A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[Shogun]

Listen, dude.. you can backtrack all you need to and try to whitewash whatever you want. I don't care how racism via eugenics was ONCE used or accepted. That is not anything CLOSE to a valid example as to why adult chimps are more valuable to your bullshit ethical paradigm than a Human Being in development. People once thought the fucking Earth was flat too. What, exactly, do you think this should say about our modern studies in geology? It's neither here nor there. In fact, it's nothing more than, AGAIN, some bullshit straw man used to avoid the FACT of a distinction between a HUMAN BEING and a fucking monkey. Ok, a baby chimp can see better than a fetus. whooptyfuckingdo. A HUMAN FETUS IS STILL A HUMAN BEING AND, THEREFOR, MORE VALUABLE THAN A GODDAMN PRIMATE AT THE ZOO. If you don't like having your retarded fucking statements fly back at you like monkey poo at the gorilla house then perhaps you should not reach for them in moments of desperation.

Like i said already about your posts: You are nothing more than a laughable moron trying to cram reality through your paradigm of choice, in this case utilitarianism, as if ANY ethical paradigm is any kind of universal or standard method of logic. It's really not. And, had you been paying attention, your proff should have told you as much the day you switched from Utilitarianism to Kantianism to any of the other paper thin ideologies that don't mean shit compared to biologic fact.




Hey, stick around... Martin Luther Ape is about to give a speech called "I Have A Dream About Bananas"!

 

[Shogun]

you effectively can't argue that a fertilized embryo has any greater value than that cumshot you send out when you watch Planet of the Apes.


Sure I can.. but your stupid utilitarian ass would label me a specieist. as if the only standard for consideration is what YOU think amounts to the most value of utility. I hate to break it to ya, sport, but the world doesn't revolve around what YOU think is more valuable than what.


true story.


so, in essence, equating haploid cells with a fertilized diploid zygote pretty much makes your entire thread input about as hilarious as your Monkey X civil rights quote.

 

[Againsheila]

I think the issue is less "is the fetus alive" (because, of course it's alive). but we terminate life all the time for various reasons. so the real issue is ... is this the type of life that people should make their own moral judgments about terminating?

but i am wondering why you seem to be obsessing about reproductive choice right now.

A fetus is not alive in the same sense as a living, breathing person...it is alive in the same sense as a sperm, or a finger, or a toe...though it does have greater potential to become a living, breathing human than the other three do...as of now, anyway.

Uh, no. A baby's heart starts beating at 5 weeks. I believe the one day medical science will progress to the point where the fetus can be removed at 5 weeks and put in an incubator of some sort.

You know, I mentioned that on an abortion thread once and of course, most of those in favor of abortion were against keeping the fetus alive, even giving it up for adoption. Seems like the people in India who kill their baby girls because they can't afford them. They would rather kill them than give them up for adoption because that way, they are giving the children to their God instead of letting them be adopted by someone of another religion. Except I think those who want the abortion are doing it for strictly selfish reasons. They had the fun, but they don't want to pay the piper and they don't want any of their kids out there being raised by anyone else because they would wonder about the kid, they would rather kill the child. I'm disgusted at some of the people in favor of abortion.

For the record, I don't want abortion made illegal, but at the same time, I don't think it should be used as a method of birth control. I also think that as long as the mother has the choice not to be a mother after conception, the father should have the same choice and the mother shouldn't be able to go after him for child support unless he agrees to be a father.

 

[Agnapostate]

Listen, dude.. you can backtrack all you need to and try to whitewash whatever you want. I don't care how racism via eugenics was ONCE used or accepted. That is not anything CLOSE to a valid example as to why adult chimps are more valuable to your bullshit ethical paradigm than a Human Being in development. People once thought the fucking Earth was flat too. What, exactly, do you think this should say about our modern studies in geology? It's neither here nor there. In fact, it's nothing more than, AGAIN, some bullshit straw man used to avoid the FACT of a distinction between a HUMAN BEING and a fucking monkey. Ok, a baby chimp can see better than a fetus. whooptyfuckingdo. A HUMAN FETUS IS STILL A HUMAN BEING AND, THEREFOR, MORE VALUABLE THAN A GODDAMN PRIMATE AT THE ZOO. If you don't like having your retarded fucking statements fly back at you like monkey poo at the gorilla house then perhaps you should not reach for them in moments of desperation.

