Originally posted by Nibedicus
You have set some lofty goals for the discussion but I the direction that your replies are taking you isn't anywhere close to the direction you purport to want to take it.1) Using dehumanization language to describe actual dehumanization implies that you agree with me that the fetus is indeed being dehumanized. If such dehumanization is something that you acknowledge exists, then how does your use of such language help alleviate this? IF your direction is not to alleviate this injustice then what exactly is your goal?
2) You used the injustice of the loss of agency due to slavery as a metric to base the value of life of a child when we were discussing what socially-acceptable metrics for the valuation of life of a child should be based on. I feel that is more than simply "showcasing it", it is participating in it (albeit in a very minor near insignificant way).
If you just say "we value the life of a kid" that does not suggest what we are doing wrong with them. We cannot stop talking about ethics with truisms like "Life has value", it serves no argumental purpose. Saying thing like "you dehumanize a fetus" is not advancing the matter either. And I'm not saying the things above are inaccurate, I'm just pointing out they don't get us a deeper understanding of the ethical implications we advance.
I do understand the risks of employing a very wide language that allows to question deeply engrained cultural values. This kind of argumentation that is not supposed to be a teaching tool but a device to allow argumentation and debating. It should make the position we have clear and better fix limits.
Yesterday's example:
Needs = keeping life
Choices = something beyond mere living
Making a difference between Needs and Choices is an effort to narrow down biological life.
You said it yourself: Life has value beyond resisting Death. But many will find that embryos are "just" refusing Death, hence participating in an action that is but a fraction of the living that is conceived as valuable. Which is something those same people wouldn't allow themselves to do concerning most adults
Originally posted by Bentley
1) If you just say "we value the life of a kid" that does not suggest what we are doing wrong with them. We cannot stop talking about ethics with truisms like "Life has value", it serves no argumental purpose. Saying thing like "you dehumanize a fetus" is not advancing the matter either. And I'm not saying the things above are inaccurate, I'm just pointing out they don't get us a deeper understanding of the ethical implications we advance.2) I do understand the risks of employing a very wide language that allows to question deeply engrained cultural values. This kind of argumentation that is not supposed to be a teaching tool but a device to allow argumentation and debating. It should make the position we have clear and better fix limits.
3) Yesterday's example:
Needs = keeping life
Choices = something beyond mere livingMaking a difference between Needs and Choices is an effort to narrow down biological life.
4) You said it yourself: Life has value beyond resisting Death. But many will find that embryos are "just" refusing Death, hence participating in an action that is but a fraction of the living that is conceived as valuable. Which is something those same people wouldn't allow themselves to do concerning most adults
1) You say that you aim to advance the discussion and criticize my points as not moving the discussion yet offer no insight that moves the discussion forward.
If you are trying to advance some form of deeper ethical understanding, then maybe you should get started?
2) What do you mean by "risks" and why is it suddenly relevant in our discussion?
We use certain language because our use of words define our beliefs. Language that seeks to downplay the value of human life (all human life) when it is connected to the act of destroys it is disingenuous, hypocritical and its most extreme: dangerous. This has been done in order to minimize the true impact of heinous acts such as slavery (where they are treated as property) and the holocaust (where jews were seen as vermin) and make them easier to commit.
3) I do not know where you are getting your definitions from but people can want to live too. Need and want are not mutually exclusive. Want is about desire and need is about imperative. But one can desire what is imperative.
Again, this obsession with irrelevant semantics makes me feel like this entire debate is just one big fat red herring. Are you trying to get anywhere with this?
4) Sigh. We evolve and grow as human beings. We are as much about our potential as we are about our current state. But the current state of the fetus only allows for simplistic choices as one's choices expand as they mature. However, a fetus, being the most simplistic form human life can take can only make the most simple choice = the innate biological choice/need/want to live. You are conflating a fetus' ability to only make simplistic choices with its value as a human being. We are not simply valuable based on the choices we are able to immediately make. Again, your logic is flawed from the very onset because you refuse to see past the flawed metric you are proposing.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
3) I do not know where you are getting your definitions from but people can want to live too. Need and want are not mutually exclusive. Want is about desire and need is about imperative. But one can desire what is imperative.
