4th Trimester Abortions!?

[Limbo]

Good thing atheists are going to save the world by their use of reason, reason unencumbered by such quaint notions as believing God exists or believing that life has meaning and purpose.

Peter Singer is a professor at Princeton, and an outspoken atheist. His expertise is apparently ethics.

He believes that the right for a mother to kill her infant should extend to 28 days AFTER birth! He calls it the 4th trimester. I doubt many women would do such a thing, but child hating biological fathers may fancy the idea and want to convince the mother to commit such an act to save a few bucks on child support payments.

Other gems of wisdom from the guy:



On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat: "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation."

On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans: "The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."

On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."


I think I've heard similar statements from people here.

[WhiteRaven]

INFANTS DO NOT LACK SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS! And how the hell does he know? I have memories from infancy, and I fucking remember being conscious!

[Ope]

Good thing atheists are going to save the world by their use of reason, reason unencumbered by such quaint notions as believing God exists or believing that life has meaning and purpose.

Peter Singer is a professor at Princeton, and an outspoken atheist. His expertise is apparently ethics.

He believes that the right for a mother to kill her infant should extend to 28 AFTER birth! He calls it the 4th trimester. I doubt many women would do such a thing, but child hating biological fathers may fancy the idea and want to convince the mother to commit such an act to save a few bucks on child support payments.

Other gems of wisdom from the guy:



I think I've heard similar statements from people here.

I don't really have a stance on abortion, but now I know my stance on Peter Singer.

And now here is my unbiased, scientifically sound opinion:

Peter Singer=Fucktard

[ninjashoes]

wow where do they get this stuff?

I want to abort my 26 year old : )

[Paisleyspeaker]

So does anyone agree with me that the man is making the argument for his own "abortion" if we can kill babies , then lets just kill him instead. If one can make the argument that there are diffrent standards applicable for killing people he is justifing his own execution.

[chihuahua236]

kill him....I would but they won't let me leave this damn room!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

[yee-haw]

Good thing atheists are going to save the world by their use of reason, reason unencumbered by such quaint notions as believing God exists or believing that life has meaning and purpose.

Peter Singer is a professor at Princeton, and an outspoken atheist. His expertise is apparently ethics.

He believes that the right for a mother to kill her infant should extend to 28 days AFTER birth! He calls it the 4th trimester. I doubt many women would do such a thing, but child hating biological fathers may fancy the idea and want to convince the mother to commit such an act to save a few bucks on child support payments.

Other gems of wisdom from the guy:



I think I've heard similar statements from people here.

Athiest or whatever, thats murder!
Fuck him... he needs aborted!

[MrJim]

So does anyone agree with me that the man is making the argument for his own "abortion" if we can kill babies , then lets just kill him instead. If one can make the argument that there are diffrent standards applicable for killing people he is justifing his own execution.

I second it! Man I'd love to punch this guy in the face today...where does he live? :p

[WhiteRaven]

I'll kill him, it would be fun.

[chihuahua236]

Someone come over here and whell me about 500 meters away from him.I'll do the rest.Course that would be a lot of pushing... :D

[General Septem]

Someone come over here and whell me about 500 meters away from him.I'll do the rest.Course that would be a lot of pushing... :D

What happened man? You get wounded? I hope the terrorist piece of shit who did it is in a lot worse shape.


He believes that the right for a mother to kill her infant should extend to 28 days AFTER birth! He calls it the 4th trimester. I doubt many women would do such a thing, but child hating biological fathers may fancy the idea and want to convince the mother to commit such an act to save a few bucks on child support payments.

Someone should remind him that TRI-mester means three. Dumbass.

This asshole is not, first and foremost, pro-choice. He is simply pro-abortion. I'm sure he touts "personal freedom" every now and then to make himself look good, but he is not representative of any of the pro-choice movement's legitimate reasons.

By the way, kindly refrain from such sweeping generalizations. Maybe you consider women to be angelic in some way and think that selfish men are to blame for their (usually sexually oriented) fall from grace (I'm not insinuating anything, this is what I believed when I was a Christian), but regardless of their maternal instincts women are just as likely and have as many reasons to hate children as men do. Your demonization of men is much like something a feminist or a liberal would say, and much unlike something a man with real balls would say.


I think I've heard similar statements from people here.

You won't hear them from me. As I have said before, I don't take anyone's side, I take only the side of truth and reason. There's a lot of bullshit on all sides and I have made it my mission to bash people over the head for being such jackasses. I have stated my own reasons for supporting legalized abortion, but the ones he mentions are complete bullshit.

[Limbo]

By the way, kindly refrain from such sweeping generalizations.

Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities:rolleyes:

[Renaschelle]

First of all, the guy is a dumbass. There is no simpler way to put it. A trimester is threemonths, not 28 days!!!!

Anyone who has been to or seen a sonogram knows that the infant can feel the transducer (the thing that takes the picture) on the mother's abdomen. When I had my twelve week sonogram, my daughter looked in the direction of the transducer and tried to move away from it and hide. A baby is quite aware of their surroundings even that early in a pregnancy. Even after birth, she was aware of who Jimmy and I were. She had heard our voices for a few months inside the womb before she was born and calmed down when she heard our voices.

This guy obviously has no feelings or conscience of his own. I can't believe someone who thinks they are intelligent can even say half the things he has said. What a moron!!!!!!!

[General Septem]

Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities:rolleyes:

It would take more than that to offend me. I was just trying to put it in such a way so as to not offend you. :D

[yee-haw]

First of all, the guy is a dumbass. There is no simpler way to put it. A trimester is threemonths, not 28 days!!!!

Anyone who has been to or seen a sonogram knows that the infant can feel the transducer (the thing that takes the picture) on the mother's abdomen. When I had my twelve week sonogram, my daughter looked in the direction of the transducer and tried to move away from it and hide. A baby is quite aware of their surroundings even that early in a pregnancy. Even after birth, she was aware of who Jimmy and I were. She had heard our voices for a few months inside the womb before she was born and calmed down when she heard our voices.

This guy obviously has no feelings or conscience of his own. I can't believe someone who thinks they are intelligent can even say half the things he has said. What a moron!!!!!!!

I agree with you chelle, the guy is a dip shit!
If it's human... It breathes, feels, cries and moves and you abort it as he calls it.
Well,... it's murder! plain & simple!

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

WELL...

I have made the same arguments in the past, and I agree with him. Lack of a mind means lack of a human. There's no one there to kill.

[General Septem]

WE'RE BACK MOTHERFUCKERS

*opens a Guinness and celebrates*

[1stoic1]

Good thing atheists are going to save the world by their use of reason


This argument has nothing to do with atheism. Was it your only intention to make an ad hominem thread using Peter Singer's inflammatory propositions and generate emotional reactions?

The lines that Peter draws from his arguments are offensive, and even scary to some, but this is a typical occurrence in the evolution of human thought. Just as civil rights for minorities and woman, abandonment of inhumane forms of judicial punishment, seperation of church and state, and creation of democratic governments were all once considered morally inadmissible, this is no different. Those lines that he draws are his own, and though they might be questionable, they are not the basis for his arguments which are ostensibly valid.



reason unencumbered by such quaint notions as believing God exists or believing that life has meaning and purpose.

