with my assessment.

When I clip my fingernails, the clippings are composed of Human DNA. However, no one would classify such a clipping as a Human Being. Likewise, an early-to-mid-stage Human fetus is a collection of Human DNA, but not what the nations of the Earth have chosen to classify as a Human Being. The developing fetus is analogous to the fingernail clipping and is key to the solution. This is where I expect you'll most disagree with me.

Lastly, the world has chosen to bestow Human Rights to an individual at the event of birth. This is how the delima is currently handled, which is acceptable. Further, we must keep in mind that this is consistent with legal and biblical law. Recall that children do not possess full rights - they are commanded to obey their parents, and do not possess their full rights until the age of 18 in the USA. This same model applies to the fetus, except in reverse.

Personally, I accept extending those rights to the fetus at the mother's consent. For example, if someone assaulted a mother causing a miscarriage, then that assaulting party could be charged with murder for the death of the fetus. But this extension would be dependent on the mother's choice to complete or terminate the pregnancy. If she was on her way to have her pregnancy terminated, then filing murder charges would not apply.

These are my views, which I'm sure you're probably very familiar with by now http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Okay, now I think we're getting a bit off topic yet again (do we ever stay on topic)?

On the subject of animal rights, I must say I am in favor of species loyalty.

Some animals rights groups (not to stereotype, I'm sure not all share this view) are strong supporters of radical population control programs (ie: force sterilization, abortions), in order to check human growth to protect animal life.

However, how can these people justify the MURDER OF THEIR OWN GENETIC BROTHERS AND SISTERS (sure, it's always those "other people" over there.. the poor, the undesirables.. they would change their tune if it meant their own families or they themselves had to die for some cows, pigs or bugs) to save some animals they think need saving, even when there is NO CLEAR HUMAN BENEFIT to protecting the other animals.

I'd rather see a bug, a pig, a dog, a horse, a bull, a snail, a lizard, a spotted owl, etc etc die before a fellow human being.

I think it is natural that as a species, we should have some kind of loyalty. Have we sold out our own race (the human race?) in favor of some sentimental fascination with nature? Isn't nature "red in tooth and claw"? Isn't survival all about just that.. survival ? Surely species suicide (as some seem to be advocating.. ZPG type groups) is not the answer.

Why do I feel that other animal lives aren't worth as much as human lives? Because I'm a human being that's why.

This has nothing to do with any "semi-divinity" that humans have.

This isn't talking humans in regard to God or any other spiritual sense. Only in the sense of Humanism.

Human beings by nature are special. Sure, one can try and say that no, we aren't. True, we have many limitations biologically. True, we are a member of the animal kingdom.

However, we have things like Free Will, culture, civilization, politics, economics, science, religion, etc etc.

Do other animals have these things?

We do not really know if other animals are capable of independant thought and have "minds" as we concieve of them. We do know that human beings have minds. How then, we can we defend animals life, which we do not know has intelligence, when we cannot defend human life, which we KNOW has intelligence?

Fingernail clippings are not the same things as fetuses at all.

If I cut off my arm, it doesn't turn into another person. No, it is part of my own body, and has no intelligence. It is genetically part of me, not another being.

A fetus however, shares genetic matieral inherieted from both parents. It is a seperate being. It is something NEW. It is not simply a piece of the woman's body. To say that it is, is to ignore biology.

Vagabond, the fetus is a human being. That is an undeniable fact. Either the fetus has inherent human rights, or, you seem to be saying, that actually "human rights" do not exist, and it's only whatever we want to call them.

In your mind apparently, Human Rights are only a metaphysical belief, that is relative to every person. Or maybe you are trying to say that human beings do not exist (ie: there is no such thing as a "human being"?).

I am not quite sure where you are applying it, but it has "doublethink" written all over it.

You seem to be saying three conflicting things:

1) Yes, the fetus is a human being, but so what, human rights can be applied to anything, so they are meaningless.

2) The fetus is not a human being, because the term "human being" is just whatever people want it to mean.

3) The fetus is a human being, but for some reason an pregnant woman has the power of life and death over it.

Which is it, Vagabond?

The fetus is human by virtue of biology.

Human Rights, by definition, suggest that they apply to us as a SPECIES, and are not based on stipulations of race, age, wealth, etc.

