prometeus

Very well, I can do that.

I have, have you?

OK then, if is part of the mother then it can be excised as a tumor. After all one person can not be part of another, right? But wait, the fetus has its own DNA and the pregnant woman her own. One organism with two sets of DNA. You did say that biology was your specialty. I can see that now.

I did not say that anything about uniqueness. That is your picking and choosing to support you failed argument. When more than one characteristic is common to two or more of anything, is is not unreasonable to refer to that commonality.

But it is unique to one, when one lives inside another. What aspect of biology do you specialize in?

You were insulted by that? I was merely trying to highlight what I suspected was your willful ignorance of basic biology. I hope I did not strike a nerve.

Thank you. So they are alike in some ways. If so,then as a biology specialist dispute the validity of the context not the accuracy. By the way I did not attribute any merit to the comparison, only that it was accurate.

Fair enough, than say that you assume or believe and do not inject something that implies any form of approval or agreement from the opposing side.

No, just trying to keep accuracy.

That is true, say in the dispute over the Earth being flat or round. But I repeat, personhood is a human construct. It does change with with societal values and percepts. Not very often but it does none-the-less. On the other hand science is more precise and as you say not subject to societal perceptions.
Your insistence of scientifically defining something that should not be, is akin to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Yes, I did. It made no sense then as it makes no sense now and repeating it will not help.

You are right, I misread and understood, I am sorry.

I am sorry, I did not know I had to come from some specific place, but I did get a welcome to the forum message from the mods. Does that make a difference? Yes lets just stick to the facts. The fact was that I did not say what you attributed to me, but what I repeated.

I will not hold by breath, but you can if you wish till it is widely accepted. Till then why don't we stick to what is commonly recognized as a person and debate why that should or should not be changed.

Well it is not part of any law, has no enforceable clauses in it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US as in most other parts of the world, their respective constitutions. Yea, those inalienable rights, of course not the rights of the slaves, or of women or children. How about the inalienable rights to life of the British soldiers killed as a result of the DOI? How about the inalienable rights to life of the people who die because some HMO denies treatment? How about the inalienable right to life of the infants that die because the US is 23 in the world in infant mortality rate right behind Cuba? Do you even know what inalienable means?

It is clear that you do not.

That may be self-evident to all with half a brain, to the rest of us with whole brains it is evident that it does not exist.

prometeus

Morality is subjective and while there may exist a broad commonality of certain values in a society, there are some that are not common yet held to be just as valuable or important by the few who hold them, say polygamy among Muslims or Mormons. You say it is "universally not OK to kill just because we feel like it" but we do kill all the time because we feel like it. The US was founded like that. British subjects decided not to be British any more (felt like it) and said that if anyone will try to stop them they will kill them if necessary. And they did. Native Americans wanted to stay on their land, but some felt like taking that land for themselves and they killed for it. Part of the US decided or felt like becoming a different country and they killed for it. Part said no you don't, and killed ofr it. A gentleman said something inappropriate, real or perceive and another gentleman felt insulted and they killed for it. Need I go on? Do you suppose they never heard of the inalienable right to life? Today people die because treatment is either not affordable to them or it is simply denied by someone sitting in an office looking to make bigger profits. Do they not have this right to life. Where is the punishment for the violation of that right to life?



There is nothing universal only aspiration. Societies have rights by way of the rights of the individual members of those societies. You seem to confuse what most people would say are values we all should aspire to with rights. Rights only exist to the extent they are recognized and enforced. Whether you agree or not with the existence or extent of the rights in a particular society is entirely different from the existence of those rights. In other words when blacks did not have any rights in the past, was it right? Well the founding father thought it was, and they are revered today for their wisdom. Today we say no and attach a long list of why that was wrong, but it is truly irrelevant to those who at the time did not have the rights. Just like it is today to those who are held without charge. They do have rights so what? They are still held and nothing can make up for the time they were held if and when they are released. So much for rights. The entire concept of rights is meaningless it individuals can not exercise them. In some places such as the US people enjoy more rights than in some other places, but again they are only meaningful if they can be and are exercised.

True, but only of the rights society has decided to adopt.

I fail to see the point you are making. Clearly the victims were deemed by those societies not to have rights and for all practical purposes they did not have rights. That is why they became the victims. Do we condone that now? Of course not, but that hardly helps those who died.

Correct, it does not forge that morality, just the practicality. Morality happens to coincide with it, but is not necessarily the source of it. Lets look at the issue at hand. From your posts I deduct that you consider abortion immoral, I do not. Are we to conclude that immorality was the source of the legal status of abortions? Or we can look at it another way. I consider it immoral for anyone to impose their view or value upon anyone. Therefore I think that that morality repealed the immoral imposition of abortion restrictions on women.