Your position consists in saying there is no meaningful difference between needing and wanting something. But human ethics are still entirely dependant on responsability. Actions taken for survival are evaluated very differently than open decisions. And they do not belong to an inferior category.
If someone aknowledges needs and choices aren't the same thing, then they should also accept that needs are touched by a higher level of personal ethics. Saying an embryo "decides" to live is weakening its position due to wordplay.
The value of life is often linked to freedom of choice, but not always in the right way.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
We are not simply valuable based on the choices we are able to immediately make.
Projecting into the future is something very ingrained in human minds so this can be a compelling argument. As a common ground argument it suffers from the fact we have difficulties transforming something deemed sub-human into a full human. Take a criminal for example: many people with struggle to accept that someone who served prison can become a positive functioning member of society (even when it's obviously possible).
I'd like to build an argument that gives value to life without being terribly dependant on freedom so the embryos are never set into the category of subhumanity to begin with.
Originally posted by Bentley
1) Your position consists in saying there is no meaningful difference between needing and wanting something. But human ethics are still entirely dependant on responsability. Actions taken for survival are evaluated very differently than open decisions. And they do not belong to an inferior category.If someone aknowledges needs and choices aren't the same thing, then they should also accept that needs are touched by a higher level of personal ethics. Saying an embryo "decides" to live is weakening its position due to wordplay.
The value of life is often linked to freedom of choice, but not always in the right way.
2) Projecting into the future is something very ingrained in human minds so this can be a compelling argument. As a common ground argument it suffers from the fact we have difficulties transforming something deemed sub-human into a full human. Take a criminal for example: many people with struggle to accept that someone who served prison can become a positive functioning member of society (even when it's obviously possible).
I'd like to build an argument that gives value to life without being terribly dependant on freedom so the embryos are never set into the category of subhumanity to begin with.
1). AFAIK, the capacity to take responsibility for one's actions is not a metric for the value of human life. You are conflating the two. And I cannot fathom where you made the connection. Must be a branch of philosophy and ethics I am unfamiliar with (I am a layman after all).
And my primary position is NOT that needs and wants are the same, it is that the definition is irrelevant as the point is that life seeks (whether you define as want or need or choice or whatever) to live by its very nature and we do not have the right to take this away unless we want to live within the same standard of value of life. We give others the same benefit of urgency for the value of their own life the same way we expect them to be considerate of our own life.
You are insisting on something I am not saying and are simply insisting that we push the discussion towards a direction I am not even interested in making.
2). And this is where our disconnect lies. You accept the presumption of the fetus as subhuman until proven human. I am of the thought that the fetus was human to begin with. My basis: DNA and future potential. A lot of things actually make sense now. Your use of language especially. :-/
Criminals are not subhumans either.....! People might use it on the figurative sense but not the literal definition of it.
:-/ Are you being serious here?
You keep saying that you aim to do something but you have taken zero steps (from what I'm seeing) towards this so-called goal of yours. I have been discussing in good faith. You're gonna have to level with me. Am I getting trolled here?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
You accept the presumption of the fetus as subhuman until proven human.
I don't and I'm saddened that after all this back and forth you still think I have been this dishonest.
I aknowledge some individuals act as if fetuses were suhuman and consider those mental gymnastics accordingly. Do you think these people ignore a human embryo has future potential or that DNA exists? This doesn't stop them from actively dehumanizing the fetus. In order to counter that idea my take is that you need to understand how these processes perpetuate themselves so they can be fully dismantled.
I'm not even sure the notion of subhumanity makes sense, but that's still a concept we are forced to challenge to grow as a society.
Originally posted by TempAccount
[B]Ain't it funny how the US will lose its shit over Syria and Assad's alleged human rights violations, yet we turn a yuge blind eye to the public decapitations, hangings, lashing, inhumane treatment, corrupt justice system, etc that take place in Saudi Land.
I agree that shit is hilarious, but so is this very topic...attempting to get a "gotcha" by using a shithole to compare it to the eeeeeeeeevil christians.
