Animals can not be Murdered

[Zoom-boing]

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.

This is a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad ignorantiam, or the "appeal to ignorance," the specific form in which you use it being a claim that a premise is true simply because it has not been proven false. More than that, I would posit that the burden of proof lies upon those who wish to assert the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent entity rather than those who wish to deny it. Reference to Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy is appropriate here.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Such a failure on the part of theists to accept a burden of proof was the origin of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course.

Likewise, using a claim that a premise is false simply because it has not been proven true is also an appeal to the ignorance.

 

[editec]

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

When burning bushes come back into vogue, and the righteous man is protected by GOD from the unrighteous, THEN I will PRESUME otherwise.

Until that time, I'm afraid that when it comes to the issue of RIGHTS in society, I'm afraid I'm pretty much stuck with reality based thinking.

I have as many rights as the cop on the beat, the judge on the bench, the landlord, the local city council, the whole host of armedpolice we have, AND the local mafia don allows me to have.

Same as you, dude, same as you.

 

[Agnapostate]

Likewise, using a claim that a premise is false simply because it has not been proven true is also an appeal to the ignorance.

Of course it is, which is why I said "the specific form in which you use it." However, the burden of proof lies on the person who wishes to assert an existence of an entity rather than its nonexistence, as illustrated by Russell's teapot.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

While at different stages of development, the common factor in a fetus and infant is the fact that they are both human. You can argue self-awareness and capacity of pain all you want; at the end of the day abortion results in the destruction of human life.

 

[FactFinder]

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.

This is a logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad ignorantiam, or the "appeal to ignorance," the specific form in which you use it being a claim that a premise is true simply because it has not been proven false. More than that, I would posit that the burden of proof lies upon those who wish to assert the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent entity rather than those who wish to deny it. Reference to Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy is appropriate here.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Such a failure on the part of theists to accept a burden of proof was the origin of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course.

Likewise, using a claim that a premise is false simply because it has not been proven true is also an appeal to the ignorance.

There has been plenty of proof put forth. Firstly the precedence of the ages and the prevailing consensus. It is incumbent on those who wish to deny the theorem that they prove it false. For Jesus alone there was innumerable eyewitness accounts. Besides it is not science that we speak of but the greater creation which science is but a small subset of that creation.

 

[Agnapostate]

While at different stages of development, the common factor in a fetus and infant is the fact that they are both human. You can argue self-awareness and capacity of pain all you want; at the end of the day abortion results in the destruction of human life.

This is merely another committal of the petitio principii fallacy. I have not denied that abortion results in the destruction of human life; I have challenged the doctrine that human life is inherently superior to animal life merely as a virtue of being human. The guidelines of logical argument make it incumbent upon you to offer a sound response to this challenge.

There has been plenty of proof put forth. Firstly the precedence of the ages and the prevailing consensus. It is incumbent on those who wish to deny the theorem that they prove it false. For Jesus alone there was innumerable eyewitness accounts. Besides it is not science that we speak of but the greater creation which science is but a small subset of that creation.

In the words of Kropotkin, "elief in an ice-cap reaching Middle Europe was at that time rank heresy," and "[t]he history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening." The fact that a belief has been maintained for centuries or even millenia is no testament to its accuracy. What of the other religions, some of which are older than Christianity, such as Judaism, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism?

Moreover, as to Jesus, in the first few centuries following his death, there was no unified Christian sect that maintained that he was the Son of God who had been sent to Earth to offer salvation to mankind through his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. There were a wide variety of Christian sects that existed with radically diverse beliefs, in that they could not even bring themselves to agree on the number of gods that existed, the humanity or deity of Jesus, the purpose of his crucifixion or whether it was relevant at all, etc. Perhaps you're familiar with some of the Gnostic sects, or with the Marcionites and the Ebionites? A "proto-orthodox" Christian sect (as Bart Ehrman has termed it), that was to be the ancestor of all modern sects did not exist until the fourth century, and was descended from the teachings of St. Athanasius.

 

[Zoom-boing]

While at different stages of development, the common factor in a fetus and infant is the fact that they are both human. You can argue self-awareness and capacity of pain all you want; at the end of the day abortion results in the destruction of human life.

This is merely another committal of the petitio principii fallacy. I have not denied that abortion results in the destruction of human life; I have challenged the doctrine that human life is inherently superior to animal life merely as a virtue of being human. The guidelines of logical argument make it incumbent upon you to offer a sound response to this challenge.

