Why Mass Abortion Is Synonomous with Extinction of Humanity.

reply to post by wingsfan


Why was slavery abolished? Get big brother out of our lives.

reply to post by 547000

Then let's simplify. Is it human?

Yes. Just like skin cells, braindead patients or gametes, which we also dont protect. I dont consider unsentient mindless life merely having human DNA or some potential as enough to justify protection, especially at the expense of already sentient humans.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by 547000

 

Then let's simplify. Is it human?

Yes. Just like skin cells, braindead patients or gametes, which we also dont protect. I dont consider unsentient mindless life merely having human DNA or some potential as enough to justify protection, especially at the expense of already sentient humans.

edit on 12/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Oh come on now. We both know it's more than just "skin cells". They will not grow into a baby but a fetus will.

reply to post by 547000

Oh come on now. We both know it's more than just a tissue. Tissue will not grow into a baby but a fetus will.

When it does grow into a baby, then it deserves rights. I dont know why a bunch of cells should be protected just because it may grow into a baby worth protecting sometime in the future. Killing such human life is not any more morally wrong than using a condom or even refusing sex. That also prevents the existence of a potential human being in the future. You cannot murder someone that does not exist yet.

no mind = no victim = no crime.

..

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by 547000

 

Oh come on now. We both know it's more than just a tissue. Tissue will not grow into a baby but a fetus will.

When it does grow into a baby, then it deserves rights. I dont know why a bunch of cells should be protected just because it may grow into a baby worth protecting sometime in the future. Killing such human life is not any more morally wrong than using a condom or even refusing sex. That also prevents the existence of a potential human being in the future. You cannot murder someone that does not exist yet.

edit on 12/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

It's not a "potential" human. It is human. It is more wrong than both because it has all the genes needed to be a human. And it's not an organ that's growing but a human. It's not a sperm or an egg. It will not grow into a horse, elephant, or anything else. It will grow into a baby.

Now you are dragging metaphysics into this, assuming that life begins with the mind and not at conception. Simply because we can't prove, without doubt it begins at conception, doesn't mean it's okay to kill it. The price of being wrong is too high. And if we found a rational way to define a Jew as inhuman it would still be morally wrong to kill them, no matter what semantics we play with the definitions of words.

reply to post by 547000

It's not a "potential" human. It is human. It is more wrong than both because it has all the genes needed to be a human. And it's not an organ that's growing but a human. It's not a sperm or an egg. It will not grow into a horse, elephant, or anything else. It will grow into a baby.

Why should we protect a living human body with no mind inside? We dont do it with braindead humans. I just dont see any reason to do so, especially at the expense of already existing sentient human beings. It would be immoral to do so IMHO.

Also, it is a human, I agree with that. But it is not a human being.

Now you are dragging metaphysics into this, assuming that life begins with the mind and not at conception.

Nope, I never said human life does not begin at conception. I just dont see how it is relevant to protection by laws. Why should we protect human life with no mind inside? We dont do it with braindead humans.

And its not metaphysics, its neuroscience.

Simply because we can't prove, without doubt it begins at conception, doesn't mean it's okay to kill it. The price of being wrong is too high. And if we found a rational way to define a Jew as inhuman it would still be morally wrong to kill them, no matter what semantics we play with the scientific definitions of words.

Yes, because Jew is a sentient being with mind. Not because it is a lifeform with human DNA. So Jews would be protected under a moral system which protects presence of mind.

The question is "what qualities should a system have to be protected by our laws?"

1. being alive
2. having human DNA
3. having mind
4. external viability

I prefer 3. You prefer 1 + 2. The US Supreme court prefers 4. It depends on what moral system do you prefer.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by 547000

 

It's not a "potential" human. It is human. It is more wrong than both because it has all the genes needed to be a human. And it's not an organ that's growing but a human. It's not a sperm or an egg. It will not grow into a horse, elephant, or anything else. It will grow into a baby.

Why should we protect a living human body with no mind inside? We dont do it with braindead humans. I just dont see any reason to do so, especially at the expense of already existing sentient human beings. It would be immoral to do so IMHO.

A braindead human, in most cases, will not come back to life. But this is known to happen rarely. Even disregarding this, a fetus still has the process of life happening, but for dead humans the process finishes. There's a difference between a corpse and a fetus.

Now you are dragging metaphysics into this, assuming that life begins with the mind and not at conception.

Nope, I never said human life does not begin at conception. I just dont see how it is relevant to protection by laws. Why should we protect human life with no mind inside? We dont do it with braindead humans.

And its not metaphysics, its neuroscience.

It's metaphysics. If you are assuming an undeveloped mind is akin to death.

Simply because we can't prove, without doubt it begins at conception, doesn't mean it's okay to kill it. The price of being wrong is too high. And if we found a rational way to define a Jew as inhuman it would still be morally wrong to kill them, no matter what semantics we play with the scientific definitions of words.

Yes, because Jew is a sentient being with mind. Not because it is a lifeform with human DNA. So Jews would be protected under a moral system which protects presence of mind.

The question is "what qualities should a system have to be protected by our laws?"

