-->
@3RU7AL
Preferably yes. Especially in a manner as inhumane as we do.
Abortion and human rights
Posts
Total:
355
-->
@3RU7AL
Furthermore, to completely stop would be to take away a large human well-being and derive them of protein and food, so we have to be careful how we do it.
-->
@Benjamin
not helping a child is not the same as actively harming it.
Not helping a dying person stranded in a snowstorm is not the same as actively harming it.
Deporting an immigrant to a war-zone is not the same as actively harming it.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Furthermore, to completely stop would be to take away a large human well-being and derive them of protein and food, so we have to be careful how we do it.
I'm pretty sure access to bacon is more of a luxury than a necessity.
-->
@Theweakeredge
"self-awareness without doubt"
This is exactly what I am most interested in although there is a discussion to be had about "partial sentience" and "the moral value" of things with the "capacity to suffer". How do you know you have reached the point of certainty and if it is a gray area do you err on the side of person or potato?
A baby born without eyes, a nose and missing parts of his skull has been discharged from hospital after 40 days despite doctors predicting he would only survive a matter of hours.
Can't we all agree this is a poorly designed world? Shouldn't God loose his God license?
-->
@secularmerlin
"self-awareness without doubt"This is exactly what I am most interested in although there is a discussion to be had about "partial sentience" and "the moral value" of things with the "capacity to suffer". How do you know you have reached the point of certainty and if it is a gray area do you err on the side of person or potato?
And does the mother suffer more in childbirth than the blastocyst suffers in deportation?
-->
@FLRW
Can't we all agree this is a poorly designed world? Shouldn't God loose his God license?
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD
-->
@3RU7AL
Bacon is not a majority of pork imports, but that's just not representative of my argument, this is in regards to most meat not specific bits.
-->
@3RU7AL
And does the mother suffer more in childbirth than the blastocyst suffers in deportation?
Absolutely, a blastocyst is incapable of suffering biologically.
-->
@secularmerlin
This is exactly what I am most interested in although there is a discussion to be had about "partial sentience" and "the moral value" of things with the "capacity to suffer". How do you know you have reached the point of certainty and if it is a gray area do you err on the side of person or potato?
IF that being is aware that they exist, THEN they have sentience. Having partial sentience might be something like having a notion that you exist.
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF that being is aware that they exist, THEN they have sentience. Having partial sentience might be something like having a notion that you exist.
Perhaps you could provide some real-life examples?
-->
@3RU7AL
infants.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Somebody already did:
Might be, but they have not changed the declaration of human rights to use the word "person".
This is not even considering the fact that it is not moral to force a woman
P1. IF a fetus is a human it has moral value just like the mother
P2. The right to life is more important than the right to privacy.
C. IF a fetus is a human then we must choose the lesser evil - banning abortion (exceptions being when the danger is too high)
I am saying that if abortion is immoral then it doesn't matter that women's rights are broken, as the right to life is more basic and fundamental. Also, we are prohibiting an industry, we will not in any way directly apply force on the mother. If abortion (exceptions excluded) are banned that is not "forcing" the mother to carry to term - nature forces her, we simply don't allow society and science to defy nature in an immoral way.
I do not think humans have intrinsic value
Still, society must ACT like humans have intrinsic value. If not, we get slavery, holocaust, oppression of women and children and lastly persecution based on religion.
a speciest lens that made us only care for humans and not every species equally
Interesting question. But it is survival of the fittest, isn't it? Since animals can't really agree to a moral contract, AS A SPECIES, they cannot have the same moral considerations by your own definition, as they cannot respect the well being of others. Also, they are not part of society but live in the wild.
Are people not allowed to change their mind regarding such a huge decision and future impact on their own well-being?
Yes, they can change their mind. But action is not the same as though. I cannot be arrested for "wanting" someone to be dead, but I can from killing.
it is not moral to force a woman to donate, their body, mental state, and possibly their life if they do not agree to have a child.
Agreed. No force should be applied to her in addition to the burden she already has. And when she gives birth she is free to leave the child to be adopted or taken care of, as such, we can compensate her and also help the innocent child. This is, at the very least, the only moral choice in the 10% of cases after your 13 weeks brain-idea.
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF that being is aware that they exist, THEN they have sentience. Having partial sentience might be something like having a notion that you exist.
