How many men have no clue

a reply to: TheRedneck
and....

If you take large numbers of people who come from the countryside, who are used to a pretty rough existence, slaughtering animals certainly. If you put them through brutal experiences when human beings are slaughtered and if you also tell them the lives of certain groups are not worth preserving it’s not difficult to get those people then to take human lives on a vast scale. And very often the killers are fairly sort of simple minded uneducated peasants, killing a pig, killing a Jew, Jews are pigs, you kill them.

ww2history.com...
and...

In ancient Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature, Smith found repeated references to enemies as subhuman creatures. But it's not as simple as a comparison. "When people dehumanize others, they actually conceive of them as subhuman creatures," says Smith. Only then can the process "liberate aggression and exclude the target of aggression from the moral community."

www.npr.org...

I wonder.....
In all of these, why do they use the term "human", "human being" and "subhuman" more than the term 'person"?
Why does the definition of murder say it "is the unlawful killing of another "human being""? Why not "person"?

You see Red, we all know that abortion is the premeditated killing of another human being, we are just at different stages of the spectrum for justifying it.

In an absolute sense, you might be correct

A new human being comes into existence at conception, or it doesn't, that is the only thing that really matters.
The majority of Scientist, biologist and Embryologist, with many different philosophical beliefs, agree.
It is a human being starting their life cycle, they will continue their cycle until they die naturally, or they are killed.
Sentience and person-hood mean nothing at this stage, if left alone to develop naturally, those will come, what ever they are.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Oh, (raises hand) I know the answer to this....

All people are human beings
Not all human beings are people
The human beings that never become people are nature's reproductive collateral damage.

GOOD JOB SOOKIE!!!

That is an excellent example of a Faulty Generalization!

You and Gus have a lot in common.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Maybe state your point, all your links take about the first stage of a human being, I agree and have said the same thing, first stage, so what rights does it have at that point?

What is your point where it is morally wrong to end that life in the first stages, and what are you basing that on?

originally posted by: Quadrivium

GOOD JOB SOOKIE!!!

That is an excellent example of a Faulty Generalization!

You and Gus have a lot in common.

Great point, now draw the line where it starts, not so easy...

originally posted by: Quadrivium

Why does the definition of murder say it "is the unlawful killing of another "human being""? Why not "person"?

We kill all the time within the laws and social norms. Where are your posts on the 100 of other human rights issues, I bet none. Is it OK to kill the human being if the mother's life is in threat? If so, then how do you weight one life over the other and not just let the dice roll on who makes it or not? If you feel all lives have a equal value in that that coin flip then OK I know where you stand, but if you don't then you really have no argument.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Oh, I wish it were that simple...

But really, let me ask you this: we know that a woman who becomes pregnant does not know she is pregnant for some period of time (usually 2-3 months). We have no real way of determining in real time when the moment of conception occurs. Women typically find out they are pregnant when they realize they missed a period (or two; not every woman is regular) and take a pregnancy test. Even then, we need a test administered by a doctor to verify the test. It can be several months before the woman realizes she is pregnant... with my second child, my wife was 5 months along when we realized my son was on the way (of course, the idea of abortion never crossed our minds). We have a running joke; we had just returned from a week in North Myrtle Beach (our last vacation there), so I used to tell my son yes, he has been to the ocean... he was just hiding.

My wife doesn't smoke, nor does she drink a lot... but she could have during those 5 months. We all know that smoking and drinking during pregnancy can cause birth defects. So, from her perspective, should she have been prevented from smoking or drinking during those 5 months when she wasn't even aware she was pregnant? No, obviously! Why should she? No one knew my son was there.

That's what i mean when I say the woman has rights as well. You seem to be concentrating on those who want to use abortion as a form of birth control; I want to also focus on those who simply do not yet know. That's what i refer to when I say your proposal is not workable. Moral, sure, and I admire your conviction. But not workable. If the zygote has full human rights under the law, then we have set up a conflict where the mother can have none during her reproductive years... for at any moment, she might be pregnant.

