Debate thread (revived)

lecks · Post by **lecks** » Sat 21 Jan, 2006 11:33 pm

ive tried to stay away from this debate because i thought it would never end.
i was right.

DarkerLine · Post by **DarkerLine** » Sun 22 Jan, 2006 12:00 am

CompWiz wrote:
DarkerLine wrote:Consider this:

Case 1 - Joe and Mary not to have sex until marriage. After five years, they get married and have two children.

Case 2 - Joe and Mary do have sex; Mary is pregnant, and aborts. After five years, they get married anyway and have two children.

How is Case 2 murder and Case 1 not? Who is being murdered? And what happened to him in Case 1?
In case one, they create two new humans. In case two, they create three humans and kill one of them. It is your choice when you want to create a new person. You don't have to if you don't want to.

In both cases, the "new human" that gets killed is never aware of existing.

Suppose we name the aborted fetus Leslie. Even if we say that Leslie was murdered in Case 2, surely he isn't any better off in Case 1.

dysfunction · Post by **dysfunction** » Sun 22 Jan, 2006 12:13 am

@axcho: I love the "Artificial God" speech. I'm a big DNA fan (Douglas Noel Adams), and I find that Adams' viewpoint is almost identical to my own (except for the "I believe there isn't a God, whereas I don't believe there is a God, a not-so-subtle difference).

necro · Post by **necro** » Sun 22 Jan, 2006 1:00 am

scale of abstractness
My mind>most mind altering drugs>biblical parables>normal person

if you want an example, I spent a dream contemplating the idea of a world without particle interactions such as friction and gravity, and that if there was no such forces there would be little to no energy and therefore, it is fesible that in such a case, if time is as I believe (t=(e+M)/S)), then a lack of such forces would render time null and as such, an existance of such a world may be impossible. Or, IOW...no force could mean no energy, no energy is no time, no time is no existance so it isn't possible to begin with.

it isn't that I am unable to speak frankly, it is that the ideas are to complex to be frankly said. I have tired to dumb it down as much as possible. Oh, and only a hand full of people concider da-da art, I certainly don't think ready mades are art as they lack complexity and skill, to things I feel art is required to have. Like wise for minimalism. Barouqe and impressionism are my favs, my least favorite art styles are primitives (cave, tribal african, etc) and cubists...anyways

<on topic>
this is as dumbed down as possible, all terms are relative, not descriptive
1.) "human" and "sentient" are to me the same thing
2.) to me, "enemy" is anything that would harm one
3.) a creature is any organism, sentients are the highest in rank, bacteria and viruses are lowest, machines that think and FEEL are equaly high as there living though counter part
4.) to me, a non-thinking fetus is not human is a very low level creature
5.) a creature should not suffer invoulentarily for a lower creature
6.) an enemy of any ranking is within reason to be dealt with, but any method that creates as little suffering as possible is preferable
7.) so, a fetus is a low level that may be called enemy to a high level human...got my stance now?
</on topic>

lloydkirk1989 · Post by **lloydkirk1989** » Sun 22 Jan, 2006 4:29 am

scale of abstractness
My mind>most mind altering drugs>biblical parables>normal person

if you want an example, I spent a dream contemplating the idea of a world without particle interactions such as friction and gravity, and that if there was no such forces there would be little to no energy and therefore, it is fesible that in such a case, if time is as I believe (t=(e+M)/S)), then a lack of such forces would render time null and as such, an existance of such a world may be impossible. Or, IOW...no force could mean no energy, no energy is no time, no time is no existance so it isn't possible to begin with.

it isn't that I am unable to speak frankly, it is that the ideas are to complex to be frankly said. I have tired to dumb it down as much as possible. Oh, and only a hand full of people concider da-da art, I certainly don't think ready mades are art as they lack complexity and skill, to things I feel art is required to have. Like wise for minimalism. Barouqe and impressionism are my favs, my least favorite art styles are primitives (cave, tribal african, etc) and cubists...anyways

Most often, people speak in abstract terms to umm...appear intelligent. I've always questioned the frequent use of abstract discourse. Why would an intelligent person want to limit his 'genius' to such a small audience? Even Einstein was able to present his theories to the man of average inteligence.

