Palin's Abortion Stance

[Dr.Who]

Self-awareness, rationality and a greater capacity to feel pain are NOT what makes one human. They are merely manifestations of our human-ness.

But they, and other qualities, have been used by people for eons to define the people in the next village or the people who are black or jewish as not persons.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Self-awareness, rationality and a greater capacity to feel pain are NOT what makes one human. They are merely manifestations of our human-ness.

The imperative states that we must respect HUMAN EXISTENCE in whatever form it manifests. Clearly, deer or moose isn't human existence.

Nums! you ol' sack of sand, I thought you had died and gone to the bad place--Pittsburgh--good to see that you are still staggering around in a daze.

Got any proof of the non-humanness of deer or moose? I remember about a gazillion times when people confidently denied the humanness of others and they were WRONG. People use to say that ni88ers, ch1nks, and sp1cs weren't human too.

I've often wondered why we have to dehumanize others to make ourselves feel better, are we really that insecure? Maybe so.

 

[numinus]

But they, and other qualities, have been used by people for eons to define the people in the next village or the people who are black or jewish as not persons.

Which clearly demonstrates the defect of equating human existence with this or that human quality, no?

 

[numinus]

Nums! you ol' sack of sand, I thought you had died and gone to the bad place--Pittsburgh--good to see that you are still staggering around in a daze.

You wish.

I'll never get tired of pointing out your twaddle for what they are.

Got any proof of the non-humanness of deer or moose? I remember about a gazillion times when people confidently denied the humanness of others and they were WRONG. People use to say that ni88ers, ch1nks, and sp1cs weren't human too.

What ineffable nonsense!

Just because people are wrong regarding the (non)human-ness of 'ni88ers, chincks and spics' DOES NOT follow that deer and moose are humans as well.

Oh and what I'm saying is so much more than an academic exercise in taxonomy.

Duh?

I've often wondered why we have to dehumanize others to make ourselves feel better, are we really that insecure? Maybe so.

I said '...HUMAN EXISTENCE IN WHATEVER FORM IT MANIFESTS...'

I think that statement leaves no room for any de-humanizing, don't you agree?

 

[Dr.Who]

Nums! you ol' sack of sand, I thought you had died and gone to the bad place--Pittsburgh--good to see that you are still staggering around in a daze.

Got any proof of the non-humanness of deer or moose? I remember about a gazillion times when people confidently denied the humanness of others and they were WRONG. People use to say that ni88ers, ch1nks, and sp1cs weren't human too.

I've often wondered why we have to dehumanize others to make ourselves feel better, are we really that insecure? Maybe so.

We should not confuse being human with being a person. Being a human is easy to understand. People are humans and other animals are not. Being a person is harder to define.

If, without any cause other than that is what one wants, one defines being a person as self aware then a deer or a mouse might be persons. But again, this definition of personhood is not what has traditionally been meant by the word person. for ages and ages being a person just meant being a human. Our legal system assumed that being a human meant you were a person and legal dictionaries made that clear. Recently, and only after attacks on Roe versus Wade, with few exdceptions, did the bogus idea of personhood being about sentience or whatever come into vogue. And history has clearly shown that the re-definers of personhood have always been those who want to marginalize some group of people so they could be enslaved or killed.

 

[Agnapostate]

Self-awareness, rationality and a greater capacity to feel pain are NOT what makes one human. They are merely manifestations of our human-ness.

The imperative states that we must respect HUMAN EXISTENCE in whatever form it manifests. Clearly, deer or moose isn't human existence.

I didn't say that those things made anyone "human."

I said that they were what constituted personhood, and while a fetus may be a "human being" in that it is indisputably a member of the human species, it is not a person in that it does not possess such characteristics. Species membership is not a sufficient dividing line between persons and nonpersons since some nonhuman animals, (such as chimpanzees for instance), possess a greater level of self-awareness, rationality, and a greater capacity to feel pain than a fetus does.

The reason that these factors are morally relevant is because possession of such characteristics enables a being to experience a greater amount of suffering than other beings. If you regard the maximization of happiness and the minimization of suffering as commendable goals, we have some basic meta-ethical foundations to start out from. Now, starting out from there, we would note that self-aware beings have the capacity to form preferences and interests about the future. Thus, killing them serves to inhibit the satisfaction of those preferences and interests. Conversely, fetuses are not self-aware beings and thus cannot form such preferences and interests. As a result, their preferences and interests cannot be denied, since they do not possess any.

But they, and other qualities, have been used by people for eons to define the people in the next village or the people who are black or jewish as not persons.

In what regard are blacks and Jews not self-aware, rational beings?

We should not confuse being human with being a person. Being a human is easy to understand. People are humans and other animals are not. Being a person is harder to define.

I would not necessarily claim that other nonhuman animals are not persons. I think animals such as chimpanzees might qualify as persons.

If, without any cause other than that is what one wants, one defines being a person as self aware then a deer or a mouse might be persons. But again, this definition of personhood is not what has traditionally been meant by the word person. for ages and ages being a person just meant being a human. Our legal system assumed that being a human meant you were a person and legal dictionaries made that clear. Recently, and only after attacks on Roe versus Wade, with few exdceptions, did the bogus idea of personhood being about sentience or whatever come into vogue. And history has clearly shown that the re-definers of personhood have always been those who want to marginalize some group of people so they could be enslaved or killed.

Deer and moose are not self-aware, and you do not understand the meaning of self-awareness. Deer and moose possess basic awareness, but self-awareness is not mere awareness, but would be better defined as awareness of that awareness. Self-awareness is best defined as the ability to view oneself as a conscious entity existing over time. Hence, personhood is related to sapience, as opposed to sentience, as you improperly claim.