Of course, reason is antonymous with irrational.

When contrasting the philosophical work on utilitarianism done by Peter Singer which extends to all sentient beings, and the plundering of Earth done by men who have held such anthropocentric notions as the ones you alluded to, I am inclined to prefer the former.




On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat: "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation."

On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans: "The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."

On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

Again, the lines drawn from these arguments are inflammatory because they challenge societal norms that have been clutched tightly, however the credence of the arguments presented are deserving of some critical attention. One does not have to accept Singer's prescriptive claims (what we should do, and how we should do it) in order to accept some or most of his arguments. His writing has clearly exposed the hypocrisy in current and conventional morality that could inform almost any moral decision, and help us reach a consensus of perspective.

The Sanctity of Life (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200509--.htm) (1 page)

An interview with Peter Singer (http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/interviews-debates/1999----02.htm) (2 pages)

All Animals Are Equal (http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm); (10 pages)

[General Septem]

All Animals Are Equal (http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm); (10 pages)

I am not reading ten pages, but if he is saying "all animals are equal", then he is equating humans with flies. What a dumbass. I'll bet he touts diversity.

[1stoic1]

I am not reading ten pages, but if he is saying "all animals are equal", then he is equating humans with flies. What a dumbass. I'll bet he touts diversity.

Are you expecting someone to humor your willful ignorance?

[General Septem]

Are you expecting someone to humor your willful ignorance?

I don't give a damn if you do, the very fact that he says "all animals are equal" makes him the lowest of the low on the intelligence scale. The very statement is inherently false. You might as well say all organisms are equal, at least then you'd starve to death and stop annoying me.

[1stoic1]

I don't give a damn if you do, the very fact that he says "all animals are equal" makes him the lowest of the low on the intelligence scale.

"There are important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have." ~ Page 1

Your willful ignorance by means of prejudice and self-censorship does not even register on the "intelligence scale".


The very statement is inherently false.

Do you have proof? or are you just basing that on dogmatic axioms? No ethical statement is inherently true or false.


at least then you'd starve to death and stop annoying me.

You and the other aggressors in this thread are pro-life, correct? The irony never ceases among the irrational.

Edit: My mistake, you did make mention of being pro-choice, but your debasement of Peter Singer's proposal did lack any substantial argument.

[General Septem]

"There are important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have." ~ Page 1

Your willful ignorance by means of prejudice and self-censorship does not even register on the "intelligence scale".

Self-censorship? Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits!

I didn't know it was possible to be prejudiced against cockroaches. In any case, that entire quote disproves the title, "all animals are equal".


Do you have proof? or are you just basing that on dogmatic axioms? No ethical statement is inherently true or false.

ALL authorities on ethics are inherently false because what is right to one person is wrong to another. That doesn't make ethics subjective, it makes it bullshit. The very notion that I have to act a certain way because 51% of the population believes that is the correct way to act is absurd.


You and the other aggressors in this thread are pro-life, correct?

No.


The irony never ceases among the irrational.

Nor among the blind.


Edit: My mistake, you did make mention of being pro-choice, but your debasement of Peter Singer's proposal did lack any substantial argument.

Singer's proposal was that we allow women to commit infanticide. That is not a matter of choice, you do not have the right to choose whether or not to kill any baby, including your own. Abortion is illegal because ALL OF US have the right to decide what happens to OUR BODIES. If a woman does not want another organism inside of her, she cannot rightfully be forced to carry it anyway. Once the fucker is born she can't just kill it, she has no justifiable reason to. At that point it becomes no different than killing anyone else that causes you annoyance, especially because she could just as easily offer a newborn up for adoption.

I gave it as substantial an argument as was proposed to begin with. Singer has no proof that a newborn lacks mental capacity or consciousness. To be honest, you would seem out of it too if you were receiving thousands of new stimuli and had no means of communication other than crying.

[1stoic1]

Self-censorship? Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits!

By self-censorship, I mean self imposed censorship of external information.


In any case, that entire quote disproves the title, "all animals are equal".

Why are you fixated on the title? How is endless speculation about the title acceptable over reading the essay and establishing what is actually intended?


ALL authorities on ethics are inherently false because what is right to one person is wrong to another.

Not only is "ALL authorities on ethics are inherently false" contradictory in itself, but it concurrently invalidates "The very statement is inherently false." and your later sentiments on what a mother's rights are.


That doesn't make ethics subjective, it makes it bullshit.

What makes ethics subjective is that there is no objective determinant on the matter, because it is a mental construct.



Nor among the blind.

Are you insinuating something about me? If so, then how am I being ironic or blind?


Abortion is illegal because ALL OF US have the right to decide what happens to OUR BODIES.

That is not entirely why it is illegal, but regardless, if you base your argument on choice, then it is easily refuted by the fact that infants are incapable of choice and thus do not qualify.


If a woman does not want another organism inside of her, she cannot rightfully be forced to carry it anyway. Once the fucker is born she can't just kill it, she has no justifiable reason to. At that point it becomes no different than killing anyone else that causes you annoyance, especially because she could just as easily offer a newborn up for adoption.

I gave it as substantial an argument as was proposed to begin with. Singer has no proof that a newborn lacks mental capacity or consciousness. To be honest, you would seem out of it too if you were receiving thousands of new stimuli and had no means of communication other than crying.

Incidentally, I agree with some of the things you are saying (somewhat), such as the line being drawn long before birth and that the degree of consciousness is irrelevant so long as consciousness is current. However, you are not addressing the points of his argument. He raises complicated moral, legal, scientific, and political affirmations that are not simply brushed away by a general usage of archaic ideologies.

[General Septem]

By self*BLEEP*censorship, I mean *BLEEP* censorship *BLEEP* external *BLEEP*.

I still don't get what you mean by that. I don't censor anything. :D


Why are you fixated on the title? How is endless speculation about the title acceptable over reading the essay and establishing what is actually intended?

The title is the most important fucking part. That's what everyone sees. If I were to write a thesis on diversity and title it "why everyone must conquer their hate", I wouldn't expect anyone to read it either. Of course, I'll bet that makes as much sense to you as "All animals are equal".


Not only is "ALL authorities on ethics are inherently false" contradictory in itself, but it concurrently invalidates "The very statement is inherently false." and your later sentiments on what a mother's rights are.

That's not an ethics issue, it's a freedom issue. Right and wrong are different for everyone, which is why we have the freedom that we do have. It's the only way to reconcile our differences. Of course, people would have us all abandon our freedom in the name of "diversity" (i.e., everyone having the same opinion and whoever disagrees is a closet bigot).

Likewise, "the very statement is inherently false" is not an ethical judgment but a logical one. The title of the thesis is logically and factually incorrect. All animals do not contribute equally, do not affect the environment equally, do not think equally, do not have equal abilities, and none save the human can be held in a court of law for committing a crime, because they don't have the ability to reason to the extent that they can be expected to follow laws. Unfortunately, the right of due process therefore does not apply to animals, and thus they are not equal to humans.


