Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
Pardon me for using the inadequate term, superiority. Let me clarify. From my understanding of your argument, humans (due to shared genetics) have a natural and inherent predisposition to survive through the means of killing other species (those that do not share our specific genes). Correct?

I was using the term superior to imply we justify the mass slaughter of other living beings. The inalienable rights of a human, take precedence over the rights of all other genetic material in your argument, yes? It's for survival, yes?

Given your assumption, I'd like to hear the specific criteria that warrants humanity's right to take others' lives solely based on genetic differences. Once again, I'm concerned as this:
Click to expand...
Because animals are not part of the social contract we created when we formed organized societies. As members of a culture, we agreed among ourselves to respect each other's "right" to certain things (life, property, free speech, etc) so as to not harm each other. When it comes to abortion and a fetus, if they are considered as humans, they too enjoy the same rights any other humans does, one of them the right to life, thus why we can't kill them.

We don't have that agreement with animals, although we have granted rights to certain species; and there is a debate over whether we should include them or not in special protection. We also have laws that forbid hunting certain species who are endangered.
 
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
Dirius said:
Because animals are not part of the social contract we created when we formed organized societies. As members of a culture, we agreed among ourselves to respect each other's "right" to certain things (life, property, free speech, etc) so as to not harm each other. When it comes to abortion and a fetus, if they are considered as humans, they too enjoy the same rights any other humans does, one of them the right to life, thus why we can't kill them.

We don't have that agreement with animals, although we have granted rights to certain species; and there is a debate over whether we should include them or not.
Click to expand...

Okay, if I go off of what you're saying, then the social contract is between humans, placing the authority squarely and soundly with humans? I'm assuming you are defining humans by their genome. Imo, the social contract is founded on genetic exclusion. The 'social contract' only works on the basis of certain genetic qualifications.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
Let me give an illustration. Diamonds develop from carbon, right? The beginning of a diamond's formation is carbon. Would you consider carbon a diamond?

What I mean is that I read the 'scientific' opinions that the beginning of the development of human life is the zygote (carbon in the illustration), and that the zygote does not necessarily equate life (the diamond).
Click to expand...

The diference may be that you may extract a partially formed diamond from the earth, which may include ifferent molecules that have properties of a diamond, and other molecules the properties of carbon. (I admit, not entirely sure about the chemistry here).

The zygot forms in a matter of days, usually way before the woman knows she is pregnant, and by the time you can check, it is already 100% the molecular structure of a human being.
 
Last edited:
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
Okay, if I go off of what you're saying, then the social contract is between humans, placing the authority squarely and soundly with humans? I'm assuming you are defining humans by their genome. Imo, the social contract is founded on genetic exclusion. The 'social contract' only works on the basis of certain genetic qualifications.
Click to expand...

Well we have granted rights to certain animals such as dogs. I suppose that is a some form of genetic exclusion towards other species.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
If your question is geared towards the morning after pill, I believe that the general knowledge points to fertilization as the start of life, as it says in the quotes I have provided, which occurs within minutes.
 
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
Dirius said:
The diference may be that you may extract a partially formed diamond from the earth, which may include ifferent molecules that have properties of a diamond, and other molecules the properties of carbon. (I admit, not entirely sure about the chemistry here).

The zygot forms in a matter of days, usually way before the woman knows she is pregnant, and by the time you can check, it is already 100% the molecular structure of a human being.
Click to expand...

Okay, I have a feeling I understand where our confusion is drawn from. Please define the term, life, as you understand it. I struggle with locking down a concrete definition for it, so I would like to hear yours. I had assumed you were basing your definition off the 7 'scientific' criteria for life, but obviously, you are not.

A human adult of legal age and a zygote are very different entities, if not on the molecular structure, then in other quite obvious ways. I think we can both agree an adult is different from a zygote, right?

I'm curious as to how you would explain the term, 'life', which in your argument is both essential and foundational to the existence of both zygote and adult.
 