There has been plenty of proof put forth. Firstly the precedence of the ages and the prevailing consensus. It is incumbent on those who wish to deny the theorem that they prove it false. For Jesus alone there was innumerable eyewitness accounts. Besides it is not science that we speak of but the greater creation which science is but a small subset of that creation.

In the words of Kropotkin, "elief in an ice-cap reaching Middle Europe was at that time rank heresy," and "[t]he history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening." The fact that a belief has been maintained for centuries or even millenia is no testament to its accuracy. What of the other religions, some of which are older than Christianity, such as Judaism, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism?

Moreover, as to Jesus, in the first few centuries following his death, there was no unified Christian sect that maintained that he was the Son of God who had been sent to Earth to offer salvation to mankind through his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. There were a wide variety of Christian sects that existed with radically diverse beliefs, in that they could not even bring themselves to agree on the number of gods that existed, the humanity or deity of Jesus, the purpose of his crucifixion or whether it was relevant at all, etc. Perhaps you're familiar with some of the Gnostic sects, or with the Marcionites and the Ebionites? A "proto-orthodox" Christian sect (as Bart Ehrman has termed it), that was to be the ancestor of all modern sects did not exist until the fourth century, and was descended from the teachings of St. Athanasius.

It is. I can take a hammer and smash a cow's head and kill it because I want to eat it. The cow cannot do the same because it does not -- and cannot -- think in this manner.

As to the OP, taking the life of an animal is not murder; taking the life of a human is.

 

[Agnapostate]

It is. I can take a hammer and smash a cow's head and kill it because I want to eat it. The cow cannot do the same because it does not -- and cannot -- think in this manner.

As to the OP, taking the life of an animal is not murder; taking the life of a human is.

I'm aware of that. I did not claim that the lives of animals were morally equivalent to those of normal humans. However, human fetuses are a different matter since they suffer from a similar inability that the cow in your analogy does.

 

[FactFinder]

While at different stages of development, the common factor in a fetus and infant is the fact that they are both human. You can argue self-awareness and capacity of pain all you want; at the end of the day abortion results in the destruction of human life.

This is merely another committal of the petitio principii fallacy. I have not denied that abortion results in the destruction of human life; I have challenged the doctrine that human life is inherently superior to animal life merely as a virtue of being human. The guidelines of logical argument make it incumbent upon you to offer a sound response to this challenge.

There has been plenty of proof put forth. Firstly the precedence of the ages and the prevailing consensus. It is incumbent on those who wish to deny the theorem that they prove it false. For Jesus alone there was innumerable eyewitness accounts. Besides it is not science that we speak of but the greater creation which science is but a small subset of that creation.

In the words of Kropotkin, "elief in an ice-cap reaching Middle Europe was at that time rank heresy," and "[t]he history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening." The fact that a belief has been maintained for centuries or even millenia is no testament to its accuracy. What of the other religions, some of which are older than Christianity, such as Judaism, Hinduism, or Zoroastrianism?

Moreover, as to Jesus, in the first few centuries following his death, there was no unified Christian sect that maintained that he was the Son of God who had been sent to Earth to offer salvation to mankind through his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. There were a wide variety of Christian sects that existed with radically diverse beliefs, in that they could not even bring themselves to agree on the number of gods that existed, the humanity or deity of Jesus, the purpose of his crucifixion or whether it was relevant at all, etc. Perhaps you're familiar with some of the Gnostic sects, or with the Marcionites and the Ebionites? A "proto-orthodox" Christian sect (as Bart Ehrman has termed it), that was to be the ancestor of all modern sects did not exist until the fourth century, and was descended from the teachings of St. Athanasius.

Just as the James Jones and KKK sects were rejected so was those. There are many false prophets. It is telling that you would lean on those to promote your points. The writings of Matthew, Mark , Luke, John and the other Apostles are first hand accounts.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It is. I can take a hammer and smash a cow's head and kill it because I want to eat it. The cow cannot do the same because it does not -- and cannot -- think in this manner.

As to the OP, taking the life of an animal is not murder; taking the life of a human is.

I'm aware of that. I did not claim that the lives of animals were morally equivalent to those of normal humans. However, human fetuses are a different matter since they suffer from a similar inability that the cow in your analogy does.

