TMA_1 Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 What I meant acriku is, is that when a baby no longer depends on the mother, it is a seperate creature that developes its intelligence. What is the difference in time? Why do you look at the now instead of the future? A baby has a potential to be an intelligent adult in most cases. Now if the baby dies or is injured somehow, then that is the act of nature/(insert God here for me) but not of mankind.This goes back to the old argument of are we to tamper with nature. I cant argue with you further on this because of our completely differing philosophies, you know where I stand though, and I know you are playing devil's advocate (knows you quite well now. ;) hehe jk man) so that is how I feel on things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Dust Scout...Why must the glass be half-empty? Because the world is depressing and thus to be depressed is to be realistic.Dust, why 70%?A rough (and probably accurate) estimate. Back on topic... What reason is there against 'playing god' anyway? I mean in a religious sense sure it means someone's getting uppity but in a scientific sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 The term "playing God" is one of the most egotistical terms mankind can come up with. To think, that man can actually play the most powerful being in existence? Anyways, there's nothing wrong with doing what may be categorized as "playing God." The religious kooks think that making babies naturally through other means is similar to what God did, heh. That's a hoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inoculator9 Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 I agree Acriku, whole heartedly. Everyone seems to act as if anything we do could compare to the supposed "greatest being in the universe." There should be no comparison what so ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Alright. Why shouldn't we have power-of-life-or-death-over-a-fellow-human-being?Technically incorrect though it may be, I prefer the version of just three syllables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 now you are just being offensive. good gravy.lolWhy dont you work on defeating arguments, instead of bashing them, or worse, going completely off topic...You picked at a term I used, but I did not ask you to pick at a word, but the meaning behind the whole post, could you please pick apart the post? it seems much more intelligent and sensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inoculator9 Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 You picked at a term I used, but I did not ask you to pick at a word, but the meaning behind the whole post, could you please pick apart the post? it seems much more intelligent and sensible.I agree, I just wanted to get in my bits on that particular phrase ;)And Dust Scout, why "should" we have power of life and death over a fellow human being? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Well, Dust, I suppose that, in the military, people do have the power-of-life-and-death-over-other-human-beings. Commanders must order their troops into situations in which they may die. Sometimes, commanders order their troops into situations in which they most certainly will die. In this situation, one human being, the commander, has the power of life and death over the soldiers under his command. This is done for practical reasons; it is done because it must be done. If that company can't hold that town for 4 hours, a regiment will be lost.In a volunteer army, people volunteer for military service while aware of this fact; they are aware that they may be ordered to die for their nation. By volunteering, they affirm that they are willing to take that risk.I guess that's the reason why conscription and the draft are wrong; because you force them to live or die at your whims. In a volunteer army, they consent to you this power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 oh I wasent getting you inoc, I was getting acriku, it was him!needless to say, I am pointing at the screen right now, and am just starting to realize the failing results.hehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyPIG Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Acriku, sickly babies that will only live for a few months almost always cannot live at any moment without life support, so to actively kill them is unheard of. In rare cases, where continued life is hopeless, the parents may choose to stop treatment (pull the plug) but never to actually, actively kill the child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Alright. Why shouldn't we have power-of-life-or-death-over-a-fellow-human-being?Technically incorrect though it may be, I prefer the version of just three syllables. We'd have to make it specifically circumstantial to maintain order and peace, otherwise I'd be justly able to kill you because I have that power. Also, making it circumstantial minimizes unnecessarily making the decision of life or death. Sorry for attacking your words 'playing God', I just had to express my opinion on it somehow ever since I thought of it.TMA, I wasn't talking to you, so you're probably not talking to me since you are directly talking to whomever you're talking to, as if they were talking directly to you.Acriku, sickly babies that will only live for a few months almost always cannot live at any moment without life support, so to actively kill them is unheard of. In rare cases, where continued life is hopeless, the parents may choose to stop treatment (pull the plug) but never to actually, actively kill the child.ACE, I realize the word "kill" is ambiguously used throughout this thread, and I meant "kill" to be in the fashion you explained above (pulling the plug). