Abortion

[Dante the Marxist]

I find no guarantee of the protection of animal rights in the constitution or even any recognition of them.

And whoever said that I enjoy killing animals. I do kill a certain number that I eat. The last time I killed an animal simply because I could was a very long time ago when I was a child. It was a bird, a starling to be exact, with a BB gun.

By the way, it isn't me that is making the argument that because unborns at the early stages are not sentient that they should be allowed to be killed for any or no reason; and that fact should be an indication to folks like Dante who make the sentience argument how wrong they are. If animals are sentient, but not human beings, it stands to reason that sentience is not what makes a human being a human being.

I have great respect to sentient animals[elephants, whales and dolphins, dogs, etc.]. The others I kill and eat because they are non-sentient. The ones listed are very human because they have emotions, spend thier spare time actually doing something, think, and wonder about the world they live in.

 

[Dr.Who]

I never denied that fetuses were human beings. I did denie that they are people. There is a difference. And everytime you bring in the law, your argument becomes less valid.

Sorry, by definition every human is a person.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Sorry, by definition every human is a person.

A person can think.

 

[Dr.Who]

I have great respect to sentient animals[elephants, whales and dolphins, dogs, etc.]. The others I kill and eat because they are non-sentient. The ones listed are very human because they have emotions, spend thier spare time actually doing something, think, and wonder about the world they live in.

Which non-sentient animals are you eating? Pigs? Cows? Chickens? Ameoba? Coliform bacteria?

 

[Dr.Who]

A person can think.

\

Uh, yes they can. But even the humans that cannot think are still human and therefore still persons by definition.

 

[palerider]

I never denied that fetuses were human beings. I did denie that they are people. There is a difference. And everytime you bring in the law, your argument becomes less valid.

Legally all human beings are persons. In this case, the language is going to defeat you. Perhaps like most pro choicers, you are under the impression that words can mean whatever you wish them to mean, and that is fine within the confines of your own skull, but once you move out into the general public, words have meanings that are already established and agreed upon.

people - n - noun 1. persons indefinitely or collectively.
2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group
3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.

Since the whole topic of abortion is a legal issue, your suggestion that bringing in the law would make an argument less valid is laughable. Perhaps you don't even understand the basis of the issue.

 

[palerider]

I have great respect to sentient animals[elephants, whales and dolphins, dogs, etc.]. The others I kill and eat because they are non-sentient. The ones listed are very human because they have emotions, spend thier spare time actually doing something, think, and wonder about the world they live in.

As stated before, your argument fails because of the fact that both science and the law recognize the profoundly mentally retarded as both human beings and persons.

 

[palerider]

A person can think.

Sorry guy, the language defeats you again. Person is a legal term that means nothing more than "a human being". Since you acknowledge that unborns are human beings, you also acknowledge that they are persons. Perhaps you shoud take some time to familiarize yourself with the language. Dictionaries are avialable online.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I belong to PETA. People for Eating Tasty Animals.

I could not do that unless I knew that being human made one a person and being some other species made one some animal that we just might eat.

So, Might makes Right? Your life is sacred and their lives are profane? One of my problems with modern Christianity is that it's based partly on the homocentric view of Descartes and Thomas Aquinas. Before that evil duo, Christianity taught a philosophy much more in line with St. Francis and Friars Minor, animals were God's creations too and had intrinsic value. I have no proof that animals value their lives any less than I value mine and when I see the small estate of life given to each of them by God, I find that I would be ashamed to steal that small estate from them.

People are the only ones who have a choice on whether we prey on others, I choose not to. Stealing animals' lives for the pleasure of my mouth would be akin to raping babies for sexual gratification. Those creatures have no defense against us, all they can do is run away and now even that is denied to them as we keep them in cages and corrals to slaughter at will.

If God notes each sparrow that falls, don't you suppose He sees the billions of His creatures that we slaughter each year for food, fun, and profit? Those creatures have the same mechanisms for feeling pain, thirst, and fear that we do, perhaps we should not make them suffer since we don't need to.

