Thirith on 5/6/2009 at 07:04
Quote Posted by Phatose
Now as for your question, no, it's not OK. By my way of reckoning, brainwave patterns distinctively human start appearing in a fetus about the middle of the second trimester. When you get right down to it, our brains, our thinking, is the only reason why killing a human is murder and killing an ape is at most a violation of protected species laws. So, right about then I say "OK, well, it's doing the only thing that separates us from apes, so it's one of us now." - at which point the rules become the same as they would for a baby. Taking that life is only acceptable if there are huge mitigating factors - like say, a real threat to the life of the mother.
This I agree with. It strikes me as pretty sensible. Obviously the whole "huge mitigating factors" thing would have to be discussed in detail, but the principle is a good one IMO.
Quote Posted by Phatose
No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that if a fetus is inside a woman and it's not rape, it's the woman's fault that fetus is in there. Couldn't be the fetuses - it didn't exist. Basic biology tells me the woman did something to get that fetus in there, and the fact that it's not rape tells me she was a willing participant. And you want me to just accept that even though we're saying the baby is a person, it should be perfectly acceptable to kill that person for being in a situation cause by the person who wants to do the killing?
This, on the other hand... I find it extremely telling that you're saying "it's the woman's fault that the fetus is in there". It makes me wonder whether you know about the basic facts of life... and it makes it difficult even to engage with discussion on this as long as you're on your misogynist high horse, to be frank.
Nicker on 5/6/2009 at 07:06
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I laughed. Does that make me a bad person?
You have always been and will always be a bad person. Get over it already!
Vivian on 5/6/2009 at 07:47
a lot of apes approximate the reasoning powers of human children (evidence when I can be bothered). It's not that relevant, but if i were in charge I would make killing an (adult) animal of roughly human-equivalent intellect a murder-like crime.
june gloom on 5/6/2009 at 07:52
well i guess i can still eat chicken
june gloom on 5/6/2009 at 08:50
fuck beef
Nicker on 5/6/2009 at 08:56
I am the bad person who opined that the question was not a moral one but more a property rights issue ("prior claim" is the original term I employed, IIRC).
This might lead you (Phatose in particular) to think I am a cheerleader for abortion. You might conclude that I feel there is no moral consequences from abortion or that I have no concerns about the use of abortion in various circumstances.
NCBFFTT*
I find using abortion, as a habitual means of birth control, to be irresponsible and dangerous. Late term abortions should only be considered to save a woman’s life, not as a last minute out. Unwanted pregnancies should be terminated as early as possible and “morning after” pills should be freely available to all women of reproductive age, should they so desire, even without the knowledge and consent of parents.
But these are my values. They are emotional and sometimes selfish. I try to separate them from my understanding that, whether I like their decisions or not, it is none of my business what anyone does with their body.
* Nothing could be further from the truth.
Kolya on 5/6/2009 at 09:39
If all else fails jump down a few stairways. Good luck.
Nicker on 5/6/2009 at 09:58
Kolya. I hope that means the menacing but bodacious women, of child bearing age, are coming to prevent me from committing spermageddon.
Vivian on 5/6/2009 at 10:00
Bodacious? What are you, a ninja turtle?
