Abortion

[Pandora]

When it begins to look like a human in some way.

Does this look like a human in some way?

 

[Dr.Who]

Every vertebrate has eyelids.

I am sure that many do. Your criteria was only that the fetus look like a person in "some way" not that it looked like a person in ways that differentiated it from other vertibrates.

 

[Dr.Who]

Lawyers are un-trustable

I agree. Nevertheless the definition of a person is that it is a human being. A fetus is a human being so, by law it should have the same rights as another human being - except it does not when it comes to weighing it's right to life against the privacy rights of it's mother. So your case is proven that one cannot trust lawyers (or apparently judges either).

 

[Dr.Who]

Who cares if they feel pain? They are far to stupid to comprehend it. All living organisms respond to stimuli.

A cell is living but it has no nervous system and does not respond to sensory stimuli. An embryo at an early enough stage is a living organism but also lacks a central nervous system so does not respond to stimuli. Whether or not that criteria is important to you are me does not matter because by law one gets rights when one is a person not when one can respond to sensory stimulation.

Anyway the level of stupidity that a person possesses is arbitrary and not the one that the law uses to determine if one has rights.

Or to phrase it more like you said it:

Who cares if they are too stupid to feel pain, by law they are persons.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes it does. Cow brains are far more advanced then fetal brains, and we eat cows. I would think killing a fetus would be reasonable.

I suppose that is because you have chosen the arbitrary criteria of intelligence as being meaningful for the recognition of rights.

The law says that the criteria for the recognition of right is personhood.

 

[BigRob]

Who cares if they feel pain? They are far to stupid to comprehend it. All living organisms respond to stimuli.

I would think you would care since you stated "You can kill non-sentients because they wont really feel it."

If "feeling it" or not is what makes it ok, it then stands to reason to it would be an issue if they did.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

A cell is living but it has no nervous system and does not respond to sensory stimuli. An embryo at an early enough stage is a living organism but also lacks a central nervous system so does not respond to stimuli. Whether or not that criteria is important to you are me does not matter because by law one gets rights when one is a person not when one can respond to sensory stimulation.

Anyway the level of stupidity that a person possesses is arbitrary and not the one that the law uses to determine if one has rights.

Or to phrase it more like you said it:

Who cares if they are too stupid to feel pain, by law they are persons.

I am not talking about the law today. When I speak of society as I view it I am talking about the post-revolutionary society.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

I agree. Nevertheless the definition of a person is that it is a human being. A fetus is a human being so, by law it should have the same rights as another human being - except it does not when it comes to weighing it's right to life against the privacy rights of it's mother. So your case is proven that one cannot trust lawyers (or apparently judges either).

Waddya wanna do, mass produce babys?

 

[Dante the Marxist]

I would think you would care since you stated "You can kill non-sentients because they wont really feel it."

If "feeling it" or not is what makes it ok, it then stands to reason to it would be an issue if they did.

I am stating that because it cannot understand the concept of pain, wether or not it feels it does not matter.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

I suppose that is because you have chosen the arbitrary criteria of intelligence as being meaningful for the recognition of rights.

The law says that the criteria for the recognition of right is personhood.

The law was made up by a bunch of squabbling hillbillys 200 years ago. Intelligegence is not arbitrary. Anyone who calls human intelligence arbitrary does not know the meaning of the word.

 

[Dr.Who]

Waddya wanna do, mass produce babys?

Are you suggesting that abortion is a legitimate means of population control?

And you are a communist/socialist, right?

 

[Dr.Who]

The law was made up by a bunch of squabbling hillbillys 200 years ago. Intelligegence is not arbitrary. Anyone who calls human intelligence arbitrary does not know the meaning of the word.

I think that a smart person has just as many rights as a stupid person. And that is true no matter how stupid the person is.

To make a person's intelligence a criteria in determining if they can be killed is arbitrary, in other words decided by personal preference and not by a logical argument. But you are free to show us a logical argument why stupid people deserve less rights than others.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Does this look like a human in some way?

Thats not a fetus. Thats a few months in belly baby.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Are you suggesting that abortion is a legitimate means of population control?

And you are a communist/socialist, right?

I am not suggesting anything. I said that the only alternative to the need to abort babys is to make them in factorys, but that is just messed up and I would not recommend it.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

I think that a smart person has just as many rights as a stupid person. And that is true no matter how stupid the person is.

To make a person's intelligence a criteria in determining if they can be killed is arbitrary, in other words decided by personal preference and not by a logical argument. But you are free to show us a logical argument why stupid people deserve less rights than others.

Stupid people are fine. I was talking about non-sentients. Intelligence is not arbitrary because one of the many definitions of it is "tyrannical", wich intelligence is not.