If, as Vagabond says, human beings are essentially "minds" and therefore we have rights, does this mean that animals do not have rights, because their minds are clearly not capable of the kinds of things we have produced? Yes, you may argue that other animals think for themselves.. they just can't tell us, etc. Their intelligence is theoretical. We have proof of human intelligence.

I ask you, where is their science, their culture, their religion, their politics, their civilization?

Where is anything they have produced beyond mere instinct and a few tricks we have taught them?

I'm not calling for hunting any species to extinction or torturing any dumb beast for pleasure or profit.

All I'm saying is that Human beings are my concern, not the other creatures of this world.

When it comes to our survival and our benefit, we should respect nature. For its aesthetic value we should respect nature (not getting into any Religious notions of what nature means, etc, this is on a purely Humanistic Philosophical level here).

However, we should not respect nature at the COST of human lives which have inherent value.

If the "value" of human life is only something we dreamed up, and really has no meaning or existence, then we might as well do whatever we want, and people like the Nazis are just as right and good as people like Mother Teresa. I don't see this as a very practical, or logical point of view.

Abortion, by nature, destroys innocent human lives. Eating a hamburger does not (not unless you have a real problem with cholesterol that is..).

I love animals, but if we're going to kill humans to save them, then screw 'em.

Would you want your loved ones to die because of some non-intelligent beast that's below you on the food chain? Sacrifice your rights to your potential next meal?


To those who would freely sacrifice human lives for the sake of "dumb beasts:"

If you care so much for other animals, and so little for humanity, maybe you should do us all a favor and set the good example.. by biting the dust yourself, thus freeing up space for those with whom your loyalties lie.

I'm not a mean guy, but that's about as blunt a point I can make in answer to the radical animal rights advocates who seem to hate their own kind. Again, not all animal rights folks are like that, I'm speaking only to the extremists.

I'm not calling you an extremist Vagabond, but I am disagreeing strongly with your position and your line of reasoning. Apparently there are others who think as you do, and I also disagree with them. It puzzles me how they come to their conclusions and it frightens me how they tend to misuse logic and ignore scientific facts when it suits them.

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited July 19, 2000).]

The Bill of Rights says that there should be equal rights among men. Does that also mean that a fetus has a right to live? If it does, then I say we should get rid of abortion.

Kurgan,


...Fingernail clippings are not the same things as fetuses at all.

If I cut off my arm, it doesn't turn into another person. No, it is part of my own body, and has no intelligence. It is genetically part of me, not another being...


You are wrong, my friend. With today's technology, your fingernail clippings, your hair, your dead skin all have the potential to become adult Human Beings.

On the subject of animal rights:


...Would you want your loved ones to die because of some non-intelligent beast that's below you on the food chain? Sacrifice your rights to your potential next meal?...


First of all, I'm not sure where you got the idea that people should die, rather than animals. Secondly, animals are intelligent. Thirdly, I'm contending that people should have more respect for all life forms, regardless of how you perceive their level of intelligence.

You know, Kurgan, you actually made my point for me. I've contended all along that what sets Humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability for complex thought. You underscored my position with your veiled insult of ...some non-intelligent beast.... So, even though Humans have culture, civilization, etc, all these things are an effect of our level of intelligence, not the cause of it. Hence, our intelligence is what makes us Human...our DNA.

Based off of your position that (paraphrased) "we're at the top of the food-chain, so we should milk it for all it's worth", then if some more advanced life form ever encountered our remote little world, then they would have every right to send Humans to the slaughter house since we'd be relatively non-intelligent beasts in their eyes (assuming they have eyes). They could say this by claiming, "...they haven't even mastered telepathy, faster-than-light travel, or even universe-tunneling...these are the real measures of intelligent life...".

Remember the phrase "...absolute power corrupts absolutely...". The real measure of a civilized and intelligent life form is one that has the power to exploit, enslave, and exterminate other life forms, but has the wisdom and soulfulness not to, rather choosing to live in harmony. There is nothing divine or attractive about a species that is so selfish and short-sighted that it choses the path of tyranny, simply because it can.

