Abortion Controversy

[Geneaux486]

Wait, how do you know that?

 

Because scientific studies tell us what mental capacities these animals have. Some of them can reason to an extent, this is true, in that they are capable of problem solving through trial and error learning, but they still can't do it to the extent we can.

 

 

In other words, what we think are "human morals" or "morality" is just nature.

 

Is that what you think? I was just pointing out a contradiction in your argument.

[danielsangeo]

Nah, I don't think there's a contradiction in my argument. You stated, point blank, that only humans can reason and think. Science does not say this. Now you backtrack and state that they "can't do it to the extent we can". I think trying to compare humans with other animals if a fool's errand. We think and reason differently from other animals but that DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN THINK OR REASON.

 

Sorry for the caps but I felt the emphasis was needed. We cannot think or reason as the blue whale can just as the blue whale cannot think or reason like us. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

[ProHypster]

@Genaux Damn I forgot I said that I was out in this topic

Anyway, so far I agree with Danielsango, even more, I say, we are animals too.

[Geneaux486]

You stated, point blank, that only humans can reason and think. Science does not say this. Now you backtrack and state that they "can't do it to the extent we can".

 

Only humans can reason and think in a way that allows us to discern, discuss, and understand morality.

 

I think trying to compare humans with other animals if a fool's errand. We think and reason differently from other animals but that DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN THINK OR REASON.

 

In two sentences you first say that comparing humans with other animals is a "fool's errand" then proceed to compare humans with other animals. Furthermore, how is any of this relevant to the original point that you came in here arguing?

 

We cannot think or reason as the blue whale can just as the blue whale cannot think or reason like us. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

 

No, by your own logic:

 

Well, considering that there are other non-human animals that possess traits like monogamy, concern for the well-being of other members of their species, and other such things that many would consider "human morality", perhaps "morality" isn't something for humans but something that we just invented for ourselves.

 

you're the one comparing apples to oranges, then later saying it's pointless to do so. Not to mention the fact that in this particular quote you use the fact that other non-human animals seem to exhibit moral traits as proof that there is no morality and it's just something we humans made up, even though your observation of non-human animals exhibiting similar behaviors contradicts this assertion. Perhaps you meant humans to other animals is like apples to oranges in the sense that they're both fruits but with differences, but again, in this quote you seem to be trying to establish deep-rooted similarities that would contradict the above quote as well. What exactly is your stance on morality?

 

@Genaux Damn I forgot I said that I was out in this topic

 

Yeah, you should probably stop saying that then sticking around.

 

Anyway, so far I agree with Danielsango

 

No you don't. Observe:

 

I say, we are animals too.

 

Whereas he says:

 

We cannot think or reason as the blue whale can just as the blue whale cannot think or reason like us. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

 

So you're basically saying you agree with his assertion that comparing humans to other animals is like comparing apples to oranges, then building on that by saying we're all just animals, implying similarities. One does not logically follow the other.

[danielsangeo]

Read a bit more carefully. We are all animals. We don't think and reason like the blue whale and the blue whale doesn't reason like us. And we and the blue whale do not reason like cats and dogs.

 

I am not saying that there's no morality. I'm saying that morality is something we created to define natural behavior and that good morals (natural behavior) are those that help the species survive and thrive and bad morals are those natural behaviors that are a detriment to the species (such as murder, rape, etc).

 

Also, I don't know of any study that states that humans are the only ones with the ability to think or reason in a way to discuss morality. Do you speak dolphinese?

[Geneaux486]

Read a bit more carefully. We are all animals. We don't think and reason like the blue whale and the blue whale doesn't reason like us. And we and the blue whale do not reason like cats and dogs.

 

Yeah, I got that part. I'm not getting the relevance. We've obviously different from cats, dogs, and whales. What bearing does this have on morality? Or abortion?

 

I am not saying that there's no morality. I'm saying that morality is something we created to define natural behavior and that good morals (natural behavior) are those that help the species survive and thrive and bad morals are those natural behaviors that are a detriment to the species (such as murder, rape, etc).