What makes ethics subjective is that there is no objective determinant on the matter, because it is a mental construct.

No arguments there, but that makes its study a relatively fruitless endeavor if the intent is to come up with a definitive statement on anything.


Are you insinuating something about me? If so, then how am I being ironic or blind?

Because you're a moron.


That is not entirely why it is illegal, but regardless, if you base your argument on choice, then it is easily refuted by the fact that infants are incapable of choice and thus do not qualify.

So are retarded people, and it is illegal to kill them, too.

The argument that a fetus isn't a human being can never be admitted as evidence in court. It has been, for political reasons, but it is not evidence, it is supposition. The reason is because women have a choice over what happens in their body, and to make a law forcing pregnant women to bear their children, as well as to enforce such a law, is unconstitutional and a crime against human dignity.


Incidentally, I agree with some of the things you are saying (somewhat), such as the line being drawn long before birth and that the degree of consciousness is irrelevant so long as consciousness is current. However, you are not addressing the points of his argument. He raises complicated moral, legal, scientific, and political affirmations that are not simply brushed away by a general usage of archaic ideologies.

It could have something to do with the fact that he is arguing in favor of the murder of viable newborn human beings as long as it's within 28 days of their birth, and any reasoning that could lead one to that conclusion is that of a psychopath.

[1stoic1]

The title is the most important fucking part. That's what everyone sees. If I were to write a thesis on diversity and title it "why everyone must conquer their hate", I wouldn't expect anyone to read it either. Of course, I'll bet that makes as much sense to you as "All animals are equal".

Do you understand the implications in "don't judge a book by it's cover"? Yes, the title is what everyone sees, and so it can be utilized in many different ways that are not necessarily a literal equivalent with the material within (ie satire). However, this is not one of those cases. He makes no deviation; the substance of the title (which serves to be concisely provocative) and arguments are congruent:


The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups.


The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans.

I take it as an overall lack of respect, for yourself in not pursuing your own investigations, and for others in publicly making uninformed accusational criticisms.


That's not an ethics issue, it's a freedom issue. Right and wrong are different for everyone, which is why we have the freedom that we do have. It's the only way to reconcile our differences. Of course, people would have us all abandon our freedom in the name of "diversity" (i.e., everyone having the same opinion and whoever disagrees is a closet bigot).

Sure it is, you are employing an authoritarian position by prescribing "freedom of ethics", which would be "inherently false" according to you.


Likewise, "the very statement is inherently false" is not an ethical judgment but a logical one.

'All Animals are Equal' was the ethical judgment (more of a descriptive claim), to which you say "The very statement is inherently false", which is then rendered insignificant by yourself with "ALL authorities on ethics are inherently false".


All animals do not contribute equally, do not affect the environment equally, do not think equally, do not have equal abilities, and none save the human can be held in a court of law for committing a crime, because they don't have the ability to reason to the extent that they can be expected to follow laws. Unfortunately, the right of due process therefore does not apply to animals, and thus they are not equal to humans.

All of which is covered in the essay. Have you no shame?


No arguments there, but that makes its study a relatively fruitless endeavor if the intent is to come up with a definitive statement on anything.

The intent is to progress the standard of living by rationalizing our thought processes. If you think it is a fruitless endeavor, then you are sterilizing the items of progression I listed in my first post among many others, which makes you ignorant on the subject.



Because you're a moron.

How am I a moron? And what does that have to do with being blind or ironic?



So are retarded people, and it is illegal to kill them, too.

Yes, so your argument of "choice" is erroneous.


The argument that a fetus isn't a human being can never be admitted as evidence in court.

Yes it can.


The reason is because women have a choice over what happens in their body, and to make a law forcing pregnant women to bear their children, as well as to enforce such a law, is unconstitutional and a crime against human dignity.

It would be no more unconstitutional than it is to enforce men to pay child support. If a male can be legally binded post-parturition to responsibilities such as child support, then the same obligatory standards should apply to pregnancy. Abortion should be mutually consented so long as the preceding sexual act was mutually consented.

This isn't even relevant, and you have committed "crimes" against human dignity in this discussion alone.



It could have something to do with the fact that he is arguing in favor of the murder of viable newborn human beings as long as it's within 28 days of their birth, and any reasoning that could lead one to that conclusion is that of a psychopath.

Making value judgments on a conclusion without even glancing at the premises, nevermind scrutiny, is pathetic.

[General Septem]

Do you understand the implications in "don't judge a book by it's cover"?

That's a load of horse shit, if I see a guy carrying a loaded gun and smoking a joint, I am crossing the street. Ask a cop if he agrees with "don't judge a book by its over". I guarantee you that any cop that's been around for a while will tell you that judging people by how they look is what keeps him alive. It's not a race thing, it's a presentation thing.

To put it in even plainer terms, I do not read any email that says "make her cum with your dick" or "Angelina Jolie hot naked pics". Similarly I do not read any email for which the subject is in a language other than English. That is "judging a book by its cover". If I didn't do it I would spend two hours each morning reading hundreds of spam emails.


However, this is not one of those cases. He makes no deviation; the substance of the title (which serves to be concisely provocative) and arguments are congruent:

Basically he's saying that all animals are equal, but they shouldn't be treated equally, shouldn't have the same rights, as well as all the other differences I stated. It sounds to me like there is literally no factor that makes all animals equal to each other.


I take it as an overall lack of respect, for yourself in not pursuing your own investigations, and for others in publicly making uninformed accusational criticisms.

If I read everything that anyone ever told me to read, I wouldn't have time to go to school and learn something practical, like Calculus.

See, that's precisely why the title is so important. I decide what I have time to read by skimming it, looking at the author's name, or looking at the subject first. I refuse to read "all animals are equal" simply on principle. Besides, the thing is eight pages long.


The intent is to progress the standard of living by rationalizing our thought processes. If you think it is a fruitless endeavor, then you are sterilizing the items of progression I listed in my first post among many others, which makes you ignorant on the subject.

I said it is a fruitless endeavor if the intent is to issue a definitive statement on the subject.



How am I a moron? And what does that have to do with being blind or ironic?

Nothing, really.


Yes, so your argument of "choice" is erroneous.

No it is not, they have the same right to choose what happens to their body that everyone else does.


Yes it can.

No it can't, because it is not a statement of fact. Consciousness is something that is still a mystery to the scientific community.


It would be no more unconstitutional than it is to enforce men to pay child support. If a male can be legally binded post-parturition to responsibilities such as child support, then the same obligatory standards should apply to pregnancy. Abortion should be mutually consented so long as the preceding sexual act was mutually consented.

Think of it this way. If you somehow got pregnant, you would want that thing removed with or without the consent of whoever put it there. This is a good argument for why child support is bullshit, not that men should have a say in abortion.


This isn't even relevant,

How do you figure? The topic is "4th Trimester Abortions".


Making value judgments on a conclusion without even glancing at the premises, nevermind scrutiny, is pathetic.