You look at the similaritiy of a fetus and a cow - that is their 'unawareness' - and claim that abortion is not murder. I look at the difference between the fetus and the cow - that is, the fetus is human - and therefore the taking of a fetus is the taking of human life. You can dance around with your arguments till the cows come home; humans are superior to animals and abortion results in the destruction of human life.

 

[Agnapostate]

Just as the James Jones and KKK sects were rejected so was those. There are many false prophets. It is telling that you would lean on those to promote your points. The writings of Matthew, Mark , Luke, John and the other Apostles are first hand accounts.

The writings of the other sects were similar "first hand accounts." By what means do you reject their writings yet not those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Moreover, there are sections of the four currently used gospels that were added by scribes after their original creation, such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

That makes no sense at all. Sorry to be so blunt. If you want to argue that our rights are God-given then first you need to prove God's existence.

Good luck with that but if you do manage it you might want to follow up with why the indifference?

Check what man has done here and so far God hasn't intervened:

Commodore Frank Bainimarama has been reappointed as prime minister 24 hours after the president of the volatile South Pacific state abrogated the constitution and assumed executive power.

Fiji military chief back as PM after Constitution overturned | smh.com.au

Our rights are a human invention. Good invention though.

God has NOTHING to do with Man's Government, he turned earth over to Satan to prove his point that he and man could rule themselves. Until Jesus returns and leads the Angel army in the destruction of Satan and his forces to reestablish God's Kingdom on Earth, Satan RULES here. If you believe Satan rules hell, guess what? We live in Hell. Didn't you claim to know all about Christian religion? Read the damn Bible.

 

[Agnapostate]

You look at the similaritiy of a fetus and a cow - that is their 'unawareness' - and claim that abortion is not murder. I look at the difference between the fetus and the cow - that is, the fetus is human - and therefore the taking of a fetus is the taking of human life. You can dance around with your arguments till the cows come home; humans are superior to animals and abortion results in the destruction of human life.

That is not an argument; it is an arbitrary distinction, just as racial distinctions are arbitrary and similarly pointless. And just as with the species distinctions you now make, racial distinctions were once simply accepted as unchallengeable and indisputable facts, to which no degree of logical argument could apply. Have you not seen the folly of such an approach through that example? Provide arguments, not logical fallacies.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One has human potential.

That it is indeed the case, but this has no bearing on the fact that at the time of its death, an aborted fetus has not reached its potential. We can similarly recognize that the acorn is not morally equivalent to the oak tree, or more pertinently, that the egg is not morally equivalent to the chicken. Suppose that an egg (and yes, I'm aware that most humans do not consume fertilized eggs), were to be dropped into a pot of boiling water. We would accurately recognize that this act is not morally equivalent to dropping a chicken into a pot of boiling water because the increased sensory capacities of the chicken endow it with a greater capacity to suffer from being dropped into the pot of boiling water than the egg, despite the fact that the egg is a "potential chicken."

Similarly, at the time of its death, an aborted fetus is not a self-aware being and does not possess the capacity to suffer from its own death, since it cannot conceptualize its own death. This is fundamentally different from the death of a normal human, who possesses an awareness of his or her own existence, and accordingly, has formed preferences and interests about the future. So as with the analogy involving the chicken and the egg, though a fetus might be a "potential person," that is irrelevant to the suffering it endures at the actual point of its death because it is not yet endowed with the capacities to suffer from death in the same manner as a normal human.

Your argument could be extended to children.

By this, I assume you mean infants and very young toddlers. There is a crucial distinction between nonviable fetuses and infants, namely that of extrinsic moral value. For instance, whilst a fetus killed by an abortion is presumably unwanted by its mother, a healthy infant is presumably wanted and its mother and extended family would suffer from its death. (Before you ask about a father's desire for a fetus to live whilst inside the mother, her moral desires are more pertinent than his so long as the fetus relies on her body to survive.) Similarly, a healthy infant can be adopted by others, and no purpose can be served by killing a healthy infant, since it can simply be given to another if its mother does not want it. This cannot be done with a nonviable fetus.

Humans ARE superior. And WE run the roost. Animals are USED by us. While I agree one can LOVE an animal, I have 3 dogs that are part of the family, they are NOT human.

Let me put it another way.... if we decide animals have human rights we will be unable to feed ourselves, make medical advances, create new sciences that require animal testing, etc etc etc.......