Actually, you're still the only one here almost entirely reliant on a strawman. You've mendaciously depicted my comparison involving the once "indisputable" inferiority of the black race as an attempt on my part to declare that subordination morally equivalent to the subordination of chimpanzees. That is not the case, though it does not surprise me that you would rely on willful deception to support your claims. My observation was that doctrines now considered flawed and irrational were once considered similarly "indisputable" facts, and their advocates claimed that no arguments were needed to assert their accuracy, just as you are doing now. You continue to commit a logical fallacy called the petitio principii fallacy in that you are "begging the question"; you insist that I accept your premise that all humans are superior to all other animals without contest or requirement of arguments on your part. That's not something that I'm willing to do. All conclusions require arguments in support of their logical soundness.

Incidentally, I did not mention a "baby chimp." I merely mentioned a normal chimpanzee and certain similar great apes because they were the most obvious examples. But dogs, pigs, cats, and goats all possess greater awareness of their existence and surroundings as well as a greater capacity to feel pain than does the average human fetus.

Like i said already about your posts: You are nothing more than a laughable moron trying to cram reality through your paradigm of choice, in this case utilitarianism, as if ANY ethical paradigm is any kind of universal or standard method of logic. It's really not. And, had you been paying attention, your proff should have told you as much the day you switched from Utilitarianism to Kantianism to any of the other paper thin ideologies that don't mean shit compared to biologic fact.

This is another strawman. I did not claim that utilitarianism could function as a "universal or standard method of logic." Indeed, utilitarianism is divergent from logic since ethics as a subject is not equivalent to "logic." It is supported by logic. My belief is that most accurate ethical reasoning will lead one to conclusions best brought about by manifestation through preference utilitarianism, but I have never claimed that such an ethical perspective could be "universal." Moreover, your comparisons of utilitarianism and Kantianism reveal the utter intellectual bankruptcy of your "analysis" of ethics. Kantianism is deontologist in nature; utilitarianism is consequentialist in nature. The two schools are thus opposed to each other. I'm inclined to believe that you're completely devoid of knowledge of ethics or logical reasoning and argument.

Hey, stick around... Martin Luther Ape is about to give a speech called "I Have A Dream About Bananas"!

(shogun self-portrait snip'd)

As previously mentioned, this line of commentary is a strawman in that it is a mendacious depiction used by you to avoid making logically sound ethical comment about the matter at hand. Why be shy? Can't you make legitimate comment?

 

[Agnapostate]

Sure I can.. but your stupid utilitarian ass would label me a specieist. as if the only standard for consideration is what YOU think amounts to the most value of utility. I hate to break it to ya, sport, but the world doesn't revolve around what YOU think is more valuable than what.

true story.

I'm curious; is your deontologist perspective somehow humble or unassuming? You've seen fit to dictate your beliefs about morality without being courteous enough to offer logically sound arguments in support of your conclusions. You assert that your beliefs about morality are indisputable, whereas I endeavor to provide sound arguments to support my own...and I apparently believe that the world revolves around me and my claims? Sounds like a rather nasty case of projection on your part.

Incidentally, where does species even factor into this particular claim?

so, in essence, equating haploid cells with a fertilized diploid zygote pretty much makes your entire thread input about as hilarious as your Monkey X civil rights quote.

That's true, but only in the sense that both have been mendaciously distorted by you.

 

[Shogun]

Sure I can.. but your stupid utilitarian ass would label me a specieist. as if the only standard for consideration is what YOU think amounts to the most value of utility. I hate to break it to ya, sport, but the world doesn't revolve around what YOU think is more valuable than what.

true story.

I'm curious; is your deontologist perspective somehow humble or unassuming? You've seen fit to dictate your beliefs about morality without being courteous enough to offer logically sound arguments in support of your conclusions. You assert that your beliefs about morality are indisputable, whereas I endeavor to provide sound arguments to support my own...and I apparently believe that the world revolves around me and my claims? Sounds like a rather nasty case of projection on your part.

Incidentally, where does species even factor into this particular claim?

so, in essence, equating haploid cells with a fertilized diploid zygote pretty much makes your entire thread input about as hilarious as your Monkey X civil rights quote.

That's true, but only in the sense that both have been mendaciously distorted by you.