Now, I'm not saying we should all become Druid-Wiccans and run around naked in the woods. We need some meat to live...but we don't need to fish the oceans populations to near collapse as they are now. Nor do we need to chop down thousand-year-old forests to make particle board. Nor do we need to use such barbaric methods to kill the animals that we eat; surely a more Humane method can be devised; if a death-method is unacceptable for a Human, then it's unacceptable for an animal; we definitely don't need to eat Lobster if the only way to eat them is by boiling them alive; with today's new biotechnology, hopefully animal flesh will be able to be grown on lab-farms in huge sheets so that no actual animals will ever have to be killed; and we will have a renewable, tasty food-staple.

And to the original topic of this thread, some day the technology will exist, which will enable surgeon to remove a live fetus from the mother and transport it to a tank where it can finish out its gestation period. Once born, it could then be adopted by all the people you say want children. This is the ultimate compromise, where the rights of both the mother and fetus can be protected. It's a win-win. Do you agree? If so, then perhaps a movement should begin to promote more research in this area.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...


[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited July 20, 2000).]

I would then simply say our achievements are not what make us human, but a reflection of it.

If I bulid something, it is not the building that makes me a human being worthy of life. Such a merit system would mean all of us would be up for execution until we "did something good." No, anything I create, thus would be a reflection of my inherent intelligence as a human being. I would say not all of us actualize or express that intelligence in the same way, but we all possess it, and certainly the achievements of our species reflect that.

That is, these are the signs of our intelligence, not our intelligence itself.

Otherwise, we could, in theory, justify killing everyone who hasn't invented a language, culture, religion, political system, etc. Kill all the non-inventors, architects, etc.

No, as a species we are merely CAPABLE of these things, thus we are what we are.

Other animals are not capable of these things, not to the degree that our species is.

Eugenicists will say that those who are not considered by society to be productive and intelligent should be eliminated, to cleanse the gene pool and free up resources for the "superior" members of our race. I think that kind of thinking is what plays into the whole abortion debate on the pro-side.

Abortion is perfectly justifiable to these people, and in fact is mandated by their beliefs. That is, we should weed out those undesirables to perfect our species.

I don't think as human beings, in the spirit of compassion and love, can possibly advocate these kinds of things. It is against science, and against the principles of human love and order.

That is why abortion is wrong. Not because some God told me to in some old book, or what not. I'm arguing this only on the principle that we are a unique species, and arguably the only intelligent species on this planet, and so have a duty to respect each other, regardless of what we perceive as personal achievement.

In short: don't kill our babies, they're just like us. You can kill the animals, they aren't like us, but that doesn't mean be cruel or make them extinct either.

I see your point Vagabond, but your continual comparisons, which seek to trivialize human life are most insulting.

When I seek to compare human lives vs. animals lives, I was merely showing my opposition to what some extremists believe. I was also reacting to your seeming presentation of how horrible killing animals is, yet how harmless and beneficial killing humans can be.
<hr><ul>

My point: Abortion, by nature, destroys human lives (which have inherent value) needlessly, and thus abortion is inherently bad. If it is inherently bad, it should not be purposely continued.

Kurgan

You are wrong, my friend. With today's technology, your fingernail clippings, your hair, your dead skin all have the potential to become adult Human Beings.

I was not aware that cloning technology had advanced to the point of that portrayed in the Star Wars universe.

Perhaps you can point me to these science fiction references that prove your claim.

Kurgan

Sorry, a couple of things to add to this list (for some reason the network isn't showing my posts, so I'll have to go back and edit this later).

- As to future alien races that will invade us and use us as food. Perhaps. But does that really mean that we should kill our own young? Maybe we should become vegetarians, as you say. Many other animals have not had the foresight to overcome their evolutionary genetics and become vegetarians (human beings are ominvores, according to science and biology). Still, if your dream of a future vegan utopia is to be realized, we must first stop the barbaric destruction of our own fellow human beings. So we still have to get rid of abortion, sorry. ; )

I'm not going to get into Frankensteinian genetic manipulation procedures at this time. At this point, most of these procedures are still in their infancy. They have yet to be perfected and practical. Certainly, they can be afforded on a mainly experimental basis by the very rich, but I hardly see it as a solution for our small planet at this time. Certainly when the time comes it should be discussed at length. But, that probably won't stop them.. but that sort of thing didn't stop "the bomb," either.

As to the "potential to become human" really has no bearing on the abortion issue, because, as biology tells us, human fetuses are already human. Even if you could clone a human being from dead tissue (say, your hair or your fingernail clippings) that isn't comparable to killing a fetus.