Some conclusions you don't exactly need to spend too much time debunking the premises of before you call bullshit. An example would be "black people should be slaves to white people". I don't care what your argument is, if you say that, you had better be wearing iron clad underwear, because you're about to get a boot in the crotch. Open-mindedness is fine, as long as you aren't afraid to trust the old bullshit detector.

[1stoic1]

That's a load of horse shit, if I see a guy carrying a loaded gun and smoking a joint, I am crossing the street. Ask a cop if he agrees with "don't judge a book by its over". I guarantee you that any cop that's been around for a while will tell you that judging people by how they look is what keeps him alive. It's not a race thing, it's a presentation thing.

Yes, propable cause serves as a useful tool in that juncture. What is the probable outcome of reading an ethical theory?


To put it in even plainer terms, I do not read any email that says "make her cum with your dick" or "Angelina Jolie hot naked pics". Similarly I do not read any email for which the subject is in a language other than English. That is "judging a book by its cover". If I didn't do it I would spend two hours each morning reading hundreds of spam emails.

The proverb is not completely inoperative simply because of the applicability of reasonable assumption. Junk email has proven to be junk email characteristically by the subject line, whereas you are discarding an essay based on a title for which you don't even have a substantial argument against. It's not comparable.


Basically he's saying that all animals are equal, but they shouldn't be treated equally, shouldn't have the same rights, as well as all the other differences I stated.

He's saying that all animals that fall under a specific parameter are deserving of the principle of equality.


It sounds to me like there is literally no factor that makes all animals equal to each other.

Other than said parameter, the same is said for all humans as well.


If I read everything that anyone ever told me to read, I wouldn't have time to go to school and learn something practical, like Calculus.

Given that you frequent an internet forum, then you should have sufficient time.


I said it is a fruitless endeavor if the intent is to issue a definitive statement on the subject.

My mistake, so then you submit that either your intent to oppose animal equality is fruitless or that your position on animal inequality is inconclusive.



No it is not, they have the same right to choose what happens to their body that everyone else does.

If there is no capacity to choose, then there is no right to choose.



No it can't, because it is not a statement of fact. Consciousness is something that is still a mystery to the scientific community.

It is no mystery as to whether or not consciousness is a corresponding agent of specific neurological activity, and so the absence of the mechanisms for said activity undoubtedly precludes the presence of consciousness. Besides, whether or not a fetus can be defined as human is not contingent on consciousness.


Think of it this way. If you somehow got pregnant, you would want that thing removed with or without the consent of whoever put it there. This is a good argument for why child support is bullshit, not that men should have a say in abortion.

Child support is rational. Consenting adults must take responsibility for their actions despite their comfort level.


How do you figure? The topic is "4th Trimester Abortions".

I am not disputing one's right to abort, and neither are you apparently, and what does that right have to do with defining fetuses in a courtroom?


Some conclusions you don't exactly need to spend too much time debunking the premises of before you call bullshit. An example would be "black people should be slaves to white people". I don't care what your argument is, if you say that, you had better be wearing iron clad underwear, because you're about to get a boot in the crotch. Open-mindedness is fine, as long as you aren't afraid to trust the old bullshit detector.

So rather than attempting to reason with him, you either ignore him or resort to violence? I don't see how your prejudice is any better.

[General Septem]

Yes, propable cause serves as a useful tool in that juncture. What is the probable outcome of reading an ethical theory?

My ass forms itself to the seat of my chair, I lose six hours of sleep, and probably walk away dumber anyway.


The proverb is not completely inoperative simply because of the applicability of reasonable assumption. Junk email has proven to be junk email characteristically by the subject line, whereas you are discarding an essay based on a title for which you don't even have a substantial argument against. It's not comparable.

The subject line doesn't "prove" it's junk mail, because I see new subject lines every day. I just know what's junk mail and what's not, and if I ever got an email that says "all animals are equal", well that shit is going straight in the trash. That's reasonable assumption, i.e., I can reasonably assume that anyone who believes that all animals are equal to the extent that he would name a thesis accordingly is not worth my time to listen to.


He's saying that all animals that fall under a specific parameter are deserving of the principle of equality.

Well the principle of equality is meaningless once you throw in that "specific parameter" qualifier, because very few species share the same parameters. Basically what he's saying is that one cockroach is the same as the next, if that's the case, and I certainly don't need to read an eight-page thesis to figure that one out.


Other than said parameter, the same is said for all humans as well.

And what exactly is that parameter?


Given that you frequent an internet forum, then you should have sufficient time.

Your judgment is flawed.


My mistake, so then you submit that either your intent to oppose animal equality is fruitless or that your position on animal equality is inconclusive.

Wrong. Animals are unequal on a logical basis. I don't give a rat's ass about the ethics involved. I don't torture animals and that's good enough for me.


If there is no capacity to choose, then there is no right to choose.

Bullshit, if that were the case then mentally retarded people would have no right to choose. For instance, if a mentally retarded person were to not want to be a government test subject, they would have to honor that request.



It is no mystery as to whether or not consciousness is a corresponding agent of specific neurological activity, and so the absence of the mechanisms for said activity undoubtedly precludes the presence of consciousness.

We don't know exactly what consciousness is though, the same patterns of electrical signals could just as easily occur in a computer processor.


Besides, whether or not a fetus can be defined as human is not contigent on consciousness.

No, it is contingent on how we define one species from another, i.e., genetics, and by that reasoning a fetus is human.


Child support is rational. Consenting adults must take responsibility for their actions despite their comfort level.

You know a woman can turn a condom inside out and inseminate herself and the man still has to pay child support? This was actually upheld in a SCOTUS case. That's not rational. If a woman decides to have a kid, she can be expected to take care of it. If she cannot, then she needs to either not have one in the first place, or marry a guy who can.


I am not disputing one's right to abort, and neither are you apparently, and how is disputing that right relevant to defining fetuses in a courtroom?

I'm not disputing that right, I am stating the reasons it is a right, and why they do not apply to a newborn, and hence why the "4th Trimester" is a load of horse shit.


So rather than attempting to reason with him, you either ignore him or resort to violence? I don't see how your prejudice is any better.

Prejudice means prejudging someone before you know all the facts. Knowing that someone will discriminate against someone based on facts they have no control over is the only fact I need to hate the guy. That's not prejudice, it's a complete lack of respect for those who don't deserve it. People who believe it is acceptable to kill someone based on age, race, or gender are at the bottom of the list when it comes to deserving respect.

[1stoic1]

My ass forms itself to the seat of my chair, I lose six hours of sleep, and probably walk away dumber anyway.

None of that is probable unless you are physiologically defected, exceptionally slow at reading, and possess a fickle intelligence.


The subject line doesn't "prove" it's junk mail, because I see new subject lines every day.

I didn't mean to imply that the subject line proves anything. In retrospect, emails associated with a characteristically distinct subject line has proven to be junk email consistently.


I can reasonably assume that anyone who believes that all animals are equal to the extent that he would name a thesis accordingly is not worth my time to listen to.

Even if it is by a renowned philosopher? The worth of your time is questionable.


Well the principle of equality is meaningless once you throw in that "specific parameter" qualifier, because very few species share the same parameters. Basically what he's saying is that one cockroach is the same as the next, if that's the case, and I certainly don't need to read an eight-page thesis to figure that one out.