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
Btw, I haven't slept really in 36 hours. I have no idea how I'm still functioning. I might fall asleep in a few minutes in all honesty. Just a heads up so you aren't waiting around for my reply.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
Okay, I have a feeling I understand where our confusion is drawn from. Please define the term, life, as you understand it. I struggle with locking down a concrete definition for it, so I would like to hear yours. I had assumed you were basing your definition off the 7 'scientific' criteria for life, but obviously, you are not.

A human adult of legal age and a zygote are very different entities, if not on the molecular structure, then in other quite obvious ways. I think we can both agree an adult is different from a zygote, right?

I'm curious as to how you would explain the term, 'life', which in your argument is both essential and foundational to the existence of both zygote and adult.
Click to expand...

Whether they are different or not doesn't change that they are both humans, and thus entitled to the same rights.

To me human life is an organism composed of living cells with its own independant human DNA. Just because it is not yet fully formed, it doesn't mean its not human, or that it won't become one. The same respect we hold for other people should apply. The problem is that you are treating the very first step in human life as "not yet human" which is the argument pro-arbortionists have used since they began promoting the practice.
 
M

moonkat235

Well-known member
Dirius said:
Whether they are different or not doesn't change that they are both humans, and thus entitled to the same rights.

To me human life is an organism composed of living cells with human DNA. Just because it is not yet fully formed, it doesn't mean its not human, or that it won't become one. The same respect we hold for other people should apply. The problem is that you are treating the very first step in human life as "not yet human" which is the argument pro-arbortionists have used since they began promoting the practice.
Click to expand...

I'm questioning your opinion. I don't have one, personally. I'm rather ambivalent on the whole concept of assigning a definitive stance to what life is and when life begins. I'm actually quite open to hearing diverse opinions and I value honest discourse. Oftentimes, I like to play devil's advocate just for fun.

I question you, because the initial presentation of your argument failed to convince me under closer inspection. You're very passionate about many topics. From what I can tell, you believe you've found the 'right' way. I tend not to think as concretely and rigidly, though I admire people who stand by their ideals such as you. I'm rather uncertain there is an objective right and wrong, good and evil, etc.

I'm just exploring.

Anyway, thank you for the conversation the past 24 hours. It's been engaging.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
I'm questioning your opinion. I don't have one, personally. I'm rather ambivalent on the whole concept of assigning a definitive stance to what life is and when life begins. I'm actually quite open to hearing diverse opinions and I value honest discourse. Oftentimes, I like to play devil's advocate just for fun.

I question you, because the initial presentation of your argument failed to convince me under closer inspection. You're very passionate about many topics. From what I can tell, you believe you've found the 'right' way. I tend not to think as concretely and rigidly, though I admire people who stand by their ideals such as you. I'm rather uncertain there is an objective right and wrong, good and evil, etc.

I'm just exploring.

Anyway, thank you for the conversation the past 24 hours. It's been engaging.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. We yet don't know exactly at what exact moment life begins. We barely understand it. We believe life to begin at some point during fertilization, because that is what scientifical data has told us. My way of seeing things is that we shouldn't meddle in what we yet don't fully understand. If there is a possibility that it is life (which I believe it is), then we shouldn't harm it.

My principle on this issue comes from introspection. Why would some people get to decide on another person's life (or potential life)? And would I be happy if someone else made decisions about my life? Or tried to determine whether my life has value or not according to his/her views? The particular problem comes with advocates of abortion spreading false information that a fetus (even one that is like 4 or 5 months old) isn't a person.

Anyways, I thank you for the conversation.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
In the 1930's, French entomologist August Magnan noted that bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly, since their wings were too small compared to their body-weight. Similarly, any theory that denies proven reality "doesn't fly". :biggrin:
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
As an example, it's possible to light a wood-only fire in an outdoor environment on a dry day, but less possible on a day when it rains.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
The prevailing theory in Modern physics is, that one cannot lessen or increase the effect of Gravity using one's mind. So, that would make telekinesis and levitation impossible. But, change the external conditions, change the outcome.
 
Top