But I did no such thing. I pointed out that stating that fetuses exhibited some parasitic behavior was not inaccurate. There is a difference.

I do not wish to disconnect anything, not that a fetus can be disconnected from humanity anyway.
On the contrary, some parasites are beneficial, but that is a different topic.
Do you see a problem with the declining of human population? I do not.
Again, I did not liken a fetus to anything.

Ethereal

I don't see what you're getting at.

When they say "different organism" they are not refering to an organism that must be a seperate entity than that of its host. That a parasite cannot be the same organism as its host is evident. "Different organism" refers to their differentation as species, not as entities.

Furthermore, this definition is too narrow and cannot be applied in a categorically specific context. Dictionaries are not meant to provide comprehensive or specifically qualitative scientific definitions. That's why there are entire subjects dedicated to their respective definitions.

It is a meaningless commonality that infers nothing beyond itself. I could identitfy a commonality between you and parasite as well, does this mean you are parasitical?

Not true. Certain types of bacteria live inside your body and depend on its shelter and nutrients for survival. Also, parasites need not live inside their host.

Yes. The unborn are like comets in some ways too.

I am disputing the context. I have been for quite some time now. I never implied that the unborn do not share a commonality with parasites, only that said commonality is contextually irrelevant and meaningless.

You jumped into the middle of a debate. I cannot be held responsible for your failure to recognize an established context. The point you were adressing had a specific context and I assumed you knew what it was.

I'm not disputing the human element in defining personhood. I'm simply disputing the accuracy of its suppositions. Furthermore, science is also a human contstruct and as such may be applied to other equally human concepts.

This is not a valid rebuttal. You must specifically adress why it makes no sense. Simply labeling something as nonsensical doesn't make it so.

That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm contesting the logical validity of society's current definition of a person while providing what I feel is a better one. Can we get on the same page?

Not part of any law? The words and ideas of the Declaration of Independence pervade every facet of American jurisprudence, most notably the United States Constitution. References to the Declaration of Independence have been made by every President and Justice of the Supreme Court in order to rationalize some piece of legislation or judicial review. It is at the core of American principles and the bedrock of American ideology. It is the single most influential document in American history.

And who wrote the Constitution? The same men who wrote the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence was a source of inspiration and legal reference for the Constitution.

What's your point?

So, you're not contesting that the wording in the fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is derivitive of the Declaration of Independence?

What are you talking about!?!?! You and Granny are the only people I've ever met in my entire life who think there's no such thing as a right to life. Ask a thousand random Americans what they think and garuntee you 999 of them will agree with me.

Let's see what the Founding Fathers have to say about it...

rivrrat

Uhh.. no, they wouldn't. And prometeus and Granny aren't the only ones who feel that way.

There is no ultimate authority that grants any "right to life". When would that right be granted anyway?

They didn't mean blacks though. Or women. Probably not Indians either.

__________________
Universe.SYS corrupted. Reboot? [Y/N]

Ethereal

So, I guess that means I can murder you then? I mean, if you don't have a right to life there's no reason I can't.

The right to life is granted when one exhibits the properties of life.

The fact that the American government violated those people's rights doesn't mean they weren't endowed with them. Hypocrisy? Yes. A negation of the rights theory? No.

rivrrat

The mere fact that you CAN kill me means that I have no such "inalienable" right to life.

Who is "one"? What is "one"? Cows? Pigs? Dolphins? Fish?

Or just humans? If so, Why just humans?


How can the US government violate the very rights they defined, granted, and extended? Is the US government the ultimate authority on the "right to life"? Only US citizens have a right to life?

Ikari

So is the concept of "personhood", it's completely arbitrary. At least in human morality there is a base which is accepted. With something like personhood and using it define the point when a human gains its rights, there is nothing but arbitrary arguments placing it wherever it is convinient for the argument to take place. All those who have supported this notion of personhood being the point at which we have rights never answered any of my questions on whether what Hitler or Stalin or the Crusades or the Inquisition had done was right since they and their societies regarded the enemy not as having "personhood".


They can hold whatever they wish to hold. I have nothing innately against polygamy so long as the rights of others aren't violated in the process.

sometimes yes, sometimes with reason.

That had more to do with rights and the ability of self-governance (also to keep money and property). While the killing was regrettable, and not something to endorse (it's not an ok thing to do), we can own up to the fact that we did it. Feel pity and sorrow for having to take the life of another.