False.


And what exactly is that parameter?

Read and find out, or don't and continue to make insufficient arguments.


Your judgment is flawed.

How so?


Wrong. Animals are unequal on a logical basis.

Explain that logic to me.


Bullshit, if that were the case then mentally retarded people would have no right to choose. For instance, if a mentally retarded person were to not want to be a government test subject, they would have to honor that request.

Your example illustrates the capacity to choose, and so it is invalid. Selection by preference does not necessitate a minimum of a 'normal' mentality.



We don't know exactly what consciousness is though, the same patterns of electrical signals could just as easily occur in a computer processor.

What it is can be calculated according to how it is, the how being the main concern for scientists and is increasingly of little mystery. When a fetus lacks the cerebral properties that is at least a prerequisite in the commonly shared mechanics observed in loss of consciousness, then we can infer that consciousness is not a factor.


No, it is contingent on how we define one species from another, i.e., genetics, and by that reasoning a fetus is human.

So you retract your 'consciousness is a mystery' argument as a determinant in a courtroom.

Genes correspond to DNA, and there is no human DNA. The same value could be attributed to sperm and eggs, with the only difference to fetuses being haploid to diploid chromosomes.


You know a woman can turn a condom inside out and inseminate herself and the man still has to pay child support? This was actually upheld in a SCOTUS case.

Upheld, how do you mean? Do you mean that it was speculated about her deed, or that it was actually understood in the court that she inseminated herself and that he still had to pay?


I'm not disputing that right, I am stating the reasons it is a right, and why they do not apply to a newborn, and hence why the "4th Trimester" is a load of horse shit.

So you draw the line at birth?


Prejudice means prejudging someone before you know all the facts.

You are guilty of this within your first post by prejudging (and making a straw man) his arguments before actually reading them:

"I am not reading ten pages, but if he is saying "all animals are equal", then he is equating humans with flies. What a dumbass. I'll bet he touts diversity."



Knowing that someone will discriminate against someone based on facts they have no control over is the only fact I need to hate the guy.

So then your discrimination against animals is a contemptible offense as well.


People who believe it is acceptable to kill someone based on age, race, or gender are at the bottom of the list when it comes to deserving respect.

None of which has been the basis for his arguments.

[General Septem]

None of that is probable unless you are physiologically defected, exceptionally slow at reading, and possess a fickle intelligence.

You think you're the only one trying to get me to read bullshit 8-page theses on shit I could care less about. My point is that if I don't exercise some degree of discrimination in what I read, I'd never get out of this room.


I didn't mean to imply that the subject line proves anything. In retrospect, emails associated with a characteristically distinct subject line has proven to be junk email consistently.

A lot of them aren't characteristically distinct, they are just titled things I have no interest in opening.


Even if it is by a renowned philosopher? The worth of your time is questionable.

He believes in killing 28-day old babies and thinks all animals are equal, so he's not doing much to make me believe anything he writes is worth my time.


False.

You tell me then, smartass, how can all animals be equal if literally none of them can be placed under any one particular parameter?


Read and find out, or don't and continue to make insufficient arguments.

If you really understand, or care, about what you're arguing, you should be able to present it without asking me to read an eight-page thesis on it.


How so?

You assume I have time to waste reading bullshit theses just because I frequent an internet forum. You have insufficient information to reach that conclusion.

Posting on a forum requires minimal attention, I can do a lot of other things at the same time. I do not have an hour to spend reading a bullshit thesis.


Explain that logic to me.

I will use reductio ad absurdum to present my proof:

Let a and b be any positive real numbers with dissimilar prime factors.
Let a = b.
If a = b, then the prime factors of a are also equal to those of b.
As stated in line 1, a and b have dissimilar prime factors.
Therefore, a != b.
Q.E.D.


Your example illustrates the capacity to choose, and so it is invalid. Selection by preference does not necessitate a minimum of a 'normal' mentality.

The right to choose exists whether you use it or not. Mute people also have freedom of speech. Your argument is that someone without the capacity of choice is not allowed freedom of choice. However, if they were to demonstrate a capacity to choose, then their choice would be honored. Freedom exists only in principle until it is invoked. Therefore, the mentally retarded person had the freedom to choose even though they lacked the capacity. In other words, the only hamper to a person's freedom of choice is their mental ability.

Your initial argument was that infants are incapable of choice and do not qualify for the "right to choose" what happens to their bodies. The notion that a newborn would choose to kill themselves is absurd. What newborns are protected by is the same right to life that we all are. Abortion is a matter of choice for the woman. Once the baby is born, it is no longer an invader in her body.


What it is can be calculated according to how it is, the how being the main concern for scientists and is increasingly of little mystery. When a fetus lacks the cerebral properties that is at least a prerequisite in the commonly shared mechanics observed in loss of consciousness, then we can infer that consciousness is not a factor.

Then explain why some remember their birth.


So you retract your 'consciousness is a mystery' argument as a determinant in a courtroom.

You really need to stop twisting people's words around. It really fucks up your credibility. I don't need you telling me what I'm saying, I already fucking know.

I fail to see how you would come to that conclusion. My point was that abortion cannot be justified by saying the fetus is not conscious because that is not a sound argument. I am further saying that we DO know a fetus is as human as anyone else is, anyone who tries to say otherwise is using flawed logic.


Upheld, how do you mean? Do you mean that it was speculated about her deed, or that it was actually understood in the court that she inseminated herself and that he still had to pay?

The latter.


So you draw the line at birth?

I draw the line at the point where the fetus is a viable human being who can live outside the mother without unreasonable intervention. Abortion is not the right of a woman to kill her child, it is the right of a woman to not be pregnant if she does not want to be.


You are guilty of this within your first post by prejudging (and making a straw man) his arguments before actually reading them:

No, I gathered all the facts I needed when I read "All animals are equal" in one case and "a mother should be able to abort her baby up until 28 days after birth" in the other.


So then your discrimination against animals is a contemptible offense as well.

No, because animals are not all equal. They do not possess equal mental capabilities. They do not possess equal anything.

I'm talking about discrimination based on petty differences. I wouldn't hire someone as a professor if they lacked the mental capability to perform their tasks to the best standard possible. That is discrimination as well, but it is justified because it involves parameters vital to one's job performance.


None of which has been the basis for his arguments.

You were questioning my "prejudice", and I was clarifying my position. It had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[MrJim]

That's a load of horse shit, if I see a guy carrying a loaded gun and smoking a joint, I am crossing the street. Ask a cop if he agrees with "don't judge a book by its over". I guarantee you that any cop that's been around for a while will tell you that judging people by how they look is what keeps him alive. It's not a race thing, it's a presentation thing.

I considered joing the force earlier this year and went on a few ride-alongs... You're right on with this point. Most of the night is spent checking out things that 'don't seem right'... like finding a car parked at a school when school is out, or finding people hiding out behind a liquor store past 9 pm... or finding a gate open that normally isn't... rule of thumb: if it looks fishy, assume that it is until determining otherwise! It sounds backwards from the "innocent before proven guilty" stance, but that only applies once a threat has been extinguished.