Originally posted by Bentley
I don't and I'm saddened that after all this back and forth you still think I have been this dishonest.I aknowledge some individuals act as if fetuses were suhuman and consider those mental gymnastics accordingly. Do you think these people ignore a human embryo has future potential or that DNA exists? This doesn't stop them from actively dehumanizing the fetus. In order to counter that idea my take is that you need to understand how these processes perpetuate themselves so they can be fully dismantled.
I'm not even sure the notion of subhumanity makes sense, but that's still a concept we are forced to challenge to grow as a society.
How am I supposed to understand the processes that perpetuate dehumanization if the logical points behind these perceptions are not being presented (beyond "it exists", you have not presented any of these so-called processes from what I can see, maybe you're being too subtle about it?)?
How am I supposed to believe that you do not share this same perception when the first thing that started this debate off is your use of the same dehumanizaiton language these same individuals (as you say) are guilty of?
The problem I have with your replies is that you keep saying that you want to formulate some sort of ideal logic but I have not seen anything beyond cherrynitpicking and irrelevant semantics. You are perhaps moving this too slowly and I feel that you need to make your point.
And if such a point exists that addresses the flawed reasoning of the dehumanization crowd better than simply "we are all human and we must mutually respect each others' value of life" then I await it with bated breath.
I've brought several mechanisms on this discussion already:
- People attach value to life due to liberty (implicity taking value away from non-agents).
- People dismiss value from other life due to being different (implicitly subhuman).
I'd argue that we aren't moving towards a direction where empathy towards non agents is increased. I've heard many people throw around the term "playing victim" as an insult, heavy criticizing passive opinions of others (even when your own opinions are as stale) and all around becoming more unforgiving towards past errors. If society were to admit that passive roles are as functional and as important a decision roles then we'd move towards a more benevolent concept of society that would be good for unborn humans.
The ability to make a choice is an individual value. Reaching a consensus, which is its social counterpart, should be favored instead.
I don't think that just "mutually repect each other's value of life" is enough, but it's ok for a logical baseline. For starters life is not an on/off switch, you can have different qualities of life and situations such as emprisonment, forced povert or violence are all inclusive on respect of life. But in the case of abortion we take it a step further: parents become responsible of life not just in the biological sense but also in all its qualities. By following the same principle you could tackle it in several ways: increasing the quality of life (making sure the unborn child gets proper upbringing, the mother proper care), decreased responsability (preemptively apply temporary sterilization to individuals) or increase responsability (make sex education free and contraception free and easily available). I think taking those actions speaks volumes of societies attachment to the respect of life but none of these ideas have pierced into society as being any "urgent".
Originally posted by Bentley
1) I've brought several mechanisms on this discussion already:- People attach value to life due to liberty (implicity taking value away from non-agents).
- People dismiss value from other life due to being different (implicitly subhuman).2) I'd argue that we aren't moving towards a direction where empathy towards non agents is increased. I've heard many people throw around the term "playing victim" as an insult, heavy criticizing passive opinions of others (even when your own opinions are as stale) and all around becoming more unforgiving towards past errors. If society were to admit that passive roles are as functional and as important a decision roles then we'd move towards a more benevolent concept of society that would be good for unborn humans.
The ability to make a choice is an individual value. Reaching a consensus, which is its social counterpart, should be favored instead.
3) I don't think that just "mutually repect each other's value of life" is enough, but it's ok for a logical baseline. For starters life is not an on/off switch, you can have different qualities of life and situations such as emprisonment, forced povert or violence are all inclusive on respect of life. But in the case of abortion we take it a step further: parents become responsible of life not just in the biological sense but also in all its qualities. By following the same principle you could tackle it in several ways: increasing the quality of life (making sure the unborn child gets proper upbringing, the mother proper care), decreased responsability (preemptively apply temporary sterilization to individuals) or increase responsability (make sex education free and contraception free and easily available). I think taking those actions speaks volumes of societies attachment to the respect of life but none of these ideas have pierced into society as being any "urgent".
Man...
I notice that you didn't respond to my call for you to level with me. If you aren't trolling me, I gotta say your evasion of my question makes me a little bit suspicious now....
