Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
What's the difference?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sol System: [QB] "Stupid Copmaq machine!" That's what you get for buying generic. I had the same problem with my Sorny television. "Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder." Not a bad book, or so I've been told. Of course, I would usually recommend seeking out the source material. Though this is complicated by the fact that many philosophers were/are horribly dull writers. "You're still ignoring the question. The question is, 'WHY are they not considered human?' There's no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt. Go watch the end speech by that admiral in 'The Measure of a Man'." Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually read anything anyone besides yourself has ever posted? As I have said at least once before here, unless your definition of human is purely genetic, unthinking embryos don't fit within it. Actually, this leads to another very important issue. It may deserve its own thread, but its outcome is so important to this one that I think we should include it here. What does it mean to be human? I am willing to argue that it is not primarily a principle of genetics, nor is it, in the broadest sense, a physical definition at all. Curiosly enough, this is the point that the TNG episode you mention endeavors to prove. How you are extending it to include the statement that nonthinking entities are human is quite beyond me. (And, as I recall, there wasn't any admiral involved, and the pro-Data speech was given by Picard. Unless, that is, you are taking the opposing side, and saying that Data really is just a machine.) At any rate, I'll hold off on this until we get a consensus from the group on how to best handle it. "As I've pointed out, there are extreme differences between a zygote and a gamite." Most certainly. And yet you refuse to acknowledge extreme differences between an embryo and a fetus, and a fetus and a baby. Furthermore, you stated earlier that your opinion regarding said unborn child was independant of its chances of born. In which case I included a case where the chances are extremely low, but not altogether impossible. (And through medical intervention, quite possible indeed.) "Would injecting someone with cyanide without their knowledge be a medical procedure? I didn't think so." Yet another misleading analogy, if not downright false. You assume that there are never any benefits, even life-saving ones, to be had from an abortion. Why is it that your argument is predicated upon abortion always being a clear cut moral issue involving only one person? I would suggest it is because it cannot stand up to the realities of the situation. "You guys really ought to pay more attention to what I say." Sounds familiar. "I've stated multiple times before that I don't particularly like capital punishment." Fine. "And don't you dare start equating a vicious murderer to an innocent, unborn child. That I will not stand for." Then why did you invite the parallel in the first place? You stated that one of your problems with abortion was that it is a "willful ending of a human life". I merely pointed out that there are other cases where human lives are ended willfully that you do not seem to object to, rendering this point useless in this particular debate. "No, you've been avoiding the questions." Clearly a false statement. "Why should we not give someone that may become a human being the benefit of the doubt and call them a human being already?" If I might borrow a page from your debating book, quit dancing around the issue. "Benefit of the doubt"? What exactly does this have to do with anything? Look it this way. Are there rights that certain age groups enjoy that others do not? Of course. Adults can do things that no one would think of letting children do. Children can do things that no one would think of letting newborn babies do. If you accept that adults are different from children, and children from babies; and also that there is a difference far far greater than those that exists between embryos and human beings capable of conscious thought; then why must we treat them the same? "If some terrorist kills an unborn child, it's called a murder. If the mother and the doctor kill an unborn child, it's perfectly acceptable. Double standard." You honestly fail to see the difference in these two cases? You cannot concieve of an instance in which it is right for a doctor to perform an action and wrong for someone else? I am curious to know what color rainclouds are on your planet, as it appears to lack the shade we call grey. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3