Again, while you hide behind bullshit ethical paradigms and compare civil rights to the value of feti versus monkeys feel free to ignore the FACT that utilitarianism is based solely on YOUR opinion of inherent value. If you require the outright confusion of meiosis to feel ethically validated then so be it. Between the Martin Luther Ape analogy and your assumption that single cell sperm is equally valuable to a fertilized GENETICALLY DISTINCT individual you fail in doing anything besides digging your own hole.


I tellya.. nothing says "sound argument" quite like insisting that a genetically distinct HUMAN BEING has less utility than.. a baby monkey.

 

[Agnapostate]

Again, while you hide behind bullshit ethical paradigms and compare civil rights to the value of feti versus monkeys

This is a lie. As previously mentioned, this is merely a deceptive strawman used by you to avoid legitimate ethical comment. I have not made such a comparison; the nature of my reference was intended to illustrate the fact that doctrines once considered "indisputable" are in fact now considered irrational once they were subjected to a logically sound analysis.

feel free to ignore the FACT that utilitarianism is based solely on YOUR opinion of inherent value.

That is similarly untrue. Utilitarianism is based on ordinal measurement of the criteria of felicific calculus as originally formulated by Bentham. The nature of ordinal measurement necessitates estimates that are more or less commonly accepted. For instance, ordinal measurement yields the conclusion that cutting off someone's arms and legs causes him or her to suffer more than a mild slap would. It would thus be more accurate to say that your deontological contentions are based on your own personal conceptions of morality, and you are evidently arrogant enough to assume that they are indisputable and not subject to any legitimate challenge.

If you require the outright confusion of meiosis to feel ethically validated then so be it. Between the Martin Luther Ape analogy and your assumption that single cell sperm is equally valuable to a fertilized GENETICALLY DISTINCT individual you fail in doing anything besides digging your own hole.

The former is a strawman on your part and thus reflects your own failure. The latter is dependent upon yet another petitio principii fallacy. You assert that a fertilized egg or embryo is morally superior to a single sperm cell; now advance arguments defending this claim. I deny it on the grounds that both entities possess roughly similar capacities to suffer.

I tellya.. nothing says "sound argument" quite like insisting that a genetically distinct HUMAN BEING has less utility than.. a baby monkey.

I did not mention a baby monkey; this thus merely reflects another failure on your part. I mentioned adult chimpanzees as the most obvious example of nonhuman animals superior in awareness and other facets of sentience to a human fetus.

 

[Shogun]

The nature of ordinal measurement necessitates estimates that are more or less commonly accepted.


add THIS to your list of FAIL, dude. "More or less commonly accepted" isn't even remotely true. Especially considering that such would only apply to people who subscribe to utilitarianism ANYWAY! Nice attempt to candy coat your OPINION wrapped in a thin layer of bullshit.

 

[Agnapostate]

The nature of ordinal measurement necessitates estimates that are more or less commonly accepted.


add THIS to your list of FAIL, dude. "More or less commonly accepted" isn't even remotely true. Especially considering that such would only apply to people who subscribe to utilitarianism ANYWAY! Nice attempt to candy coat your OPINION wrapped in a thin layer of bullshit.

You simply completely lack any comprehension of what you're even talking about, which is why you desperately seized upon a facet of my statement that you hoped you'd have a slight chance of adequately addressing. Unfortunately, you're mistaken even there. The nature of felicific calculus depends on ordinal measurements of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. In terms of intensity, it would be obvious to estimate that cutting off a person's arms and legs would cause a more intense imposition of pain than mildly slapping them would. In terms of duration, it would be obvious to estimate that being trapped in a lake of fire for one hundred years would cause a longer duration of suffering than being trapped for one second would. In terms of certainty, it's obvious to estimate that running out into a busy highway causes a higher risk of suffering than running into an empty highway would. And so an and so forth...

 

[Shogun]

it would be obvious


again, you fail. You ASSUME that every individual factors the same variables exactly like your OPINION when calculating the value of utility. This is why you keep failing to realize that the utilitarian paradigm is nothing less than worthless when making such bullshit generalizations about universal value or it's relevance as a logical standard.


maybe you need to have yourself a "take your daughter to the zoo" day and do some serious comparing and contrasting.



after all.. far be it for me to point out your Appeal to Authority when wrapping yourself up in singer's opinion of the utility standard....

 

[manifold]

My question was clarified later on in the thread. And you still haven't answered it.