You are trying to say: throw away a hair clipping.. you just killed a potential human!

I say: no, because the hair clipping isn't a human right now. You aren't killing anything.

you say: isn't abortion the same thing?

I say: no, because the fetus is a human already, and you're outright killing it, not simply preventing a human being from coming into existence.

The same would be true even if you could turn a stone into a human with some kind of "Super Ray." The stone isn't alive (yet), so NOT turning it into a human isn't murder. But killing a human being is.

That is why I could easily defend contraceptive methods, but not abortion.

In one case you are merely preventing sperm and egg from combining to form a human being.

In the other case you are taking a human being that has already formed and destroying it.

The fact that a fetus doesn't look and act like an adult human being doesn't mean a thing. Not all adults act and look the same and neither do children. Everbody's body is constantly "growing" and "developing." We gain new memories, our cells divide, etc. It's a continual process from conception to death. Human life thus begins when the sperm and egg combine. Once that happens, you have a human life, that needs to be protected.

Kurgan

Originally posted by Kurgan:
I was not aware that cloning technology had advanced to the point of that portrayed in the Star Wars universe.

Perhaps you can point me to these science fiction references that prove your claim.

Kurgan

Come on, Kurgan. Don't be like that. You know very well that large mammals have already been cloned. Sheep, cows, etc. Biomechanically, Humans are no different. Perhaps science can't clone from a fingernail just yet, but one could take a life cell from you and make another Kurgan. It's only a matter of time before clones can be created from any complete strand of DNA, regardless of it's source. The only thing holding us back will be those who have ethical issues with pursuing this research.

I don't have any problem with it.



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

...The fact that a fetus doesn't look and act like an adult human being doesn't mean a thing. Not all adults act and look the same and neither do children. Everbody's body is constantly "growing" and "developing." We gain new memories, our cells divide, etc. It's a continual process from conception to death. Human life thus begins when the sperm and egg combine. Once that happens, you have a human life, that needs to be protected...


I completley disagree. You're saying that one cell is a Human being. That's no different than taking a biopsy from your arm and saying that's a Human Being. Absurd. Even two cells in the zygote is not a Human. 16 cells. 32 cells. Sure, left to bake for several months, they'll begin to form a Human, but they're not at the moment of conception.


...Maybe we should become vegetarians, as you say...


I don't say. Like I've said, I love a good steak, and I do eat steak. However, I have an ethical conflict with mass murder of a species to sustain me, when there are other ways I can survive. Since I do in fact enjoy eating meat, my solution is to grow meat so on a lab-farm.


...You can kill the animals, they aren't like us, but that doesn't mean be cruel or make them extinct either...


So, you're saying it's okay to kill things that aren't like you. To what degree? I'm not like you in that I don't share your views. Is it okay to kill me? How about black people or homosexual people. They're notn like you...is murdering them okay? How about Muslims?

Here's a basic rule of thumb: it's not okay to kill any creature that has a basic instinct for self-preservation. If it wants to live, it has a right to live. This is a natural tendency, as you'll notice that most species don't kill or eat others of their own species. True, it does happen in certain situations, but it is the exception rather than the rule.

Lastly, let me end on what will likely be viewed as a controversial note.


...Eugenicists will say that those who are not considered by society to be productive and intelligent should be eliminated, to cleanse the gene pool and free up resources for the "superior" members of our race. I think that kind of thinking is what plays into the whole abortion debate on the pro-side.

Abortion is perfectly justifiable to these people, and in fact is mandated by their beliefs. That is, we should weed out those undesirables to perfect our species...


I think it must be clear that these reasons have absolutely nothing to do with my support of a woman's right to choose. I find the aborting of so-called undesirables as repulsive. Undesirable being those of certain races, social statuses, etc. I can see the aborting of severely deformed or retarded fetuses...I'm sure you don't agree.

However, that's not the controversial thing I want to bring up...this is it: have you noticed that as medical technology increases that Human life-spans have increased? Sure you have. Have you also noticed that people who would have normally died due to disease or genetic abnormality are now living long enough to produce off-spring? I've noticed an alarming event happening. Essentially, the Human species has stopped evolving in the industrialized world, and the argument can even be made that it is devolving. Not because of the mixing of races, which I personally view as a good thing. I say that Humanity has begun to devolve because rather than becoming hardier as a species, we are being made weaker and sicker due to the reproduction and sustainment of people with genetic health problems. If you keep technology frozen and ran a simulation out 100,000 years, most of the planet would probably have genetic heart problems, diabetes, cancer, sickle cell anemia, etc, etc, etc.