1. being alive
2. having human DNA
3. having mind
4. external viability

I prefer 3. You prefer 1 + 2. The US Supreme court prefers 4. It depends on what moral system do you prefer.

edit on 12/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I believe in absolute morality. It would be wrong, no matter which moral system we prefer, if absolute morality is true. Therefore the price of being wrong would be too high.

They say once Hitlers regime began exterminating Jews and Gypsies/ homosexuals and communists/the mentally retarded and unionists/ anti nazis ect...the opposition to nazism was less tolerated.

The killling principle had awoken...the perpertrators had to deny to themselves louder and louder...that they were comttiting murder against human beings...so the executed were described a s sub human.

Perhaps the Abortion industry has killed so many that describing fetuses as non humans is a must to preserve the industrys participants sanity?

An added question why don't the scientists just grow cells to be used in the lab?

They much prefer a complete miniature human that once lived...ie a fetus.

Millions upon millions of them.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Jezus

 

We waste and mismanage our natural resources in an extreme way.

And that proves overpopulation is not a problem how?

Because the "problem" is not the amount of people but wasting our natural resources and polluting the environment...

Originally posted by Maslo
Until we stop doing so (very unrealistic, utopian thought), overpopulation is and continues to be a problem.

It is unrealistic to hope that one day we will stop wasting an incredible amount of resources and destroying the environment? That is rather pessimistic....

Again, overpopulation is not the problem.

Focusing on the symptoms will not cure the illness.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by 547000

 

Oh come on now. We both know it's more than just a tissue. Tissue will not grow into a baby but a fetus will.

When it does grow into a baby, then it deserves rights. I dont know why a bunch of cells should be protected just because it may grow into a baby worth protecting sometime in the future. Killing such human life is not any more morally wrong than using a condom or even refusing sex. That also prevents the existence of a potential human being in the future. You cannot murder someone that does not exist yet.

no mind = no victim = no crime.

edit on 12/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I think your post succintly expresses the Pro Abortion fervour perfectly.
But ...what if you are wrong?
And the fetus is aware?
No one has ever heard a reply , because they can't speak.

Not long ago animal cruelty was justified because philosophers argued an animal has no soul so therefore they don't really feel pain or fear.
This concept was extendd later to justify brutality against African slaves.
Now such thought is considered barbarically evil.
So tread carefully, ye don't know for sure.

reply to post by Dr Expired


So.. what if you are wrong, and a plant or a rock is aware?
No one has ever heard a reply , because they can't speak. Should we protect rocks, just to be sure?

See? You simply have to draw the line somewhere, and according to current science, plants, rocks and fetuses before 5th month cannot be sentient. I know people were wrong in the past when neuroscience was not developed and they used unscientific concepts like "soul" to describe the mind instead, but that does not imply we cant have it right this time.

reply to post by 547000

A braindead human, in most cases, will not come back to life. But this is known to happen rarely. Even disregarding this, a fetus still has the process of life happening, but for dead humans the process finishes. There's a difference between a corpse and a fetus.

According to my morality, which is based on protecting the wellbeing of sentient creatures, there is no difference between a corpse and a fetus in the relevant parameter - presence of mind. It is absent in both of them. So when it comes to morality of terminating them, they are equivalent.

It's metaphysics. If you are assuming an undeveloped mind is akin to death.

Legal death is now defined as absence of mind (dissapearance of brain functions). So yes.

I believe in absolute morality. It would be wrong, no matter which moral system we prefer, if absolute morality is true. Therefore the price of being wrong would be too high.

I also believe in absolute morality. But absolute morality I believe in says abortion before the appearance of mind is not immoral.

reply to post by Dr Expired

An added question why don't the scientists just grow cells to be used in the lab? They much prefer a complete miniature human that once lived...ie a fetus.

I dont think you know how embryonic stem cell therapy works (I presume you refer to that).. Only early embryo cells are used, and they are grown in vitro.

This is how embryos for ESC therapy look:
www.health-news-blog.com...

reply to post by Jezus

It is unrealistic to hope that one day we will stop wasting an incredible amount of resources and destroying the environment? That is rather pessimistic.... Again, overpopulation is not the problem. Focusing on the symptoms will not cure the illness.

We cannot cure the illness, not now, humanity is too incompetent and stupid for that. It is not pessimistic, rather than realistic.

Treating the symptoms is thus the next best thing. With no symptoms, patient can live normal life again, and that is our main aim, isnt it?

What foundations would a legal definition of death be based on, if not metaphysics? Sure they hide behind scientists, but behind who do scientists hide?

reply to post by Maslo


All logical. but to assume that the spirit enters the body after 5 months is a very big assumption.
Perhaps the spirit enters at conception?
The passage to that point,is forged in the hidden spirit plane of exixtence.
Ok that is describing the spiritual, not logical, but logic can be as ignorant as hell.

From the heart I say to you ,you could be so wrong.

reply to post by Dr Expired


How do you know the Spirit does not exist in some form before conception?

Don't worry, all the fluoride and other chemicals we're exposed to will kill us eventually.
The world elite, not even human like us, are not effect, they have gills to weed out the poison, thats how they live with us on how human planet.