[1stoic1]

You think you're the only one trying to get me to read bullshit 8-page theses on shit I could care less about. My point is that if I don't exercise some degree of discrimination in what I read, I'd never get out of this room.

I wouldn't try if you didn't bother making uninformed comments.


A lot of them aren't characteristically distinct, they are just titled things I have no interest in opening.

Sounds like a distinct characterization.


He believes in killing 28-day old babies and thinks all animals are equal, so he's not doing much to make me believe anything he writes is worth my time.

Like the many who disregarded previous humanistic advances, this is an accurate representation of their stubborn disposition.


You tell me then, smartass, how can all animals be equal if literally none of them can be placed under any one particular parameter?

If you really understand, or care, about what you're arguing, you should be able to present it without asking me to read an eight-page thesis on it.

I have no personal attachments with the argument, though it is reasonably sound. I would enjoy hearing counterarguments, that is, from people who take it upon themselves to interpret his material firsthand. Not a common trend around here though I presume, given that the OP did not even link the source for this thread.


You assume I have time to waste reading bullshit theses just because I frequent an internet forum. You have insufficient information to reach that conclusion.

Posting on a forum requires minimal attention, I can do a lot of other things at the same time. I do not have an hour to spend reading a bullshit thesis.

It requires reading to indulge in an internet forum, so what is the difference? The same attention can be applied to both, his material is not that complicated.


I will use reductio ad absurdum to present my proof:

Let a and b be any positive real numbers with dissimilar prime factors.
Let a = b.
If a = b, then the prime factors of a are also equal to those of b.
As stated in line 1, a and b have dissimilar prime factors.
Therefore, a != b.
Q.E.D.


This is agreeable, and so logically, all humans are not equal.


Mute people also have freedom of speech.

Mute people are still capable of expressing opinion.


Freedom exists only in principle until it is invoked. Therefore, the mentally retarded person had the freedom to choose even though they lacked the capacity. In other words, the only hamper to a person's freedom of choice is their mental ability.

Entitlement of a power to which certain entities have no capacity for is nonsensical. Of course one is free to be empowered, but until that happens, one cannot be a beneficiary, and so the entitlement is without value relative to their condition. It's like saying that I have the right to modify all of existence according to my whims; I might be free to, but I can't, so there is no receivable advantage and no right to claim.


The notion that a newborn would choose to kill themselves is absurd.

You invoke their right to choose by asserting only one option, to live, which is ironic. Given that newborns are incapable of choosing - and that even if they were capable, perspectives on life vary - the notion that a newborn would choose to live is equally absurd. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Peter Singer advocates infanticide when the infant is medically diagnosed with extreme physical impairments resulting in an indefinate amount of suffering, which to me, negates any regard of absurdity.


What newborns are protected by is the same right to life that we all are.

Why should they be when other animals are not?


Then explain why some remember their birth.

We were talking about fetuses, and I more specifically was talking about a fetus at a certain stage in developement. Are you saying someone remembers being in the womb?



I fail to see how you would come to that conclusion. My point was that abortion cannot be justified by saying the fetus is not conscious because that is not a sound argument.

Why is it not a sound argument? All you said was that consciousness is a mystery, so how is it invalidated?


I am further saying that we DO know a fetus is as human as anyone else is, anyone who tries to say otherwise is using flawed logic.

Based on genetics? I already addressed this.


The latter.

Do you have a source?


No, I gathered all the facts I needed when I read "All animals are equal" in one case and "a mother should be able to abort her baby up until 28 days after birth" in the other.

That's not gathering facts anymore than watching the Sun circle the sky factually depits it's revolution around Earth.


No, because animals are not all equal. They do not possess equal mental capabilities. They do not possess equal anything.

You are discriminating against animals based on inequality, something that they have no control over, and something prevalent among humans even. All humans do not possess equal mental capabilities, so that is an invalid argument.

[WhiteRaven]

We were talking about fetuses, and I more specifically was talking about a fetus at a certain stage in developement. Are you saying someone remembers being in the womb?

I do, and apparently I'm not the only one.


You are discriminating against animals based on inequality, something that they have no control over, and something prevalent among humans even. All humans do not possess equal mental capabilities, so that is an invalid argument.

So... let me get this straight: Not all animals are equal, but since judging them to be unequal is discrimination they actually are equal? Do you have any idea how stupid that is?

[General Septem]

Like the many who disregarded previous humanistic advances, this is an accurate representation of their stubborn disposition.

I don't consider it an advance to kill 28-day old babies. There is no way you can possibly argue in favor of that, because the very thing that makes abortion justifiable is absent from this situation.

As for calling all animals equal, that is simply absurd. That's like calling all numbers equal because they share a factor of 1.


I have no personal attachments with the argument, though it is reasonably sound. I would enjoy hearing counterarguments, that is, from people who take it upon themselves to interpret his material firsthand. Not a common trend around here though I presume, given that the OP did not even link the source for this thread.

I would bother forming a counterargument if I thought the original argument was worth my time, but I haven't changed my mind and don't intend to.


It requires reading to indulge in an internet forum, so what is the difference? The same attention can be applied to both, his material is not that complicated.

For the most part, forum browsing requires very little attention at all. The longest post I've ever had to respond to was not much longer than yours, and it took me two days to do so, on and off.


This is agreeable, and so logically, all humans are not equal.

All humans are not equal; though I do believe they are all given an equal chance, far too many never realize their potential and end up atrophying before they even get on their feet. And yes, I am specifically saying that I, personally, am better than some junkie on the street, and will continue to be until they clean up their act and decide to have a little self-worth.

All humans are not equal. All humans are CREATED equal. Those that aren't are those born with disabilities, and generally subject to special treatment.


You invoke their right to choose by asserting only one option, to live, which is ironic. Given that newborns are incapable of choosing - and that even if they were capable, perspectives on life vary - the notion that a newborn would choose to live is equally absurd.

No, that isn't a matter of right to choose, it's a matter of right to life. When you murder someone you are not just infringing on their freedom of choice, you are infringing on their right to life as well.

Infanticide is not illegal because it infringes upon the infant's right to choose, it is illegal because it infringes upon their right to life. The right to choose doesn't even play into it.

ABORTION is about the woman's choice because nobody should be forced to be pregnant if they do not wish to be. I do not support the decision in most cases, but as far as I am concerned the matter falls within the woman's jurisdiction. In other words, right or wrong, it is her own choice, not mine or anyone else's.


Why should they be when other animals are not?

All humans are entitled to these rights. If you say consciousness, age, or intelligence have anything to do with it, you are saying that you can draw a line somewhere between being adequately human and inadequately human, and that leaves room for corruption. If you can draw the line at 28 days, you can draw the line at three years. It doesn't make a difference. I'm more conscious and intelligent now than I was yesterday, or last week. Did I cross some kind of barrier then, that affords me some basic human right I didn't have before that?


We were talking about fetuses, and I more specifically was talking about a fetus at a certain stage in developement. Are you saying someone remembers being in the womb?