Ok, first off, you're going to have to show me where I said it never happens. I merely said it wasn't ok. And what was done to the Indians was horrible, one of the darkest times I would say. We slaughtered the piss out of them, it happened. It wasn't ok.

Part were exercising their rights to self-governance, the other part were exercising their sword duties to preserve the Republic and to end the suppression of rights the government and society had engaged in (via tyranny) against a specific group of humans. Again, it's not ok to kill for no reason. Sometimes there are reasons, the killing still isn't ok and you have to own up to what it is that you did. Whether or not the courts find you guilty, you have to take responsibility for your actions.

You know that duels often did not end in the death of either party? It was a contract entered into by two consenting adults and they had at it. It's illegal now because first off, with modern weapons it would almost always end in death, and second because we realize now that it was not right to allow.

Nope, cause I never said it didn't happen. I said it wasn't ok.

They knew of it, all of it predates Locke.

Yup

Better question (instead of the revenge route) is what are we going to do to fix it. There's definitely a problem in the way which insurance companies and drug companies run themselves. The pure market forces for insurance means that they want people to pay in and then just to die at the end. You can use government to correct that, a system in which insurance companies are rewarded for saving their clients instead of seeing them offed. It's something we really should work on, though no one in Washington is wanting to do so because their friends are the insurance companies in their present form.

How does a society have rights? Societies are collectivism, there is nothing innate to them that would produce rights. Individuals of the society have rights, the society is merely a collection of those individuals and can't itself impose anything upon those individuals which are counter to their rights.

Nope, rights are universal and they always exist. They can be suppressed through force and tyranny, but that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. I have the right to free speech, you may bind and gag me and throw me in a jail somewhere but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to free speech. It means you have used force to suppress my natural rights.

No, their rights were forcibly suppressed; it's not that they didn't have any rights. And it wasn't right.

It's pretty simplistic to overlook all the dynamics which took place in the creation of the Republic and what was done. There were provisions built into the Constitution for the freeing of the slaves, but they couldn't do it right off the bat because there were some who benefited from the suppressed rights of a minority and wanted it to stay that way. In order to make a Republic it was allowed to continue at first, but was given an expiration date. When that day eventually came and we came to blows it was to end the forcible suppression of rights. Oddly enough, the arbitrary manner in which many on your side would define morality and rights would say that this was in fact completely alright. That is the end result of your argument too, you would have to say that it was as society said it was, black people had no rights, and they were right to have enslaved them. Mine is a bit more concrete and says that it was not ok, that we should strive to ensure the rights of all.

Again, they had rights; you can't take a right away it is innate. They were victims of tyranny.

Wrong, understanding the notion of rights is essential to freedom and liberty. If I don't believe in rights, that society just tells me whatever. Then if I'm sitting around in shackles, then that's just the way it is. There's noting innate about me that should say it should be any different. This is what society wanted, and that's the way it is. You get slavery without the concept of rights, treason and tyranny will reign over the people. Rights give us the fire, the desire and yearning to be free. Understanding it is important because if you are being oppressed you need to fight. Without rights, there is no reason to fight. Individuals must be free to exercise their rights, but if they are not then they need to fight to make it so. Rights empower us to stand against tyranny.

Then fight for what you are lacking. Change the government, if that can't be done revolt.

Even if this is true, hasn't our society adopted the right to life as existing? Western societies take it as a fundamental, so I guess we can just go ahead and start with it existing as both of us agree it exists.

But was it right at the time? That's the question i want answered. Would you say the genocide of dictators and fascist governments past was morally acceptable and ok? All your arguments say yes.

I think that if possible we should avoid the killing of others. And at the very least we should own up to what we've done. If you kill a human, don't call it a parasite to get around feeling bad. Admit what you did, accept the consequences.

So you're saying it was wrong to try to end slavery. A group of people didn't extend "personhood" to another group...that's their choice right? Who are we to say that was wrong? That was their definitions and their section of society agreed, right? Then some other *******s went in thinking they knew better and wanted to extend rights to the oppressed group. Jackasses, imposing their views on others...can't believe it.

oh?
Not condemnation for an argument used?

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Ikari

par·a·site
Biology: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Parasites as defined don't contribute positively. There are creatures which work is symbiotic relationships but they are not parasites (and I think you're better off here making analogies to a fetus, though I still don't like treating a fetus as anything other than human). There are natural forces which preside over population control. In fact, most of the modern world already has declining populations barring the United States which operates at replacement thanks to immigration. You're not going to beat nature.

Heracy

no. abortions are

hey .. I got one for ya ...



whats red, and crawls along the floor of the chippy?














Abortion of chips!