necro · Post by **necro** » Sun 22 Jan, 2006 6:01 am

well my little round abouts and symbolisms and juexstposition make perfect sense to me, and as such I forget that I think so distantly from most peoples' understanding. For example, writing a story that is painfuly full of gruesom gore while merely writing about going to a store and buying a game to come back home is mere symbolism for how my life may be boring, but I truely don't think that it is filled with boredom. No one could grasp it, though that may have been in part due to the fact I was cut off mid-sentence while describing a buzzard picking a smashed kitten's eye out. Amusing that you mentioned Albert E, he was a rational type also...though not a mastermind. Are you perhaps a gaurdian or artisian type, as you seem to be very poor at abstraction, or IOW refering ideas to a phenominom that they could encompass or represent.

Arcane WIzard · Post by **Arcane WIzard** » Sun 22 Jan, 2006 12:52 pm

May want to learn the abstract notion of being humble because a lot of people are much smarter than you give them credit for.

Interesting that you say you know what "most mind altering drugs" can do and think on a higher level of abstract thought, but categorize life forms in levels, because I've only known drugs to cause the exact opposite in people's thinking. Causing their minds to open to notions that all life is equal, or when they go even further, the whole universe is one.

Oh well.

I just hope you don't need to think you're better at this than most others to be happy.

Timendus · Post by **Timendus** » Sun 22 Jan, 2006 4:59 pm

Nonetheless, Necro's got a point. If you define humanity in terms of intelligence or levels of sentient beings, instead of the fact that they share a few chromosomes with other humans, one could argue that an adult human being always has higher priority and rights over an unborn fetus. In fact, this also to a lesser extent applies to adults versus children. A teacher has rights over his pupils (he can usually punish and correct them in some way), parents over their children, et cetera. How is it any less logical that adults should have such a difference in rights times ~1000 in comparison with their unborn children?

lloydkirk1989 · Post by **lloydkirk1989** » Sun 22 Jan, 2006 5:24 pm

Arcane WIzard wrote:May want to learn the abstract notion of being humble because a lot of people are much smarter than you give them credit for.

Interesting that you say you know what "most mind altering drugs" can do and think on a higher level of abstract thought, but categorize life forms in levels, because I've only known drugs to cause the exact opposite in people's thinking. Causing their minds to open to notions that all life is equal, or when they go even further, the whole universe is one.

Oh well.

I just hope you don't need to think you're better at this than most others to be happy.

This was the point I was trying to make.

I was confused why necro would try to associate abstractness with intelligence. Abstractness is defined as "insufficiently factual", even somewhat detached from reality. Most often than not, abstract ideas are only understood by their creator.

dysfunction · Post by **dysfunction** » Sun 22 Jan, 2006 11:15 pm

I don't think necro was trying to assert that he was more intelligent than others; simply that he thinks in a very different way. Not necessarily better, just different.
However, I'll move on to Timendus' point now. Indeed, I would agree that an adult human has greater rights than a fetus, and so an adult human's life takes priority. However, when the adult's (specifically a mother's) life is not on the line, while I believe that their wishes outweigh those of a fetus (such as it has), I do not believe that their wishes outweigh a fetus's life. Now, with a fully-formed human taking priority over a fetus, things that are of dire importance to the adult might take priority over the fetus' life. However, the wish to simply avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy is hardly of greater importance than a new life. There are a fair number of abortions that take place simply because a girl of decent financial status didn't want to tell her parents or her boyfriend. The only reason the girl will have an abortion is because she does not want to face the inconvenience of pregnancy, especially when she will likely be scorned by her family. It's certainly understandable; but I would argue that the fetus's right to life outweighs a person's right to convenience.

Timendus · Post by **Timendus** » Mon 23 Jan, 2006 12:01 am

You've got a good point there. And I think I agree with you.

By the way, that speech by Douglas Adams "Is there an Artificial God?" is a really good read for anyone in this discussion! It's pretty long, but entertaining and very interesting.

necro · Post by **necro** » Mon 23 Jan, 2006 1:47 am

to some, having a child would be a fate worse than death. It isn't unheard of to find suicide pregnants, further more, the fetus I don't think has any rights. It doesn't think, and to me that makes it as sentient as a head of letuce. However, once inteligence begins, I feel that the rights take a upswing. I never stated I am more intelligent, merely that I think very different. I have suffered a bout of massive depression in my life, and it lead to quite a bit of introspect and willingness to empathise and cross examine, as well as strong dislike for people trying to controll other's thoughts and lives, such as capital punishment and torture. That said, I only sympathise with that which also may feel pain.