Declaring an animal can be murdered would be attributing to an animal the same rights as humans, which would mean the animals rights idiots would then have the foot hold to oppose killing animals for food, keeping pets, using animals in any experiment of any kind, claiming hitting an animal on the road was murder.... etc etc etc......

I did not claim that animals should have rights equivalent to those of normal humans. I claimed that rights and moral value should be determined by organisms' level of basic sentience, self-awareness, and other capacities to feel pain and suffer. Hence, I would not claim that animals were morally equivalent to normal humans. I would, however, claim that certain animals (other great apes being the most obvious example), are morally superior to certain types of humans, such as fetuses, and for that matter, infants. Moreover, if you have no objection to animal experimentation, shouldn't you similarly lack an objection to embryonic stem cell research, or even the use of fetuses and infants for the use of such experimental or medical research? Or why not eat babies, for that matter? Can you maintain a consistent moral objection to that?

another of those slippery slopes that too many are eager to fall there on. I guess they have no perception of what awaits at the bottom.

Are you under the impression that we stand on solid ground as it is? I can assure you that we most certainly don't.

Absolute HOGWASH. YOU are moralizing that animals are somehow more important then humans. There is a HUGE difference between using an animal in an experiment and using a HUMAN or fetus. That you are so morally bankrupt that you can even try this argument is a sorry affair for YOU.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You look at the similaritiy of a fetus and a cow - that is their 'unawareness' - and claim that abortion is not murder. I look at the difference between the fetus and the cow - that is, the fetus is human - and therefore the taking of a fetus is the taking of human life. You can dance around with your arguments till the cows come home; humans are superior to animals and abortion results in the destruction of human life.

That is not an argument; it is an arbitrary distinction, just as racial distinctions are arbitrary and similarly pointless. And just as with the species distinctions you now make, racial distinctions were once simply accepted as unchallengeable and indisputable facts, to which no degree of logical argument could apply. Have you not seen the folly of such an approach through that example? Provide arguments, not logical fallacies.

I'll provide whatever I damn well please. If you don't like it, tough shit. Who died and put you in charge?

 

[FactFinder]

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.

That makes no sense at all. Sorry to be so blunt. If you want to argue that our rights are God-given then first you need to prove God's existence.

Good luck with that but if you do manage it you might want to follow up with why the indifference?

Check what man has done here and so far God hasn't intervened:

Commodore Frank Bainimarama has been reappointed as prime minister 24 hours after the president of the volatile South Pacific state abrogated the constitution and assumed executive power.

Fiji military chief back as PM after Constitution overturned | smh.com.au

Our rights are a human invention. Good invention though.

God has NOTHING to do with Man's Government, he turned earth over to Satan to prove his point that he and man could rule themselves. Until Jesus returns and leads the Angel army in the destruction of Satan and his forces to reestablish God's Kingdom on Earth, Satan RULES here. If you believe Satan rules hell, guess what? We live in Hell. Didn't you claim to know all about Christian religion? Read the damn Bible.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

YOU have claimed some animals have rights based on what YOU think.

 

[Agnapostate]

Absolute HOGWASH. YOU are moralizing that animals are somehow more important then humans. There is a HUGE difference between using an animal in an experiment and using a HUMAN or fetus. That you are so morally bankrupt that you can even try this argument is a sorry affair for YOU.

Human fetuses possess lesser capacities than certain nonhuman animals and a lesser awareness of their existence and surroundings. Your little tantrum doesn't change that; it just exposes your inability to offer logically sound arguments. What have you said that couldn't have been said by a white man denying the equivalent moral value of a black man? He could certainly imitate your squealing just as effectively.

I'll provide whatever I damn well please. If you don't like it, tough shit. Who died and put you in charge?

Jesus. Not the crucifixion thing; he tripped over a banana peel this morning.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

They did work, you are a damn lawyer and KNOW or should know that the courts sided with the Japanese and ordered them released, DUMB ASS.

 

[Agnapostate]

YOU have claimed some animals have rights based on what YOU think.

I've provided arguments to support my conclusions; you've provided conclusions without arguments or evidence simply because you consider human superiority to all animals regardless of traits of awareness, etc. to be an indisputable fact. But numerous dogmas have been asserted as "indisputable" in the past (such as that of racial superiority), and they all came tumbling down as irrational once legitimate argument was entered into the equation.