This is where we get into birth control. Some methods prevent the conception, but others prevent implantation. At the instant of conception, the human being exists... but is not known to exist. Nor is there any way to verify brain activity, heart beat, or even the ability to develop. It is alive, it is human, and it is a human being... but it is not yet a person. It has not established its viability. Granted, it has all the potential (there's that word again) to become a person, given the proper environment (implantation), but is has no social identity (as in, no one knows it even exists). Therefore, we cannot even assure the proper environment to give it that chance, because we son't know it exists.

So do we start outlawing types of birth control? That would seem to be the next logical step, to ensure that all zygotes have the ability to implant themselves. Why should it matter that the chances are actually very small that implantation will successfully happen? A child's life is at stake! Can we go a step farther? Why is it so critical that we wait until that moment of conception? The potential is there for any sperm and egg cell to become a human being. Who are we to determine if that can happen, if that human being can come into existence? We must outlaw all forms of birth control!

Now, before you jump, I realize you are not saying that. However, there are those who would, and at that point arguments like Sookiechacha's actually become less nonsensical and more realistic. Women are much more than just "baby factories," just as men are much more than "sperm donors." There is more to life than simple reproduction, and we all have a right to experience that life.

That is the "rights of the mother" that I refer to. Not the right to take a human life; I agree with you that doing so is morally wrong. But whose morals? That's the question... if the child is far along, developing normally, and the mother is healthy but just doesn't want a child, I see abortion as morally wrong and believe it should be legally wrong as well. But when the child is barely formed, unaware of itself, unable to feel or understand pain, is it still morally wrong? Probably, in my view, based on my morality. But should that moral wrong also be a legal wrong? That is the question, and that is where I disagree.

You make a reference to the 10-year-old Ohio girl who was raped. That's an easy one. She had no choice. But let me ask you this: what if it had been by an 11-year-old boy instead of a rape case? That is possible, you know. Women are not really ready for childbirth, from a biological point of view, until at least age 16. From a mental and social view, that age is really more like 20. But they can become pregnant as early as 14 in most cases, sometimes much earlier, and it is not always via rape; kids are curious critters. Now we have to ask ourselves, should she be forced to carry a child to term at age 14? She cannot drive, she cannot hold a job, she cannot even legally live by herself! But she should be forced to bring that child to term? The chances are great in those cases that the child will be severely handicapped if she does so, and it is obvious her life will be ruined... she will no longer have the ability, the right, to enjoy her life.

These are outlier cases, hypothetical, yes, but well within the realm of reality. They happen. We have to deal with them when they happen. I see no good coming from any legal requirement that prevents us from making the best decision between two bad choices. These are hard questions and there is no easy answer to address the myriad of individual situations that human reproduction brings to the table. But if we do not address these outliers, are we not just as guilty of taking the easy way out as the woman who finds herself pregnant through her own irresponsibility and kills her 8-month-old unborn child? She took the easy way out, and she deserves condemnation for that. But so do we when we take the easy way out.

Scientifically, you are correct. I agree with you morally. But legally is where we diverge. I simply think you are oversimplifying the range of conditions that can and do exist in your haste to correct what I agree is a travesty of justice in most cases.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xtrozero

What is your point where it is morally wrong to end that life in the first stages, and what are you basing that on?

*sigh*
It is a human being.
It is the same human being, throughout every stage of it's life cycle.

Maybe state your point, all your links take about the first stage of a human being

All my links talk about the first stage of human life cycle because THAT IS MY POINT.
That is when your life stared, it's when my life started, it is precisely when every humans life starts.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Quadrivium

GOOD JOB SOOKIE!!!

That is an excellent example of a Faulty Generalization!

You and Gus have a lot in common.

Great point, now draw the line where it starts, not so easy...

A new human beings life begins at conception.
The same human beings life ends at death

It is very easy, unless you are talking about a magical point where something is bestowed upon us.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
No more Faulty Generalizations you wanna throw out?

Faulty? Those were facts. The group you cited is ultra-rightwing and has documented examples of misusing other's work. It was also accurate that you agree with them.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quadrivium
No more Faulty Generalizations you wanna throw out?