Humanity is no longer the survival of the fitest, but in general, it's the survival of everyone. I'm not saying that genetically diseased people should be killed, but if I had a genetic disease, I wouuld choose not to have children so that my kids wouldn't be cursed with my health problems, as well as the rest of the world population.

Now, since the Human genome has recently been mapped, perhaps there will be a way to use gene therapy to repair all these peoples' defective genes. That would be ideal, and would eliminate the problem that Humanity would get weaker and more frail with each generation.

I know this must sound very Nazi, but it's actually quite true. It's a problem, with an ethical solution lying with recent scientific breakthroughs.

------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...



[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited July 20, 2000).]

My point, Vaggy, was that your example was incorrect.

We cannot clone human beings from dead matter currently.

By your definition, our minds make us human. So I assume then by your definition, we would need to clone a person's "mind" as well as his body. A clone of me would be an embryo that would grow independant of me, and I would be old before he would be grown to my current age. He would have different memories and experiences than me, and probably be a very different person as a result (consult identicle twin studies for evidence of this fact).

People like yourself who are so worried about population control would probably be against cloning humans anyhow, right? Not that it would be practical to clone very many folks. And they would be just as human as everybody else. Nobody says that one Twin is any less human than his brother or her sister, so why should it be any different than with clones?

Fingernail clippings and hair samples are useless for human cloning.

That technology does not exist yet, so it is incorrect to say that it does. You don't see me talking about interplanetary teleportation, telekenesis or Death Stars do you? No, because those things only exist in the realm of fiction.

And no, I am not talking about just Muslims or just homosexuals, I'm talking about Human Beings. When I say "different from us" I mean other non-intelligent species.

By human standards, we are the only intelligent species on earth. Yet we think it's okay to kill off members of our own species, who are just as intelligent as ourselves? That makes no sense.

Is that so hard for you to grasp?

I'm talking about our SPECIES. You are the one who is saying we have to decide that some human beings are not human beings (unborn babies for example) and are ascribing human status to non-living material (ie: fingernail clippings, hair).

Human beings are a biologically distinct species of animal.

Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Didn't you learn any of that stuff in school? Let's get that straight once and for all here.

Again, Vagabond, your arguments are going off into two different directions.

1) Abortion is okay because the term "human" has no meaning, and thus human rights do not exist. The fetus is human, but so are my toenail clippings.

2) Abortion is okay because the fetus is NOT human. We "become human" when we develop "minds," or what our society thinks a mind is.

These two views are contradictory.

If you define "human" is someone with a mind, how do you prove that something has a mind? Do your toenail clippings have "minds"?

Are you saying a cow has a mind, but a human fetus does not?

You have been saying two different things...

So which one is it, Vagabond?


And btw, if a group of predatory alien conquerers with superior technology and intelligence than us were to invade.. I'm sure they would use their own logic to determine that we are inferior and destroy/eat/exploit/eat us.

But what relevance is that to our debate? I have no control over what those alien warlords (or "WarZordZ" as they like to be called) decide to do to us, as they are so powerful. They will certainly not ask our opinion on the matter if they are convinced we are dumb beasts. So debating it is pointless at this time. We'd be better off trying to invent Planetary Defense Systems (PDS) to stop them before they arrive. ; )

Kurgan


[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited July 20, 2000).]

Btw, I'm glad I piqued your interest enough to keep ya around for a bit longer than you wanted to, Vagabond. ; )

Kurgan

...We cannot clone human beings from dead matter currently...Fingernail clippings and hair samples are useless for human cloning...


True, I am not aware of scientists stating that they can clone creatures from the DNA extracted from fingernail clippings or hair samples. The fact is that these body parts do contain intact DNA, and based off of the rapid development of cloning technology I am confident that it is only a matter of when, not if.


...By your definition, our minds make us human. So I assume then by your definition, we would need to clone a person's "mind" as well as his body...


