Originally posted by The_Tempest
Yeah, there's no question that the death penalty as it exists in the USA is exceptionally flawed. And I'm not necessarily defending or protesting abortion or the death penalty. My issue comes from what I perceive to be a staggering hypocrisy when one defends the killing of the unborn and protests the killing of the lowest society has to offer.
The death penalty isn't flawed, the process for it is. Reduce that baby to within 5 years and bam, you got a deterrent.
Originally posted by The_TempestAre you a vegetarian?
You quoted the wrong person, I think.And while my post was mostly tongue-in-cheek to illuminate Neph's strawman, you're never going to sell me on the simultaneous moral acceptability of terminating pregnancies and moral failure of the death penalty. The notion that the life of a convicted murderer or rapist has more inherent value than the unborn is horrific and untenable, in my opinion.
Because the mind and potential of a fetus at the time that it's aborted is about equal to the mind and potential of an adult chicken.
So... if you have no compunction with ~50 billion chickens being brutally murdered annually and eaten in harmburgers, I would argue that you probably shouldn't have a problem with killing a fetus.
I mean hell. The developmental difference between a sperm and a fetus by the time it comes abortion time isn't that different- but that doesn't stop you from killing millions of the little guys by spraying them across Dave's face and upper body.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Are you a vegetarian?Because the mind and potential of a fetus at the time that it's aborted is about equal to the mind and potential of an adult chicken.
So... if you have no compunction with ~50 billion chickens being brutally murdered annually and eaten in harmburgers, I would argue that you probably shouldn't have a problem with killing a fetus.
I mean hell. The developmental difference between a sperm and a fetus by the time it comes abortion time isn't that different- but that doesn't stop you from killing millions of the little guys by spraying them across Dave's face and upper body.
I'm not. I am, however, a vagetarian. 131
Er... actually, the potential of a fetus is a functioning adult human being, which is exponentially greater than any chicken, adult or otherwise.
A sperm without an egg has absolutely zero potential for life, my son. Therefore I'm not sure how supplying Dave with his necessary protein constitutes killing.
Well, with that logic, I would argue that the potential of sperm to become a person isn't significantly less than that of a fetus. All sperm needs to become a person is an egg to hop into and time to grow. All a fetus needs to become a person is "food", essentially, and time to grow.
Why do you insist on giving one the necessary ingredients for success and the other nothing but the dark abyss of Dave's mouth?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Well, with that logic, I would argue that the potential of sperm to become a person isn't significantly less than that of a fetus. All sperm needs to become a person is an egg to hop into and time to grow. All a fetus needs to become a person is "food", essentially, and time to grow.
But sperm alone doesn't constitute human life. At the end of the day, while you can argue that it's but one or two steps removed from a fetus, I'd assert that those steps are critical enough that excess sperm, the use of spermicide, or what have you isn't the same as killing an unborn child.
Ah, but I never asserted that a fetus wasn't "life"- in fact my argument was that killing chickens is comparable to killing a fetus because they're both "alive", and even have the same mental capabilities (chickens are actually smarter, at that point). That's a biological fact. A sperm cell is a living thing as well.
Now, at what point in the developmental cycle could those bundles of cells (or a cell) be considered a "person"? That question can't be answered with biology, imo.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Ah, but I never asserted that a fetus wasn't "life"- in fact my argument was that killing chickens is comparable to killing a fetus because they're both "alive", and even have the same mental capabilities (chickens are actually smarter, at that point). That's a biological fact. A sperm cell is a living thing as well.
And I think that's a pretty slippery slope you've got going on there. What about the mentally handicapped or infants, neither of whom possess the same mental capabilities as an average function adult human?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Now, at what point in the developmental cycle could those bundles of cells (or a cell) be considered a "person"? That question can't be answered with biology, imo.
👆
Correct.
Originally posted by The_TempestIndeed, it is a slippery slope isn't it? And it also shows that while the logic in a concept may be consistent, that doesn't necessarily make the concept itself "logical". We live in a world where arbitrary distinctions are sometimes necessary.
[B]And I think that's a pretty slippery slope you've got going on there. What about the mentally handicapped or infants, neither of whom possess the same mental capabilities as an average function adult human?
Hence, being okay with the death penalty but against abortion on the grounds that there is a distinction between a living, mostly sane adult criminal, and a fetus, isn't necessarily a paradoxical belief. Anymore than condoning the killing of chickens while condemning the killing of a fetus could be considered paradoxical.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Indeed, it is a slippery slope isn't it? And it also shows that while the logic in a concept may be consistent, that doesn't necessarily make the concept itself "logical". There are often distinctions that we have to make.Hence, being okay with the death penalty but against abortion isn't inherently illogical.
I believe you misread me: my complaint is more or less against those who oppose the death penalty and support abortion on moral grounds.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Now, at what point in the developmental cycle could those bundles of cells (or a cell) be considered a "person"? That question can't be answered with biology, imo.
Brain development is pretty well tracked, actually...
Originally posted by The_Tempest
And I think that's a pretty slippery slope you've got going on there. What about the mentally handicapped or infants, neither of whom possess the same mental capabilities as an average function adult human?
How about we note that even the bottom of the slop is way above an infant, let alone a mentally handicapped person?
A mentally handicapped person has a functioning brain with a personality and so on.
An infant may have problems with things like object permanence, but does react to things, has wants and dislikes and so on.
The equivalent of an fetus is a permanently vegetative human to a mostly braindead human, depending on the stage.
As long as you aren't talking late term- which I am strongly against unless health is threatened in which case it's one or the other anyway and it's illegal most places anyway- then there is orders of magnitudes of difference in brain capacity between a fetus and an infant.
Slippery Slope argument is a logic fallacy for a reason, after all, and for this slope, if an adult fully functional human is Colorado- one mile above sealevel, and an infant is at sea level, a fetus requires a deep-sea submarine to reach, and an embryo cannot be reached even in the deepest ocean trenches, mining equipment would be required.
Emperordmb When it comes to the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice issue, I respect a woman's right to choose, but I believe that choice is made when she decides whether or not to have sex.
There is a lot of problematic issues with that. Starting from a lot of people are misinformed on safe sex, to denied birth control/birth control is made difficult to obtain. Morning after pills stop things at a point where the body naturally stops things all the time anyway. Early term abortions are, additionally, involving blobs of cells that don't even have nervous systems, let alone a functioning brain.
Again, this is a thing with real health consequences that take a significant time to recover from and can have permanent consequences even if a major complication doesn't happen, and major complications can be fatal.
There is no other medical situation I can think of where someone is *required* to sacrifice their health for even another full human being. It's a double-standard.
A lot of the anti-choice argument really does come across as 'I say this because it doesn't personally affect me' stuff. It seems like a really dumb idea to me to insist someone sacrifice their health based on a standard that is applied to 'what makes a person' in no other situations ever, and additionally at the same time apply a 'one person's health must be sacrificed against their will' which also applies to no other situation ever.
And to make things even more one-sided, the organization in the United States with the best track record of lowering the number of abortions, significantly? Planned Parenthood. What raises the number significant? Abstinence only programs and many other programs supported by anti-abortion groups. Education and availability of choice, ironically, has proven to be the best method of all to lower the number of abortions.
So you want women to have more choice? Be pro-choice. You want to lower the number of abortions without caring about other facets of the issue? Be pro-choice. You want to increase the number of abortions across the country significantly? Support the ironically-named 'pro life' movement.