They absolutely exist, as an organism --aka fetus fertilized egg or other-- of the pregnant woman.
They do not exist ad independent human individual aka the unborn, ergo ,
...1} they do breath via there own lung muscles,
...2} the have not taken there first breath of oxygen ---aka in-spiration { inspiried }--To avoid or deny all of the above is clear lack of moral integrity.
People who do no acknowledge these truths are narrowed minded, short-sided and I believe in many cases, sick-in-the-head individuals seeming to be adult humans, with a lack of rational, logical common sense. Sad very sad
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF that being is aware that they exist, THEN they have sentience. Having partial sentience might be something like having a notion that you exist.
My dog appears to have self awareness (if not intelligence or self reflection) equal to my own. My dog does not receive the same rights that I do. Is this fundamentally unjust?
-->
@Benjamin
The right to life is more important than the right to privacy.
That's very nice and all but we are actually discussing the right to bodily autonomy not the right to privacy.
IF the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy THEN failure to donate a kidney is immoral.
Don't think of it as being forced to donate a kidney though. Think of it as nature forcing you to donate a kidney... unless you are willing to let someone die.
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no cure for kidney failure, but with treatment it is possible to live a long life. Having kidney failure is not a death sentence. People with kidney failure live active lives and continue to do the things they love.
-->
@secularmerlin
No, what appears to be the case and what is the case are two different things, dogs do have not comparable levels of self awareness to humans.
-->
@Benjamin
Yes there is... a kidney transplant. Its analogous.
-->
@ebuc
Makes sense.
-->
@Benjamin
Blood, marrow, liver, kidneys. You are splitting hairs here. If you are not obligated to use your body to help someone else (whom may or may not be more innocent and/or deserving than you) to maintain theirs then you cannot ask or expect for other people to be so obligated.
-->
@Theweakeredge
dogs do have not comparable levels of self awareness to humans.
I'm not sure how you could ever determine this. All we can be certain of is that they do not have comparable look levels of communication skills. Is the ability to communicate what makes one a self aware person?
-->
@secularmerlin
No, but brain activity is, we are able to evaluate intelligence through more than communication - this applies to sentience as well- for example, the social hierarchies of bears.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not sure what kind of peer reviewed bibliography you have to back that up but brain activity and intelligence may be uconnected with self awareness. I am uncertain how to accurately evaluate a beings self awareness. As a result whether it is accurate or not (and I have no reason in particular to think it is) I am left with only an evaluation of a beings communication skills to evaluate their self awareness and either the being has sufficient communication skills to communicate its self awareness or I treat that being as not being self aware (not a person) and so not personally autonomous.
-->
@secularmerlin
Um.... deduction... that's how detectives solve murder, how we know that your brother took a sip of tea whenever there's a teacup partially drained beside your brother. As for proof.
https://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/animal-sentience/criteria-for-recognizing-sentience/
An appeal to ignorance is a fallacy, if you want evidence, ask for it. Do not appeal to your own ignorance. That is not being skeptical, that is being incredulous.
-->
@Theweakeredge
This article uses language like apparently and appears to rather too much for my liking. Neuroscience may one day find an objective way to measure sentience absent that communication and on that day I may feel very guilty about my behavior previous to that but until then if a creature cannot communicate its sentience to me I tend to treat it as though it is not sentient. I do not treat my dog as a contentious actor for example even though it seems to show signs of happiness and unhappiness, memory retention, even property rights (her toys are hers and my shoes are mine).
-->
@secularmerlin
I do not treat my dog as a contentious actor for example even though it seems to show signs of happiness and unhappiness, memory retention, even property rights (her toys are hers and my shoes are mine).
Some men view a woman as their property and that they have a right to treat the woman any way they want to, to varying degrees for each man.
Once a male dog --or human man-- gives his spermazoa to the woman, it is not longer his property and he has no rights to it, unless he and the woman have a pre-arranged contract of property rights.
The man is then responsible for the organism of womans fetus, --or independent new human--- only as far as the woman agrees to that response-abillity.
The woman steers all matters regarding the fetus, unless she ask for others input.
-->
@ebuc
1. No one is property of another.
2. Our personal responsibility demands we recognize the rights of others with equal regard as to our own.
-->
@ebuc
That was beautiful ebuc. Truly it was.