No, the mind is a product of the brain. All creatures have minds, and are dependent on the complexity of their brains. Tape worms will be extremely simple-minded. Cows a bit more intelligent. Dolphins quite a bit more clever. Lastly on Earth, Humans currently have the most complex minds.


...A clone of me would be an embryo that would grow independant of me, and I would be old before he would be grown to my current age. He would have different memories and experiences than me, and probably be a very different person as a result (consult identicle twin studies for evidence of this fact)...(a clone) would be just as human as everybody else...


I totally agree. A clone is a distinct individual, with it's own mind and thoughts, etc. What's the argument about here?


...People like yourself who are so worried about population control would probably be against cloning humans anyhow, right?...


What the hell are you talking about? I've never said anything with regard to being concerned about population control. Is this an assumption you've made?

Although it is true that the Earth only has the capacity to support a finite amount of life. I don't know where that limit is, but we must all be cognizant of it.


...When I say "different from us" I mean other non-intelligent species...


That description is so relative that its usefulness is utterly meaningless. This is what a species, who views itself as superior, says to justify the exploitation of the weak.


...we think it's okay to kill off members of our own species...Is that so hard for you to grasp?...


This simply illustrates our difference of opinion. At a fundamental level we are in disagreement, so every other debate that spawns from this fundamental point is meaningless. The fundamental point?

I do not classify an early-to-mid-stage fetus as a Human Being. You do.


...You are the one who is saying we have to decide that some human beings are not human beings (unborn babies for example) and are ascribing human status to non-living material (ie: fingernail clippings, hair)...


You have misunderstood. My point in bringing up the fingernail clippings was not to illustrate that fingernail clippings have Human status. It was to show that a fetus, which is analogous to fingernail clippings DNA-wise, does not have Human status. You got it backwards. My hope was that once you made the connection, the absurdness of hair and fingernails being classified as Humans would prompt you to realize that a one-celled fetus is not a Human Being either.


1) Abortion is okay because the term "human" has no meaning, and thus human rights do not exist. The fetus is human, but so are my toenail clippings.

2) Abortion is okay because the fetus is NOT human. We "become human" when we develop "minds," or what our society thinks a mind is.


Actually, as I've already stated, point (1) should be ammended to say, "My toenails are not Human, and neither is a fetus".


...Are you saying a cow has a mind, but a human fetus does not?...


I am confident that an adult cow has a mind. I am equally as confident that a one-celled fetus does not have a mind. It probably doesn't develop something remotely resembling a mind until the brain actually starts to form. However, just as you stated in your speach about, "We're at the top of the food chain and we have a right to live it up", the mother has the overriding right to terminate her pregnancy if she chooses. That's my view.


...And btw, if a group of predatory alien conquerers with superior technology and intelligence than us were to invade.. I'm sure they would use their own logic to determine that we are inferior and
destroy/eat/exploit/eat us...


Well, unless we change our ways, then we have it coming. What goes around comes around, right?

My point, which I'd hoped you would have arrived at on your own is that being more intelligent does not grant one the right to decide the fate of others. Just because you have the power does not mean you must use the power.

If an technologically advanced-civ discovered us and then devoured us, I'd contend that they weren't actually any more advanced than us. Perhaps technologically, but not spiritually. Not intelligently.


...But what relevance is that to our debate? I have no control over what those alien warlords decide to do to us, as they are so powerful. They will certainly not ask our opinion on the matter if they are convinced we are dumb beasts...


Exactly my point. I think you're beginning to see that we have no more right to exploit less intelligent life, than some advanced civilizaiton would have to exploit us. We all have a right to exist.

So, Kurgan, please comment on my idea of removing the fetus from the mother and growing it in a tank, so that it can be made available for adoption.

------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...


[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited July 20, 2000).]

I see that you have rejected science in order to justify supporting abortion. Why don't you just say you don't believe humans have the right to life? At least that position is pseudo-supportable. I don't see what base you can argue from when you reject any scientific classification of species or organism.

It seems you believe that what makes us human is how convenient we are to those that hold power over our lives.

There is simply no argument against the humanity of the unborn baby. Not on a scientific, rational or logical level. Is he a thinking human? No. A mind interacting with other minds? Not yet. A living human in the first stages of growth and maturation? Undeniably. If humans have any rights, unborn babies have them too.