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 acriku, I didnt understand what you were saying to me, I think I am finally rubbing off on you.lol ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navaros Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 This however, is the part that leaped out at me (emphasis is mine):In addition, it was claimed that he did not believe that there was any ‘moral change’ that occurred between when the baby was in the womb and when it had been brought into the world.So, is this our future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Alive it may be but a foetus is hardly sentient. And people kill semi-sentient things all the time. Why is it that people who get so worked up about abortion so often go out shooting or hurting other animals? It's like mega-level hypocracy. There is no difference worth speaking of between a human and any other animal and there is even less difference between said other animals and a foetus. Mind-wise that is. In fact the animal is almost definately more intelligent and self-aware. I'm for abortion because I think that the needs of the parent outweigh that of a pink blubbery mass with less sentience than a kitten. Also there is the matter of overpopulation, likelihood of death anyway (this relates to the 'defective' thing which should be dealt with on an individual basis), etc... Morals, as far as I'm concerned, do not enter the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 there is no sentience ina kitten. though they are cute.lol ;)there is a sentience in a baby, and it is being further studied. To those who believein the doctern I believe, that the soul and spirit enter the baby at birth, mostly jewish theology, then they still believe abortion should only be used in the most urgent cases, because you are still killing a thing that has a potential chance at becoming a human life.even if it isnt sentient in the womb, it will become a human right? so take away time, and that baby is a human because time is the only thing keeping it from being "human". Time is the matter here, because it will be human, so it is human.but because it isnt human yet in my doctern of the soul and spirit entering when the baby is born, I believe abortion is okay if rape or the life of the mother is involved. because then there is an idea of sacrifice for those that are already sentient, to those that arent yet. It is talked about in the laws of the jews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Whether it will be or not, what it is is blubbery, pink, and not particularly bright (Kittens, on the other hand, are able to move for themselves, albeit poorly, almost from birth. They have instincts that get them to search for warmth, and in a few short days they have the cognitive ability that most babies don't get for a year or more...). It has potential, but nothing else.I will be a corpse eventually, I have the potential to become one now. But I am not one. I only have the potential, therefore it is not entirely accurate to treat me as a corpse. Nor is it accurate to treat a foetus (to a point) as a sentient human, because it isn't one.Of course returning to the topic at hand this begs the question of non-sentient adults or older children. The 'defective' kinds. Well cruel it may sound but euthanasia is a sensible option, though not by any means a necessity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 but the potentiality of being human means you treat something as if it were a human.treating you as a corpse is a silly logical twist on things. We dont treat you as a corpse because a corpse cannot be communicated with (though some weirdos beg to differ.hehe), and therefore there is no potential gain or benefit from you turning into a corpse, while there is potential gain and benefit from being sentient and clearly human.see what I mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 I like logical twists, they're fun, albeit often annoying. Foetus' and babies are not sentient, though have the potential to be. In which case, from a purely scientific point of view, would it not be best to wipe that potentiality (is that a word?) out completely before yet another breeder enters this overpopulated world? Of course this is an amoral method of thinking, something I'm rather fond of, but not necessarily a popular concept. More to the original point however, just because something has the potential to be something different does not mean that it should be treated differently. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navaros Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 dust_scout: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Babies cannot think. They can only react. Come to think of that, that's really all human action are anyway... Maybe we're not as sentient as we think... I'll have to think about that. But in the meantime, babies are no more self aware than a kitten. And there is no overpopulation of kittens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Legally, a baby is not a person and therefore is not murder to abort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navaros Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Legally, a baby is not a person and therefore is not murder to abort.that is certainly one of the sickest things i've ever seenthe laws of man mean nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 My name has a capital and no underscore you know...And the laws of man are the only laws there are. There are no religious truths and certainly no moral ones. We don't need to rationalise anything to ourselves because we are logically (to us) correct. Logic is everything to me at least, and you haven't proven me wrong yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navaros Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 there is nothing "logical" about murdering a human child or trying to rationalize that murder by using formal-sounding words which attempt to legitimize the act of murder by labelling it as something other than what it really is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 that is certainly one of the sickest things i've ever seenthe laws of man mean nothing. a law could pass today that says "a guy who posts on the Internet with the name Akriku is not a person". would that then make it ok to kill you? by your warped dementia here, it wouldn't be murder at that point eh? you're just like dust_scout - trying to use insane semantics and pleasant-sounding words to rationalize murdering children in your own mind.I simply stated a fact. You're inferring much more than what I have stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.