Faulty? Those were facts. The group you cited is ultra-rightwing and has documented examples of misusing other's work. It was also accurate that you agree with them.

Sure, I will take the bait and play your childish games.
It's actually fun feeding the resident troll at times.
After all, I would hate to see you starve. I care about all human life, even the troll variety.
So,
Faulty? YES.
It is called a "Faulty Generalization".

In logic and reasoning, a faulty generalization, similar to a proof by example in mathematics, is an informal fallacy. It involves drawing a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has been reached on the basis of one or a few instances of that phenomenon. It is an example of jumping to conclusions.

Wiki

You disregarded all of the other quotes, many from college textbooks, and went straight for the one that you found fault with.

a reply to: TheRedneck

These are outlier cases, hypothetical, yes, but well within the realm of reality. They happen.

You, like many here, are using Faulty Generalizations to try and prove a point.
In the case of the 10 YO girl? The pregnancy, whether by choice or not, would endanger her life and we have already covered that.

Scientifically, you are correct. I agree with you morally. But legally is where we diverge. I simply think you are oversimplifying the range of conditions that can and do exist in your haste to correct what I agree is a travesty of justice in most cases.

Again, what laws are you talking about if, legally, we diverge?
What rights, if it was a conscious choice? To smoke and drink while pregnant?

I am not oversimplifying it.
Either a human being begins their life cycle at conception, or they do not.

It is alive, it is human, and it is a human being... but it is not yet a person.

........
........
SMDH
So, they are "Untermenschen"?

thinking of humans as less than human paves the way for atrocity. The Nazis were explicit about the status of their victims. They were Untermenschen — subhumans — and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together.

www.npr.org...

I don't remember, anywhere, ever saying laws needed to be changed or at what point a human being "magically" becomes a "person".
Those things are beyond my control.
What I have tried, and will continue to try, to do is bring people to the realization they are dehumanizing an entire demographic of human beings just so they can kill them for convenience in the overwhelming majority of cases.

But when the child is barely formed, unaware of itself, unable to feel or understand pain, is it still morally wrong?

Again, Are they a human being or "Untermenschen"?
This comment falls right in line with Elizabeth Warren and other congressional Dems.
It is the very reason they want to shut down Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
They do not want these expecting mothers to realize that the body in their body is an actual Human Being.

Human Rights exist and apply to Human Beings.
A human beings life begins at conceptions.
This is the same human through each and every stage of their life cycle, even the magical stage of 'leveling up' to person-hood (Mario's Mushroom comes to mind).
This same human being changes throughout their entire life cycle. Once it comes into being it is forever changing until they reach the end of their ability to do so/die.
Simplification?
No, just the facts.

Abortion IS the premeditated killing of a human being. It is ending a human beings life cycle. It is removing all of the remaining ability for anything and everything they would or could ever do.
That is all I have been saying.
Never what laws should be or shouldn't be.
Never when person-hood magically appears.
Nothing changes when arguing those things because they are subject to belief and bias.
Things change with facts.
Slowly, until people start catching on.
Slavery is a perfect example.

a reply to: Xtrozero

We kill all the time within the laws and social norms.

You stated this a few pages back, with examples and I responded.

Is it OK to kill the human being if the mother's life is in threat?

Find a case, post it and we will discuss it.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

*sigh*
It is a human being.
It is the same human being, throughout every stage of it's life cycle.

Yes we have said that over and over, but all your links also use terms like "developing" which means it can be a long way from anything sentient or even so under developed its a single cell. If even at that stage this life is so precious then you should hold the view that no one has the right to kill under any circumstances. Once you start to add disclaimers like health of the mother, rape, incest, extremely young mothers so on and so forth it just becomes a debate at that point over what you think is right to what others might as well and then social norms kick in and you get something like 12 weeks as we see in EU.

What you might think is right to kill it and what I might think will not change most likely anytime soon, but we are still in the same group no matter how high your justifications might seem to you.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Again, Are they a human being or "Untermensch"?