I challenge you to come up with any actual evidence of your beliefs besides asinine comparisons with fingernails of all things. I know I have never heard any scientific defense of the inhumanity of the unborn baby, which is because it is quite impossible to do so.

------------------
"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."
-Ted Byfield

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited July 20, 2000).]

Conor,


...I see that you have rejected science in order to justify supporting abortion...


I see that you only accept what you want to hear in order to support your view. I've provided a very clear and convincing argument that a one-celled fetus is not a human being, any more than a cell in your arm is a human being. This is undeniable, and you know it. You're so infatuated with the divinity of Human-ness that you're incapable of conceiving anything contrary to that view.

Your loss.

But make no mistake, I view Humans as a very special life form, and am quite fond of them. Where the difference lies between you and I is that I view all life as precious. You, on the other hand, think the universe revolves around the Human Being, much like ancient people thought the universe revolved around the Earth. How backward your views will be seen thousands of years from now.

That said, and because of what I just said, there is nothing divine or special or miraculous about a couple small cells with Human DNA. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing that's any more or less special than any other developing life form.



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

I've had with Vagabond. Remember this, 'pal': Don't get in my way.

LOL! What are you gonna do if I do get in your way? Hit CTRL+AL+Delete?! ROTFLMAO!!!

Kid, if the only thing you have to add to this discussion is cyber-threats, then maybe you should go visit this site: http://www.teletubbies.com/) ...it's more to your maturity level.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Vagabond, the accusation you make could easily be pointed back at you.. that you will only agree with evidence that supports your claim that abortion is justified. Your first premise is that as a Liberal, you must be in favor of women's rights. You are convinced that the ability to seek an abortion is a woman's right.

Thus, in your mind, inherent to all women is the 'right' to have an abortion.

I have tried several tactics to try to get you to come to terms with what I see as faulty premises.

First of all I don't see abortion as a right that women (or anyone) is entitled to. Second, I see abortion as in violation of the rights of others.

As an American, I subscribe the belief that all human beings are entitled to certain inalienable rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I do not limit this right to people who are in the womb or in a hospital bed, etc.

I also think that human rights are philosophically defensible, but only if they are applied universally. Otherwise you lapse into relativism. From a relativist prespected, no such rights exist, because everyone simply believes what they want to believe and will fight for what they want. Nobody can enforce any rules or laws or rights by this ideology, because none exist. This is why if I were a Relativist, I would not be able to defend the rights of women OR unborn human beings, or anyone for that matter. I could only say they are cultural differences that no authority can decide who is right.

Accusing your opponent of ignorance/hypocrisy/narrow mindedness is a classic defense mechanism used in reaction to criticism, however, it doesn't make for very healthy debate. It is much better to SHOW in a way they can understand, the error of their ways, not by merely hurling an insult their way.

So now you say the fetus is NOT human. Good, while still incorrect, at least you are now being consistent. ; )

However, I will ask you now, to please clarify again for me, what makes a human being a human being, and at what point in our lives we BECOME human beings, since you obviously believe that we are not human beings in the initial stages of our physical growth.

Am I to understand you support "right to die" assisted suicide and euthanasia (for the terminally ill or incapacitated)?

Do your positions on these other issues have any bearing on the "what/when is a human" question?

Or are you just following the "party line" on the these social issues regarding human lives and human rights? I'm asking this because you consider yourself a Liberal, and generally Liberals seem to follow a set of guidelines, granted not all Liberals agree on everything, but it sounds to me like you fit the bill. Tell me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to be holding onto any negative stereotypes...

Do 'human rights' exist or not?

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited July 21, 2000).]

THAT"S IT!!!!!!!! I HAVE Had It WITH YOU. If I had my way, I'd get rid of scum like you. You don't even know who I am. And don't you dare talk to me about maturity, I'm not the one for some stupid thing that forcibly takes human lives brfore they get a chance to be born. It's monsters like you who go and do something so idiotic. That teletubbies thing is something suitedalbe for you.

Oh,and another thing, I think that abortion is part of another thing: COMMUNSIM!

I've been watching this topic for a long time now, and haven't participated for a reason.

This is getting way out of hand.

Listen People, Everyone is going to have their own opinions about abortion no matter what anyone else says. That is something you can not change.

I have my own definite ideas about abortion. I expressed them and stopped posting. In the short time that I did take to post however, I was already getting the first signs of flaming. That is why I stopped.