1) I already stated:
Originally posted by Nibedicus
the logical points behind these perceptions are not being presented (beyond "it exists"😉
Which was my point. If you wanted me to understand why ppl come to those conclusions, you need to present the thought processes leading to them in a relatable or understandable way. Simply presenting the thought process (w/c I can then simply reject based on the flawed premise behind them) does not move the discussion forward in the direction you purport to want to move it to.
This is why I am very suspicious of your intentions now. If you were serious in the direction you claim you want to move this towards, you would need to present or elaborate your arguments/information in such a way wherein they can at least open up some sort of conversation.
So I go back to my quesiton: You're not trolling me are you? I am debating in good faith here, if you are trolling me maybe this has gone far enough? Pardon if I seem short with you but either your articulation of your point needs work or you are just trying to waste my time here with a pointless discussion.
2) The lack of empathy with the unborn has more to do with how ppl have dehumanized them due to ideology IMO.
Where are you basing this "society is moving away from non-agents" (I'm thinking you mean the unborn when you say "non-agents" since there are more than just unborn children who can lack agency) argument of yours? Citation pls. AFAIK abortion is practically split down the middle and it hasn't considerably moved.
And I have already stated that I see the agency argument as deeply flawed, so I don't see why you are even pushing it forward like I've agreed to it? Maybe first present relatable logical thought processes why the agency argument is something I should look into before moving the discussion to a social call to action? I feel you missed a step here?
If we want to things better for the unborn, then the unborn should just be seen as human life. It should start there. That should be enough.
3) "Quality of life" (how we live) and "life" (meaning the fact that we are alive) are two different things. For the sake of keeping the argument to-the-point, I would like to stay to value of life meaning our life in the alive/not alive sense not from a quality of life sense. And no, those are not one and the same. They are related but different so pls don't go that direction.
As for the point you are making: Responsibility for life should be enough to start. But of course, parents should strive to better the quality of life for their children as best as possible.
Quality of life is too nuanced and subjective for me to want to engage in a discussion on it tbh.
I'll go back to my point: Why did you feel the need the need to use dehumanization language to describe the unborn? Do you still feel justified in its use now that we have discussed it?
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Still the case KSA is more liberal.
So what? Am I supposed to feel bad because my state is more Conservative than Saudi Arabia? LOL. Pooty, I have a bumper sticker on the back of my car that reads:
"I'm for whatever pisses off liberals!" lol.
LOL@ you trying to make me feel ashamed because my state is strongly opposed to abortions.
Everyone has an inherent right to life, including the unborn; bravo to Alabama for being so adamant about defending that principle that is so very lost on people like you.
I can't believe you resurrected a thread that's been dead since May of last year just to say that.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeWhat rustled your Jimmy's most about my topical resurrection of this tgread? Try to stay in character in your reply? 🙂
So what? Am I supposed to feel bad because my state is more Conservative than Saudi Arabia? LOL. Pooty, I have a bumper sticker on the back of my car that reads:"I'm for whatever pisses off liberals!" lol.
LOL@ you trying to make me feel ashamed because my state is strongly opposed to abortions.
Everyone has an inherent right to life, including the unborn; bravo to Alabama for being so adamant about that notion that is so very lost on people like you
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
What rustled your Jimmy's most about my topical resurrection of this tgread? Try to stay in character in your reply? 🙂
You didn't rustle anything, pooty. Just because I replied to your post doesn't mean I was triggered or whatever.
I just find it amusing that you resurrected such an old thread just to say what you did.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
It's no wonder though segments of the population in these American regimes more oppressed than KSA are fighting back... is it? I
LOL@ you calling American cities and states that lean Conservative "regimes".
Fighting back? What in the hell are you talking about? A state doesn't get much more red or pro-life than Alabama, pooty. I can almost guarantee you without even checking that probably at least 80% of the people in this state are pro-life. I don't know where you get your wacky notions from, pooty.
If any states or cities in America are "regimes" oppressing people it is left-leaning so-called "progressive" ones. It's becoming more and more obvious to me that leftists such as yourself live in a fantasy alternate reality instead of the real one... smh.
Whatever... no doubt you are just doing your trolling thing again.