I can't find it.

 

[krotchdog]

I must admit I am impressed with the education and verbage you folks use here. I don't have the education you guys do so please forgive me if it takes a week to look up all them there fancy words you use. I am intelligent though, common sense and intelligence cannot be taught. I do not understand your deep discussions of theory, I am merely here to give a fact or two.

One, when a woman becomes pregnant her body is the host to a parasite that lives inside here. She is a life support system. Science has certainly proved beyond a doubt that science does not understand life, and not just of the parasite inside a woman, but they know a tiny fraction about the secrets of life.

I wish I could be here on earth in 200 years, I am sure the scientist and doctore will look back and consider our practices medivial, they will be so advanced that the dark ages will include our time.

So if I may ask one question and I do not know the answer, when is the parasite a baby, is it only when the parasite is removed that it is a baby or is it a baby at an earlier time.

That I do know.

 

[Ravi]

What makes you think it is a parasite? Sounds like a pretty retarded opinion.

 

[Diuretic]

So if I may ask one question and I do not know the answer, when is the parasite a baby, is it only when the parasite is removed that it is a baby or is it a baby at an earlier time.

This is where language gets in the way.

What emotions do the word "baby" inspire?

What emotions do the word "parasite" inspire?

And any minute now we'll get a definition for "baby".

All unhelpful. Perhaps it's back to "viability" for some clarification.

I'm also having problems with the verbiage on all sides, I find it obfuscatory, I prefer simple language. Sorry if I'm too much of a dumbarse to understand it but I'm with Orwell when it comes to language use.

 

[manifold]

...when a woman becomes pregnant her body is the host to a parasite that lives inside here. She is a life support system...

So if I may ask one question and I do not know the answer, when is the parasite a baby, is it only when the parasite is removed that it is a baby or is it a baby at an earlier time.

That I do know.

Parasite huh?

Not the description I would've chosen, but I guess that's not an entirely unreasonable categorization. In keeping with this line of reasoning, I guess it ceases to be a parasite once it can survive without a host.

 

[manifold]

I'm also having problems with the verbiage on all sides, I find it obfuscatory, I prefer simple language.

I agree. In fact that's what prompted me to start this thread in the first place. Some nitwit objecting to my referring to an abortion as killing a fetus when in simple, non-sugarcoated terms, that's exactly what it is.

 

[Diuretic]

I'd actually forgotten (this happens to me too often for comfort) the point of the thread.

But the language is interesting. Is abortion killing a foetus? I think it is. Since it's living in the biological sense then it can be killed. If the host is killed and the foetus which relies on that host for the biological function of life is killed then the person who killed the host has killed the foetus.

But we even refer to viruses as "living" and as we know, viruses ("virii" sounds such a wank ) don't respire, they don't move about, they don't require food of some type but there they are, reproducing like you don't want to know.

The procedure is called termination because, I suppose, it terminates the living foetus.

 

[Ravi]

I'd actually forgotten (this happens to me too often for comfort) the point of the thread.

But the language is interesting. Is abortion killing a foetus? I think it is. Since it's living in the biological sense then it can be killed. If the host is killed and the foetus which relies on that host for the biological function of life is killed then the person who killed the host has killed the foetus.

But we even refer to viruses as "living" and as we know, viruses ("virii" sounds such a wank ) don't respire, they don't move about, they don't require food of some type but there they are, reproducing like you don't want to know.

The procedure is called termination because, I suppose, it terminates the living foetus.

I merely stated that I didn't think kill was the proper term because you can't kill something that isn't living (or a person, as Nemesis pointed out). Of course you can kill a virus, etc...but the proper term for abortion IS abortion since it is aborting the unfinished product, so to speak, and not killing a person.

Anywho, I explained this somewhere up the thread and asked how my explanation was inconsistent with my original statement...and of course that question was ignored.

 

[Shogun]

semantics. This is why people like Ravi don't want to discuss the genetics fact of an individual zygote. Murder? thats debatable. but an abortion is most certainly KILLING a fetus.

 

[Ravi]

My question was clarified later on in the thread. And you still haven't answered it.

I can't find it.

Right here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...a-fetus-is-not-alive-waaah-2.html#post1147914

But I guess it's easier to call me a cuntrag, post fuck you on my message board and neg rep me than answer a simple question.


Epic meltdown on your part...especially in a thread you started to flame me.