 

You're arguing that morality is something we humans created, then contradicting yourself by saying the behavior can be observed in other animals. If you think other animals are capable of exhibiting the behavior, then you should come to the conlusion that morality is not something we created because it already existed. By your logic, all we did was define what already existed.

 

Also, I don't know of any study that states that humans are the only ones with the ability to think or reason in a way to discuss morality.

 

Scientists have been conducting studies on the mental capacities of various animals for a very long time.

[danielsangeo]

We were talking about morality up to this point, not abortion itself. It has to do with morality because it was stated that other animals (non-human animals) do not have morality and that, since we do, we are obviously separate from the animal kingdom. But we're not.

 

When I say that we "created morality", I'm saying that these are a set of 'laws' ('thou shalt not kill', 'thou shalt not rape') that we created to define what is "good behavior" and what is "bad behavior". Other animals may or may not have these itemized lists.

 

As for scientists studying animals, have we been able to decipher the songs of whales yet? How about the chattering of dolphins? The meowing of cats? The barking of dogs? Is there a bird-to-English dictionary I could look at?

 

We only believe that we have these "morals" (which make us separate from the animal kingdom) because we only understand human languages. We can't speak the language of any other species...yet. But we can communicate with our closest cousins through sign language.

[Geneaux486]

It has to do with morality because it was stated that other animals (non-human animals) do not have morality and that, since we do, we are obviously separate from the animal kingdom. But we're not.

 

All I have stated personally is that we are capable of percieving right from wrong in a way that most other animals are not.

 

When I say that we "created morality", I'm saying that these are a set of 'laws' ('thou shalt not kill', 'thou shalt not rape') that we created to define what is "good behavior" and what is "bad behavior".

 

You're oversimplifying morality. It is the very concept of what we can and cannot, should and should not, do to other living things. We can no more "create" morality than we can create the beings it would apply to.

 

have we been able to decipher the songs of whales yet? How about the chattering of dolphins? The meowing of cats? The barking of dogs? Is there a bird-to-English dictionary I could look at?

 

And the monitoring of animal brain activity, direct observations of the brains themselves, and tests involving increasingly difficult obstacles or response to changing stimuli, observation of consistensies in behavior are irrelvant in the face of us not translating animal noises because...?

[ProHypster]

Never mind my saying, leaving this topic, sometimes I will give reminders,

 

Genaux, the topic of abortion was already answered by me pages ago, abortion is a cultural thing and if you want abortion to be legal, move to the Netherlands as an example, if you don't want abortion to be legal at all, move to Canada as an example.

 

We will probably not agree on this topic universally and we shouldn't force anyone to, just like the topics of personal use of drugs, prostitution, gambling, legal minimum and maximum ages for rights, when you become an adult etc.... abortion belongs to this group of cultural decisions, it's not a United Nations Basic forced rule which should be followed everywhere.

[danielsangeo]

What I'm saying is that there's only so much we can learn from direct monitoring of brain activity. You state that we are the only ones capable of perceiving right from wrong in a way that most other animals are not.

 

We don't know enough of about other animals to make that statement yet.

[Geneaux486]

Genaux, the topic of abortion was already answered by me pages ago

 

No, you did not solve the abortion controversy. Your answer does not account for whether or not we have the right to terminate other human life. The "it works for some, not for others" line of thinking does not work when life itself is involved.

 

it's not a United Nations Basic forced rule which should be followed everywhere.

 

A forced rule that should be followed anywhere, but you said we shouldn't force rules on anyone.

 

What I'm saying is that there's only so much we can learn from direct monitoring of brain activity.

 

Yeah, like how the brain works.

 

You state that we are the only ones capable of perceiving right from wrong in a way that most other animals are not.

 

We don't know enough of about other animals to make that statement yet.

 

Nor do we know enough about evolution to prove that we definetely evolved from a more primitive form. What we can say, however, is that these are the most logical conclusions scientists have drawn based on the evidence they've gathered and studied.