This Thread is for discussion, and what is turning into seems to be a Flame-fest. Everyone needs to realize that flaming someone else because of their ideas or beliefs doesn't change a thing and never could.

And as long as you continue to flame, you close your mind to the ideas of others. Now, this doesn't mean that you have to agree or even like the others ideas, But it does mean that your willing to listen.

I'm sure you can all agree that approaching a situation with an open mind gets you much farther than screaming at someone who can't hear you...

Food for thought...

the13thjedi

------------------
http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/select/2000/28/img/select_one.jpg)

Mind or no mind aside, Vagabond, you forget the simple fact that a fetus has, from a single cell, different DNA than either its mother or its father.

This is the point where we should consider something human.

------------------
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.

Words of wisdom 13thjedi..., words of wisdom.

Yes, I feel the reason for this debate is also about a desire on the parts of the folks here to get others to at least UNDERSTAND their differing point of view, not merely to share their opinion.

If this were just a place to dump your opinion on the board (which is perfectly fine too if you want), then we just would have had one post from each person and that would be it.

Granted, just talking on a message board isn't going to change 99.9% of most people's opinions on any topic. Even if somebody "loses" a debate, they can still walk away from their computer and say "well I know I'm right, I just can't prove it to these guys." And that's how it goes.

I find it interesting to debate with others who are as certain of their rightness as I am. ; ) Obviously they and I have some different ideas, and it's good to share those ideas. Learning how the other guy thinks is important in this world... even if you don't agree with him.

Good point. Yes, there is no reason to flame in here. Vag and Prime got pretty close to it, and they should hold back a bit I think.

Otherwise this thread has been fairly successful.

Now if I REALLY wanted to start a flame war (hehe, well not necessarily, but there certainly would be alot more replies) I could introduce religion into it...

a few stray comments here and there have mentioned religion, but in all, I figured it would be a NEW discussion, if we left religion out of it mostly. I mean anybody can turn on the news or read a newspaper and see the religious debate if they want to.

Kurgan

DarthPrime, Vagabond, that's a warning for each of you in case you don't recall...

Keep the flames out of this thread or I'll have to give you a "spank" (temporary ban).

Surely we can express our disagreement without hurling personal insults back and forth!

Kurgan

Okay, that aside, here's a comment:

Where the difference lies between you and I is that I view all life as precious. You, on the other hand, think the universe revolves around the Human Being, much like ancient people thought the universe revolved around the Earth. How backward your views will be seen thousands of years from now

However, aren't you the one who was into comparing an unborn human being to a fingernail clipping? Weren't you the one who said it was okay to kill a baby, as long as a woman wasn't being inconvenienced?

Isn't that just a little bit hypocritical?

A fingernail clipping isn't alive.. a human fetus is.

At least be consistent. ; )

As to the "backwardness" I figure in the far future, assuming we haven't degenerated into an army of mutant, drooling barbarians (in a post-apocalyptic 'Road Warrior' world, no doubt), they will look back at this country and this time period and say:

"Wow, they had alot of great technology, but they still had alot of problems. They thought they were intellectually and morally superior to the rest of the world, yet they still practiced infanticide, imperialism, and kept much of their population in poverty or in prison."

The truth is, no matter how far we progress, we never seem to shake the problems we began with. The only thing that really changes is the size of our own egos.

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited July 22, 2000).]

You can ban me if you want, but I offer one thing: if Vagabond takes back all the things he/she said about me, I'll take back what I said about him(or her). This doesn't not mean I'll change my mind about abortion. So, Vagabond, I apolgize.

If you guys have further issues to work out that are off topic, please feel free to settle them OFF THIS FORUM. Thanks again guys. ; )

Kurgan

There's one problem with that: this forum is the only way I can talk to Vagabond, and the same probabaly goes for him or her. Another thing is that I don't know where Vagabond lives, nor do I know if Vagabond knows where I live.

I can't believe this. It's been three days since I got online and no one hsa poasted a reply to this topic? I figured Vagabond or someone else (no offense to Vagabond)would have posted a reply.

Well I guess we can all go home now.. nothing to see here.

*Disperse* *Disperse*

Was nice debating with y'all!

Come back now, ya here?

Kurgan

Go home? What are you talking about?