Animals can not be Murdered

[FactFinder]

The problem with your argument is you have no kowledge what the fetus has or has not. Your demonization and characterization is based on conjecture and the common consensus of the abortion crowd.

Since even a live infant lacks traits of personhood (basic sentience, self-awareness, rationality, and other capacities to suffer), it's obviously reasonable to infer that a fetus lacks such traits also. The only pertinent criterion of suffering that must be considered in the case of aborting a fetus is that of physical pain, which would be an argument against saline abortions, for instance.

There you go. You have extended the lack of rights to the infant. Backing up my contention that you earlier arguments stretched into that territory. Both the fetus and the infant have the intrinsic trait of human potential

 

[Agnapostate]

There you go. You have extended the lack of rights to the infant. Backing up my contention that you earlier arguments stretched into that territory. Both the fetus and the infant have the intrinsic trait of human potential

And I already responded to that criticism earlier by noting that the infant possessed extrinsic moral value in that it was presumably valued by others and could be adopted by others if the mother did not want it, so there was no rational purpose for killing it. Such is obviously not the case for a nonviable fetus, as it is dependent on the mother's body for survival. As to the argument from potential, it has already been addressed in my first reply to you.

 

[editec]

Animals have rights if we say they do.

Animals have rights if they outweigh us in a one on one fight.

In fact if I encounter a hungry pack of wolves in the woods?

I have ZERO rights.

What a goofy notion that rights have anything to do with this issue.

Not what is right? but RIGHTS.

We humans (this is not my cat typing this....although....) invented human rights, we can invent animal rights

.

Spot on. Rights is an intellectual concept contrary to what you read in the preamble to the constiution or the bill of rights.

The very fact that they had to pass a BILL about rights ought to tip us off that they are a human construct.

Nature doesn't grant rights, its only keeps score.

We invented morality, we can extend it to wherever we wish.

Yup, but only to the best of our ability to extend it.

Granted some of those extensions might be a bit laughable but that's how rights work, we invented them, we get to say who has them.

Laughable?

I take it you're not on board with my proposal to give haploids the same rights as human beings then?

Every sperm is sacred, says I.

 

[FactFinder]

The fetus is valued by all those who oppose abortion. So you mean it is not valued by its mother.

 

[Diuretic]

The problem with your argument is you have no kowledge what the fetus has or has not. Your demonization and characterization is based on conjecture and the common consensus of the abortion crowd.

Since even a live infant lacks traits of personhood (basic sentience, self-awareness, rationality, and other capacities to suffer), it's obviously reasonable to infer that a fetus lacks such traits also. The only pertinent criterion of suffering that must be considered in the case of aborting a fetus is that of physical pain, which would be an argument against saline abortions, for instance.

There you go. You have extended the lack of rights to the infant. Backing up my contention that you earlier arguments stretched into that territory. Both the fetus and the infant have the intrinsic trait of human potential

Not all rights are available to all humans all the time. Some rights - because they are a human invention - are only available on the basis of age. This supports my contention that rights are a human invention. Since a foetus is not a person, legally speaking, it has no specific rights. That's why some US legislatures got into a tizz and had to enact special penal provisions to allow for a foetus to be "murdered" because at common law a foetus isn't a person and therefore it can't be murdered at common law.

 

[FactFinder]

As long as you presume that rights are given by humans you may thus soothe the seared conscience

 

[Agnapostate]

The fetus is valued by all those who oppose abortion. So you mean it is not valued by its mother.

I already addressed extrinsic moral value. If these people were to extend their affections to a slug, would you argue that the slug was morally equivalent to a normal person?

 

[Diuretic]

As long as you presume that rights are given by humans you may thus soothe the seared conscience

We're all full of presumptions and assumptions. It's just that some of them are better grounded than others.

 

[FactFinder]

The quality of your counter arguments are getting too weak to have any value.

 

[FactFinder]

As long as you presume that rights are given by humans you may thus soothe the seared conscience

We're all full of presumptions and assumptions. It's just that some of them are better grounded than others.

For me God given rights are superior. Therefore no man can subvert them. They may try and cause plenty of suffering in the process but the rights are still there.

 

[Diuretic]

The quality of your counter arguments are getting too weak to have any value.

They're not counter arguments, just observations.

 

[jillian]

Since you have not proved the non existence of God, I'll stick with the God given rights. Thank you very much but fickle man can all too easily take them back.

rights don't exist if they aren't ENFORCED.

 

[jillian]

For me God given rights are superior. Therefore no man can subvert them. They may try and cause plenty of suffering in the process but the rights are still there.

nice concept... no basis in reality

 

[FactFinder]

It is reality for all those of faith. It is foolishness to all those who lack.

It was once found to be of the most urgent common interest to accept that reality.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[Diuretic]

It is reality for all those of faith. It is foolishness to all those who lack.

It was once found to be of the most urgent common interest to accept that reality.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No, that attribution is there for those of faith and you know that's fine, just as long as they're recognised. I don't much care if it's someone's religion or their humanity (note I am not saying the two don't co-exist) that causes them to observe and protect human rights, just as long as they're observed and protected.

We might disagree on origin but we can probably agree on the need for observance.

 

[Agnapostate]

The quality of your counter arguments are getting too weak to have any value.

To claim that I had presented a "counter argument" of any sort would assume that you had presented a legitimate argument, which is obviously a false premise to begin with.

 

[FactFinder]

The quality of your counter arguments are getting too weak to have any value.

To claim that I had presented a "counter argument" of any sort would assume that you had presented a legitimate argument, which is obviously a false premise to begin with.

So you are saying that all your statements were hogwash?

 

[jillian]

It is reality for all those of faith. It is foolishness to all those who lack.

It was once found to be of the most urgent common interest to accept that reality.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

and those rights worked so well for japanese americans during WWII

nothing wrong with having personal faith. t think it has anything to do with our government is foolishness.

 

[Agnapostate]

So you are saying that all your statements were hogwash?

As amusing as it is to see you flailing about, it's no less pathetic. All of your claims were rebutted, and you simply possess no further arguments. Had this been a debate conducted with a neutral arbitrator, you would have been declared the loser.

 

[FactFinder]

It is reality for all those of faith. It is foolishness to all those who lack.

It was once found to be of the most urgent common interest to accept that reality.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

and those rights worked so well for japanese americans during WWII

nothing wrong with having personal faith. t think it has anything to do with our government is foolishness.

Those rights were subverted by man based on supposed logical assumptions. Sound familiar?