In your scenario, the woman is the "Untermensch".

In your scenario, a woman must bow to her biological duty, risk her health and life, give up her personal autonomy, her dignity, her liberty to pursue her goals, in order to serve as an unwilling incubator, and then a mother, putting the needs of her child above her own, for no less than 18 years.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes we have said that over and over, but all your links also use terms like "developing"

Because that is part of the Human life cycle. We CONTINUALLY DEVELOPE from conception until death.
It is a non stop process, unless interrupted.

which means it can be a long way from anything sentient or even so under developed its a single cell.

Read that again.
Now read what you wrote on the previous page:

but magic doesn't just happen when the sperm enters the egg, but chemical processes do.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
So, basically, you are saying "Magic" doesn't happen at conception but somewhere between conception and birth we have fairy dust and unicorns dancing around the mother???
You are the one placing a magical moment to the human life cycle, if you want to start a thread on it, I will gladly join in.
The life cycle from conception to death is a "chemical process".

Human beings are Untermenschen, until the fairy dust gets magically sprinkled on em.......
smh...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

Again, Are they a human being or "Untermensch"?

In your scenario, the woman is the "Untermensch".

In your scenario, a woman must bow to her biological duty, risk her health and life, give up her personal autonomy, her dignity, her liberty to pursue her goals, in order to serve as an unwilling incubator, and then a mother, putting the needs of her child above her own, for no less than 18 years.

In 99% of cases, she freely made the choice to use her womb for it's sole ability and purpose.

a reply to: Quadrivium

she freely made the choice to use her womb

No. She used her vagina, and with any luck, her clitoris.

Again, sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy or parenthood.

However, in your scenario, non-procreative sex is the crime, and forced servitude to biology is the punishment. Women lose their autonomy, their dignity, their life goals, risk their lives and health because that embryo has more valuable than they do.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

However, in your scenario, non-procreative sex is the crime, and forced servitude to biology is the punishment.

Sex between two humans, of the opposite sex, with healthy reproductive systems is how human beings reproduce.
You know this.
It is why "birth control" has the name 'Birth Control'.
Sex, between those in this group, can be recreational. Yet, we all know the main purpose and the possibility.

Again, you are playing the victim, instead of realizing actions have consequences.
It's easier to say "it's not my fault, I am a slave, why should I be "punished".
Than to say "We are pregnant, we knew it was a possibility, we knew it might happen.

Women lose their autonomy, their dignity, their life goals, risk their lives and health because that embryo has more valuable than they do.

Actions have consequences, many times we are lucky if those are just inconveniences. What you are describing are inconveniences brought about by a consensual action. They had a choice.
The other human being, is losing their entire life due to actions it had no choice in.

There is a HUGE difference.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Since you didn't address the points I'll post them again:

The group you cited is ultra-rightwing and has documented examples of misusing other's work. It was also accurate that you agree with them.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

In your scenario, a woman must bow to her biological duty, risk her health and life, give up her personal autonomy, her dignity, her liberty to pursue her goals, in order to serve as an unwilling incubator, and then a mother, putting the needs of her child above her own, for no less than 18 years.

Whenever I read your posts all I see is extreme self-centeredness where everything you suggest is based on self-interested and self-serving. I guess its a me me me world with many your age in some massive selfish life style. I just hope I'm not bleeding on the side of the road and you drive by and do not stop because it would make you late for your lunch.

You also want to paint a picture that motherhood is something bad like getting cancer, or a life long imprisonment to justify all this hyperbole you spew out in just about every post you make. Having two boys now in their 20s was a pure joy for my wife and I. and it keeps on giving with neither of us once ever thinking as you do. My wife now at 52 is strong and fit, not even a single scar who will hike 20 miles in the mountains, so all that life my two boys bled out of her is a total BS statement from you as you want to use extreme situations to justify your points. It is very normal that within less than a year a women can be as good or better than she was before getting pregnant. I see it all the time, especially when a women decides to finally do exercise to help when she did none before.

I guess you will enjoy your growing old and alone one day as you can always be a cat lady as a booby prize...