The legal definition of personhood is also irrelevant to the ethical definition. For instance, although Dred Scott was defined as a "nonperson" by the law, he was very much a person in the ethical sense.

What "group of people" (blacks, Jews, or any other minority group that you previously mentioned) would be "marginalized" through basing a definition of personhood on self-awareness? Are they not self-aware?

I don't exactly believe that wanting to define some nonhuman animals as persons and encourage more humane treatment of all animals involves "marginalizing some group of people," but if that's what you want to believe, there's probably little that I can do to stop you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You wish.

No, no, I don't wish you any ill, you add a kind of stability in the world with your unique prespective.

What ineffable nonsense!

Just because people are wrong regarding the (non)human-ness of 'ni88ers, chincks and spics' DOES NOT follow that deer and moose are humans as well.

I didn't say they were. You half-ass read my posts and respond to what I didn't even say. I asked if you had any proof that they weren't human. What is the ineffable quality of "human"ness that makes Hitler or Charles Manson human but not a moose?

 

[numinus]

I didn't say that those things made anyone "human."

I said that they were what constituted personhood, and while a fetus may be a "human being" in that it is indisputably a member of the human species, it is not a person in that it does not possess such characteristics. Species membership is not a sufficient dividing line between persons and nonpersons since some nonhuman animals, (such as chimpanzees for instance), possess a greater level of self-awareness, rationality, and a greater capacity to feel pain than a fetus does.

A human being IS a person. Conversely, an animal IS NOT a person. There is no sense contriving a set of criteria that allows for a human being to not be a person nor an animal to be a person. Nor is there any logical basis to set personhood at some arbitrary stage of human development.

This is not a question of taxonomical dilineation. Taxonomy is just a tool for scientific study, not an infallible criteria to determine human existence. With the completion of the human genome project, as well as some primates, we already know that the line between species and their current classifications are getting blurred.

The reason that these factors are morally relevant is because possession of such characteristics enables a being to experience a greater amount of suffering than other beings. If you regard the maximization of happiness and the minimization of suffering as commendable goals, we have some basic meta-ethical foundations to start out from.

The utilitarian premises can hardly be considered as the appropriate starting point of a valid ethical inquiry. There is a marked departure between the utilitarianism of bentham and js mill. For one, js mills, in defense of bentham, explains that 'happiness' varies not only quantitatively, but qualitatively as well -- that in the qualitative degrees of happiness, there exists both lower and higher forms of it.

And that the highest form of utilitarian pleasure resides in what he calls an internal sanction, the explanation of which coincides with kant's categorical imperative.

Now, starting out from there, we would note that self-aware beings have the capacity to form preferences and interests about the future. Thus, killing them serves to inhibit the satisfaction of those preferences and interests. Conversely, fetuses are not self-aware beings and thus cannot form such preferences and interests. As a result, their preferences and interests cannot be denied, since they do not possess any.

But the satisfaction of preferences and interests are themselves means to some higher end -- as both js mill and kant assert.

At some fundamental level, THE IMPERATIVE TO CONTINUE ONE'S EXISTENCE RESIDES IN ALL ORGANISMS, whether such imperative is consciously or rationaly discerned.

There is nothing more fundamental in ethics than the right to live since all the happiness attendant to your existence as a rational being IS POSSIBLE ONLY WHEN YOU ARE ALIVE.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

A corpse is a human being

Stick that in your pseudo scientific food mixer and see what comes out.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

It must be a nightmare bebing a pro-life religious fundamentalist cos you have to hold beliefs that make abortion abhorrent but execution and war great.

I wonder why god made it so hard to have consistent religious views that hold water.

Oh, cos he doesn't have the decency to exist.

Fair enough

 

[numinus]

No, no, I don't wish you any ill, you add a kind of stability in the world with your unique prespective.

I didn't say they were. You half-ass read my posts and respond to what I didn't even say. I asked if you had any proof that they weren't human. What is the ineffable quality of "human"ness that makes Hitler or Charles Manson human but not a moose?

Let me get this straight -- you want me to provide proof of the human-ness of 'chincks, ******s and spics' and the non-human-ness of moose and deer?

If you cannot discern human existence intuitively, you might want to apply the self-evident axiom -- the offspring of human beings is a human being; the offspring of moose is a moose.

Clear?

 

[numinus]

A corpse is a human being

Stick that in your pseudo scientific food mixer and see what comes out.

What irrelevant nonsense.

Palin never mentioned shooting corpses.

Duh?

Oh, and my reply to agnapostate belongs in the field of ethics, which is a main branch of philosophy. That's not part of the natural sciences.

What a *****.

 

[numinus]

It must be a nightmare bebing a pro-life religious fundamentalist cos you have to hold beliefs that make abortion abhorrent but execution and war great.

I wonder why god made it so hard to have consistent religious views that hold water.

Oh, cos he doesn't have the decency to exist.

Fair enough

It must be a nightmare having an intellect as minute as yours. You need to fit people into neat little labels before you can even begin, if at all, to understand.

I said -- IN WHATEVER FORM HUMAN EXISTENCE MANIFESTS.

That includes the fetus, the convict, and the terrorist.

Duh?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Yes it is a nightmare having an intellect as minute as mine.

It stops me from believing the facts in the bible.

How will I survive?

 

[numinus]

Yes it is a nightmare having an intellect as minute as mine.

It stops me from believing the facts in the bible.

How will I survive?

In complete ignorance, I suppose.