I am not talking about abortions performed before birth, I am talking about 4th trimester abortions. If you cannot follow the discussion then maybe you should stay more focused and stop responding to every single statement I make.


Why is it not a sound argument? All you said was that consciousness is a mystery, so how is it invalidated?

Philosophical debates have no place in the courtroom or in law. Law must be completely objective. I'm not saying it always is.


Based on genetics? I already addressed this.

Based on a lot of factors. We could probably debate whether a fetus is human all day and not get anywhere. My point is that it doesn't matter whether it is or not.


That's not gathering facts anymore than watching the Sun circle the sky factually depits it's revolution around Earth.

Well, I'm not making any big scientific statements, I'm just calling the guy an asshole.


You are discriminating against animals based on inequality, something that they have no control over, and something prevalent among humans even. All humans do not possess equal mental capabilities, so that is an invalid argument.

I discriminate animals based on what they taste like, their nutritional properties, and whether or not they annoy me. But they are not human, so it doesn't really matter. I respect them as life forms, but that will never stop me from shooting Bambi and making venison out of him.

[hitekredneck]

I discriminate animals based on what they taste like, their nutritional properties, and whether or not they annoy me. But they are not human, so it doesn't really matter. I respect them as life forms, but that will never stop me from shooting Bambi and making venison out of him.

Now THAT is the quote of the day.....hear hear, gen :cool:

[1stoic1]

I don't consider it an advance to kill 28-day old babies.

Because your view on the subject is limited.


There is no way you can possibly argue in favor of that, because the very thing that makes abortion justifiable is absent from this situation.

This argument is more to do with euthanasia, and little or nothing to do with abortion.


As for calling all animals equal, that is simply absurd. That's like calling all numbers equal because they share a factor of 1.

It is not an existential appraisal, but rather an ethical principle, just like the equality of man, as has already been explained here.


For the most part, forum browsing requires very little attention at all. The longest post I've ever had to respond to was not much longer than yours, and it took me two days to do so, on and off.

Each of your responses to me have had little delay, on the average of a couple hours. Guess we will have agree to disagree on the costs for attention when reading one thing to another.


All humans are not equal. All humans are CREATED equal.

There are two fallacies in this comment; one being that your use of 'created' asserts some teleological value, as opposed to a natural evolution, and the other is negligence of genetic trait variations, which denote an inequality from birth.

Equality itself is a creation, a principle, if that is what you meant, and it should be extended to other sentient beings if it is to be governed rationally.


No, that isn't a matter of right to choose, it's a matter of right to life. When you murder someone you are not just infringing on their freedom of choice, you are infringing on their right to life as well.

Infanticide is not illegal because it infringes upon the infant's right to choose, it is illegal because it infringes upon their right to life. The right to choose doesn't even play into it.


Just to be clear, it was you who invoked their right to choose in this discussion, not me. From what I can discern, you now focus on right to life after I have refuted the right to choice.

If it is a right to life that is the issue, then we must ask what is a qualification for the right to life. If it is owed to humans, and nothing else, then we ask why humans? < This question then results in a set of parameters that are inconsistent and falsifiable.


Did I cross some kind of barrier then, that affords me some basic human right I didn't have before that?

No.


I am not talking about abortions performed before birth, I am talking about 4th trimester abortions. If you cannot follow the discussion then maybe you should stay more focused and stop responding to every single statement I make.

My comprehension of the discussion is precise. I cannot help it if you are mismatching fetuses with newborns.



Philosophical debates have no place in the courtroom or in law. Law must be completely objective. I'm not saying it always is.

Neuroscience is not philosophical, and is an objective analysis.


Based on a lot of factors. We could probably debate whether a fetus is human all day and not get anywhere. My point is that it doesn't matter whether it is or not.

Your point is becoming more and more ambiguous.


Well, I'm not making any big scientific statements, I'm just calling the guy an asshole.

You aren't just slandering his character, but his arguments as well, without the facts.

[1stoic1]

I do, and apparently I'm not the only one.

This is a suspicious claim given that memory can alter many details of what is suppose to be invariable, such as the color of a room, or even confuse dreams with actual happenings, especially when the memory references from an age where one's perspective was crude and unreliable.



So... let me get this straight: Not all animals are equal, but since judging them to be unequal is discrimination they actually are equal? Do you have any idea how stupid that is?

You must not know what discrimination means.

[General Septem]

Because your view on the subject is limited.

That's easy enough to accuse anyone of, but not a great argument.


This argument is more to do with euthanasia, and little or nothing to do with abortion.

Why is he calling it a "4th Trimester abortion" then?

I'm all for euthanasia, but I'm 100% against euthanising a human without their explicit consent. It is very possible to live a full life with just about any disease. You do not make choices for someone just because they are presently unable to make that choice for themselves.


Each of your responses to me have had little delay, on the average of a couple hours. Guess we will have agree to disagree on the costs for attention when reading one thing to another.

To be fair, I did say I would read it if I cared to. My point is that I don't. If I remember correctly, I didn't initially say I don't have time to read your thesis, I said I don't have time to read every single thing everyone tells me to read; and if that is not exactly what I said, then it is what I meant.


There are two fallacies in this comment; one being that your use of 'created' asserts some teleological value, as opposed to a natural evolution, and the other is negligence of genetic trait variations, which denote an inequality from birth.

True, but since we have absolutely no idea how someone will turn out, the only acceptable solution is to assume equality upon creation. The conditions in which a person is born does not determine their fate. Unless you intend to go into the tired old free will vs. determinism debate, in which case I will gladly ignore whatever you have to say on the matter.

And by creation, I mean whatever method by which a thing came into being. If you interpret that as implying that there exists a creator beyond the realm of the natural world, and if this deeply bothers you, you may wish to seek therapy from someone who actually cares.


Equality itself is a creation, a principle, if that is what you meant, and it should be extended to other sentient beings if it is to be governed rationally.

1. Equality is not governed, it is earned.

2. Animals are not sentient.


Just to be clear, it was you who invoked their right to choose in this discussion, not me. From what I can discern, you now focus on right to life after I have refuted the right to choice.

Wrong again, I invoked the right to choose as it applied to a woman on the topic of abortion. Nobody has a right to choose what happens to someone else's body, unless their right over their own body necessitates it.

I may have mentioned something about the newborn's right to choose; I meant this in the sense not that the newborn is capable of choosing but that nobody else has the right to make that choice for it.


If it is a right to life that is the issue, then we must ask what is a qualification for the right to life. If it is owed to humans, and nothing else, then we ask why humans? < This question then results in a set of parameters that are inconsistent and falsifiable.

I don't suppose saying "because I said so" in the interests of patience will convince you.


No.

I've noticed an awful lot that, despite your incessant word-by-word dissection of every argument I make, you yourself have made precious few of your own. In fact, you don't really say a whole lot period. Your word count in this discussion is barely a third of mine. You should really contribute for a change, and stop just being a detractor.


My comprehension of the discussion is precise. I cannot help it if you are mismatching fetuses with newborns.

Obviously not, because I know the difference, my argument has always been against the "4th trimester" abortions, and has never been against real abortions.