I have no illusions about convincing anyone, each of us must live within the wisdom that we have and accept the karma that we incur. The history of humankind has been one long struggle to bring more lives in under the umbrella of ethical treatement, seeing that, why not jump to the end of the process and grant all life the right to ethical treatment?

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Which non-sentient animals are you eating? Pigs? Cows? Chickens? Ameoba? Coliform bacteria?

Pigs, cows, deer, elk, chicken, turkey, bear.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

\

Uh, yes they can. But even the humans that cannot think are still human and therefore still persons by definition.

Being a person constitutes being an individual, which means you have to have a personality, so you must have thoughts and emotions.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Legally all human beings are persons. In this case, the language is going to defeat you. Perhaps like most pro choicers, you are under the impression that words can mean whatever you wish them to mean, and that is fine within the confines of your own skull, but once you move out into the general public, words have meanings that are already established and agreed upon.

people - n - noun 1. persons indefinitely or collectively.
2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group
3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.

Since the whole topic of abortion is a legal issue, your suggestion that bringing in the law would make an argument less valid is laughable. Perhaps you don't even understand the basis of the issue.

Definition #2 was you digging your own grave. Individualality requires a personality, which requires emotions and thoughts, which is sentience. Way to debunk your own argument.

#3 was also a trap for you. Now, as I said before, the fetus deserves to live once it resembles distinctly human characteristics. In the early stages, it looks like the embryo of any of the lower animals. So there is the physical side. The mental/emotional side is sentience, which it does not yet have.

All scientific issues have aught to be immune from the law, as they barely have much to do with it. And when you wave the constitution at a marxist, it just shows that you have no common sense.

 

[palerider]

Being a person constitutes being an individual, which means you have to have a personality, so you must have thoughts and emotions.

Sorry, simply not true. A child born with ancephaly which will have no personality, thoughts, or emotions is still an individual. Again, is english your second language?

individual - n - a single human being, as distinguished from a group.

 

[palerider]

Definition #2 was you digging your own grave. Individualality requires a personality, which requires emotions and thoughts, which is sentience. Way to debunk your own argument.

Sorry, but it does not. See above. I provided you a defnintion of the word individual. I strongly suggest that you grab yourself an english/(whatever your primary language is) dictionary before you pursue this discussion further. Clearly, your english vocabulary isn't sufficient to put together coherent thoughts.

#3 was also a trap for you. Now, as I said before, the fetus deserves to live once it resembles distinctly human characteristics. In the early stages, it looks like the embryo of any of the lower animals. So there is the physical side. The mental/emotional side is sentience, which it does not yet have.

You have said lots of things. Problem is that as of yet, you have failed to substantiate a single one of them. The effect is that your lips are moving but nothing is coming out. Picking arbitrary physical characteristics upon which to base one's rights is right out of the racist's handbook. You have adopted ageism rather than racism for your bigotry but the mindset is identical.

As I pointed out earlier, your ideas with regard to unborns "resembling" lower animals is nothing more than the restatement of a quaint 19th century scientific theory known as biogenic law, or embryological paralellism. It has long since been repudiated as a complete misunderstanding of developmental biology. Odd that you would reference such outdated thinking here in the 21st century. Like your namesake, you really are behind the times.

All scientific issues have aught to be immune from the law, as they barely have much to do with it. And when you wave the constitution at a marxist, it just shows that you have no common sense.

In this case, the sicence only substantiates the fact that unborns are human beings as abortion is legal because the supreme court decided roe based on thier assumption that unborns were something other than human beings and stated that should their assumption be proven wrong, that their decision must be overturned as unconstitutional.

As to waving the constitution in front of a marxist, you are correct that it shows that one of us has no common sense. To see which one, look in a mirror. The fact is that you live under the constitution and ignoring the fact in favor of what you wish makes you no more than a flat earther railing against reality in favor of your wishes.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Sorry, simply not true. A child born with ancephaly which will have no personality, thoughts, or emotions is still an individual. Again, is english your second language?

individual - n - a single human being, as distinguished from a group.

Why bother with children born with ancephaly? They cannot enjoy thier life in any way. They are not even able to enjoy the flowers and birds, contrary to what those touching movies about retarded people making piles of money and getting the girl portray.