[ProHypster]

@genaux Then, screw that, I'm staying in Ukraine where it's legal and the decision of the people not the government. If the UN tries to enforce that rule on everybody at the current time, good luck, I will fight for that freedom as I see that as forcing of rules by another country without agreement.

[danielsangeo]

Actually, we do know enough about evolution to definitely prove that we've evolved from more primitive forms. We can know how theur brain works, but not their concept of morality. You can't get that from a brain scan. Only with a deep discussion with the subject can you get to that. It's like looking at the grooves of a record and knowing that individual shapes in the groove will produce certain sounds, but it's not until you hear it that you can understand if it's someone talking, someone singing, or perhaps a musical instrument playing.

 

But, back to abortion.

 

Life is a continuum. It doesn't 'start' at conception. It 'started' eons ago and conception is merely another stage. If you want to go the Biblical route, Genesis states that man did not become a "living being" until God breathed the "breath of life" through Adam's nostrils. Therefore, until Adam was able to breathe, he was not a living being. If you want to turn this into a parable on abortion, then, until they breathe, they aren't "living beings".

 

Me, personally, I wait until they separate from the mother through birth/Caesarian. It's what every human being on the planet has done. Prior to that, it is a part of the woman and it is the woman's decision what to do. If the government can't trust a woman to make a decision as large as this, then what else should the government tell women they can't do?

[Geneaux486]

Actually, we do know enough about evolution to definitely prove that we've evolved from more primitive forms.

 

We didn't actually witness it happen. Nitpicking, yes, and on the same level as your view that we need to be able to talk to animals to learn how they think.

 

We can know how theur brain works, but not their concept of morality. You can't get that from a brain scan.

 

You can determine mental capacity from a brain scan. That in turn determines their ability to think and reason, and whether or not they could ever be conversed with at all.

 

It doesn't 'start' at conception.

 

At conception you have a living, developing organism. Yes, life begins at conception.

 

Genesis states that man did not become a "living being" until God breathed the "breath of life" through Adam's nostrils. Therefore, until Adam was able to breathe, he was not a living being

 

He did not live until God breathed life into him. That doesn't mean something has to breathe to be considered alive. There are living organisms that do not breathe in order to survive.

 

Prior to that, it is a part of the woman and it is the woman's decision what to do. If the government can't trust a woman to make a decision as large as this

 

It survivies off of the woman, but after implantation becomes its own growing, developing entity. Dependent on the mother for survival, yes, but that survival serves as further testament to its very life and identity as a developing human being. A human embryo cannot develope into anything other than a human being. That's what it is, from conception to birth, and beyond.

[Axeldeath]

IMO banning abortion would be limiting the rights a woman has over her body, I'm going to side with giving people rights.

[danielsangeo]

It might be a "growing, developing entity" but it isn't "its own". It's still is a part of the mother. If life only begins at conception, then sperm and ova aren't alive.

[Geneaux486]

It might be a "growing, developing entity" but it isn't "its own".

 

It isn't akin to, say, organs in the body either. How dependent it is on the mother as it developes is irrelevant in determining whether or not it is morally right to kill it.

[danielsangeo]

If it isn't akin to, say, organs in the body, then so is sperm/ova and it isn't right to kill them. How dependent they are on joining is irrelevant in determining whether it is morally right to kill them.

 

Because, y'know, without both working in concert, a "growing, developing entity" wouldn't exist.

[Geneaux486]

How dependent they are on joining is irrelevant in determining whether it is morally right to kill them.

 

Because, y'know, without both working in concert, a "growing, developing entity" wouldn't exist.

 

Using contraception to prevent a sperm and egg from joining is not the same as killing an embryo that's already implanted and is developing into a fully grown human being. You bring up a good point about it and the zygote, to be sure, and that's another discussion topic in and of itself, but it isn't an argument against the embryo's right to live.

[danielsangeo]

Contraception stops the natural progression of sperm and egg to zygote. If killing a zygote is the same as killing a baby, then surely, contraception is murder.