Could a woman be phsycologicaly scared if not shattered or destroyed if forced to have pregnancy. That to me seems more conciderable than the chance of death. To me, death is not so horrible seeming...there was a time when I would have welcomed it...but suffering without controll is truely an awful prospect to me.

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Mon 23 Jan, 2006 3:16 am

The current topic for debate is getting rather old; it is obviously going nowhere.

Peoples opinions on strong topics such as this arent easily changed, rearely i would say they could be changed from a few threads on a forum.

Isnt there some other topic that could be argued/debated about?

CompWiz · Post by **CompWiz** » Mon 23 Jan, 2006 4:59 am

dysfunction wrote:I don't think necro was trying to assert that he was more intelligent than others; simply that he thinks in a very different way. Not necessarily better, just different.
However, I'll move on to Timendus' point now. Indeed, I would agree that an adult human has greater rights than a fetus, and so an adult human's life takes priority. However, when the adult's (specifically a mother's) life is not on the line, while I believe that their wishes outweigh those of a fetus (such as it has), I do not believe that their wishes outweigh a fetus's life. Now, with a fully-formed human taking priority over a fetus, things that are of dire importance to the adult might take priority over the fetus' life. However, the wish to simply avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy is hardly of greater importance than a new life. There are a fair number of abortions that take place simply because a girl of decent financial status didn't want to tell her parents or her boyfriend. The only reason the girl will have an abortion is because she does not want to face the inconvenience of pregnancy, especially when she will likely be scorned by her family. It's certainly understandable; but I would argue that the fetus's right to life outweighs a person's right to convenience.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. Sure, if being pregnant would put the mother's life at stake, or doctors are absolutely sure that the baby will have terrible defects and not survive, or the mother was raped, an abortion could be allowed. However, having an abortion just so people won't find out what you've been doing is stupid. Killing so you'll have convienience is rediculous.

Could a woman be phsycologicaly scared if not shattered or destroyed if forced to have pregnancy. That to me seems more conciderable than the chance of death. To me, death is not so horrible seeming...there was a time when I would have welcomed it...but suffering without controll is truely an awful prospect to me.

If a woman is so scared of becoming pregnant, she could just, umm, not have sex? It's really not that complicated. If she wants to put herself at risk for STD's and children, then that's her choice. She may have to face the consequences of her actions. In the US everyone is educated in all of this, so everyone knows what could happen if they decide to have sex. They have control over whether they will have sex or not. (If they're raped, abortion would be allowable) So everyone has a choice about this. No one is being forced to have a baby. No one is being forced to become pregnant. It is their own decisions that put them in this situation, and their convienience definitely ranks lower than the life of a human they brought into existance.

And as to whether it's a human, in both biology class and health class, we have been taught about early human development: from egg and sperm meeting to birth. A human's life cycle begins when the egg and sperm meet, not when they emerge from the mother. Some people have become brain dead, but most people would consider them human. Some people go into comas for years, acting nothing like a human or sentient creature. Then they wake up, and act just like one. Were they not human during the time while they were in the coma?

And are you saing that if we found sentient aliens, they'd be human too? You did say that sentient = human, right?

Scenario:

You have done some horrible crime, worthy of the death penalty. Someone finds out, then somehow goes into a coma. Is is ok to kill them so no one else will find out that you did the crime?(so you'll have convenience) They aren't consious, may never become consious, and are not acting in any manner that a sentient intelligent being would. They even have serious health problems(the coma), and most doctors say that they probably won't survive.

If you don't kill them, you will have to suffer for years, wondering if they will wake up and reveal who really did it. Would you put their life above your suffering, and perhaps your death? Would it be right to kill them to cover up that you did something wrong?

Would it be ok to kill a baby to cover up that you did something wrong?

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Mon 23 Jan, 2006 6:27 am

Yes and yes. Now, could we please move on?