Coming from someone who functions primarily on logic, you sound like a goddamn computer.


Your point is becoming more and more ambiguous.

This discussion is becoming more and more ambiguous, because you make it a point to respond to every single sentence I say.

I can't help you if you are too simple-minded to understand that abortion is completely about the woman's choice over her body, and not the life or humanity of the fetus. My argument has never been that the fetus is human or not, though I am of the personal opinion that it is. Yes, killing a human being can be justified if the necessary force to protect oneself requires it. It's murder, and it's perfectly justifiably legal. Get over it. The government's job is not to enforce anyone's idea of morality or ethics. It is their job to protect us and our freedoms.


You aren't just slandering his character, but his arguments as well, without the facts.

I'm not slandering his arguments because I haven't read them. I am slandering his conclusion. There comes a point when no argument can reasonably justify a conclusion. For comparison, Hitler (fucking Godwin's Law) had plenty of arguments that he used to justify genocide as well. I don't know what half of them are, and I don't care.

[yee-haw]

4th trimester abortions as the man states, i personally believe this to be unjustified murder, the newborn has no say in it right?
If you give most anyone a choice of life over death and the're cohereant or are able to understand the option, they would choose life i would think.

[WhiteRaven]

This is a suspicious claim given that memory can alter many details of what is suppose to be invariable, such as the color of a room, or even confuse dreams with actual happenings, especially when the memory references from an age where one's perspective was crude and unreliable.

And yet, I remember it vividly. And painfully. Women complain a lot about the pain of childbirth, but let me tell you, it's no picnic for the child, either.


You must not know what discrimination means.


discrimination

noun
1. unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
2. the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished

I've met probably close to a hundred dogs, but I've never met a dog who could think as well as an undamaged human. Until I see such a dog, I'm going to assume that they all, While intelligent animals for the most part, are of lesser intelligence to humans.

[1stoic1]

That's easy enough to accuse anyone of, but not a great argument.

In this case, how is it not a perfectly suitable argument? Given that you haven't read the source of this subject.


Why is he calling it a "4th Trimester abortion" then?

Like "All Animals Are Equal", it serves as a kind of sympathetic establishment of a relationship between his arguments and the social paradigm. Just as we know that all animals are not equal, we also know that "4th Trimester Abortion" - where "4th trimester" doesn't even exist and abortions are only applicable pre-parturition by definition - is a literary concoction.


I'm all for euthanasia, but I'm 100% against euthanising a human without their explicit consent. It is very possible to live a full life with just about any disease. You do not make choices for someone just because they are presently unable to make that choice for themselves.

Singer advocates expediting their death when death is inevitable as opposed to prolonging their suffering, though I'm unsure as to whether or not he requires them to be terminally ill. If it is medically estimated (which is not absolute) that one would slowly die before their capacity to consent is possible, then you would deny them the alleviation to their suffering? If you answer yes, then I suppose it is upon the foundation of the right to choose, which has been refuted. If you answer no, then consent is only conditionally important and not a requisite for euthanasia.


True, but since we have absolutely no idea how someone will turn out, the only acceptable solution is to assume equality upon creation. The conditions in which a person is born does not determine their fate. Unless you intend to go into the tired old free will vs. determinism debate, in which case I will gladly ignore whatever you have to say on the matter.

We do not need to know how someone will turn out, why do you think we need to know that? You're trying to assert an actual equality when there isn't equality and doesn't need to be, and you're doing so by contradicting your logic used to deduce the inequality of animals.


1. Equality is not governed, it is earned.

This is a confusing comment. You have contradicted yourself again by stating that we should assume equality at birth (previous comment) yet equality is earned. How is equality earned? Equality is an ideal created and governed by man.


2. Animals are not sentient.

Yes they are, do you not know what sentient means?


I may have mentioned something about the newborn's right to choose; I meant this in the sense not that the newborn is capable of choosing but that nobody else has the right to make that choice for it.

Not only do they have the right to make that choice (because they have the capacity to choose), but they are practically under a moral obligation to make that choice (because the infant does not have the capacity to choose).


I've noticed an awful lot that, despite your incessant word-by-word dissection of every argument I make, you yourself have made precious few of your own. In fact, you don't really say a whole lot period. Your word count in this discussion is barely a third of mine. You should really contribute for a change, and stop just being a detractor.

I try to be concise, and avoid excessive comments and ramblings. It is easier to digest, and more efficient in doing so.


This discussion is becoming more and more ambiguous, because you make it a point to respond to every single sentence I say.

I respond to what is relevant for the sake of clarity.


I can't help you if you are too simple-minded to understand that abortion is completely about the woman's choice over her body and not the life or humanity of the fetus. My argument has never been that the fetus is human or not, though I am of the personal opinion that it is. Yes, killing a human being can be justified if the necessary force to protect oneself requires it. It's murder, and it's perfectly justifiably legal. Get over it. The government's job is not to enforce anyone's idea of morality or ethics. It is their job to protect us and our freedoms.

This is an example of that which I would not respond to due to irrelevancy, but it seems necessary that I repeat that this subject is not considerably equivalent with the issue of abortion.


I'm not slandering his arguments because I haven't read them. I am slandering his conclusion. There comes a point when no argument can reasonably justify a conclusion.

Which in turn slanders his arguments, albeit ignorantly, by association.


For comparison, Hitler (fucking Godwin's Law) had plenty of arguments that he used to justify genocide as well.

Hitler was irrational, his arguments as well.

[1stoic1]

And yet, I remember it vividly. And painfully. Women complain a lot about the pain of childbirth, but let me tell you, it's no picnic for the child, either.

I've met probably close to a hundred dogs, but I've never met a dog who could think as well as an undamaged human. Until I see such a dog, I'm going to assume that they all, While intelligent animals for the most part, are of lesser intelligence to humans.

But as you seen in the very definition that you referenced, discrimination is an unfair treatment, not simply "judging them to be unequal", and so I think you were confused when you quoted me. Also, intelligence is not a parameter for equality, because as you know, equality is extended to all people despite the fact that the intelligence among them is varied.

Like what you say about dogs, I haven't met a person - until now - that claims to remember their birth, or even the first year or so of their lives with a strong perceptibility; nevermind remembering life in the womb. This is contrary to what research on the structural functioning developement of the nervous system has shown. Your claim is extraordinary, and without evidence I presume; it is more probable that either you are deceived about what you think you remember or that you intend to deceive others with this information.

[General Septem]

In this case, how is it not a perfectly suitable argument? Given that you haven't read the source of this subject.

No, I haven't read one lunatic's opinion on the subject. He didn't write the book on killing 28 day old babies, he just wrote his own position on it.


Like "All Animals Are Equal", it serves as a kind of sympathetic establishment of a relationship between his arguments and the social paradigm. Just as we know that all animals are not equal, we also know that "4th Trimester Abortion" - where "4th trimester" doesn't even exist and abortions are only applicable pre-parturition by definition - is a literary concoction.

Essentially, he's appealing to the masses. All the more reason to ignore him.


Yes they are, do you not know what sentient means?

It used to mean self-aware, but that does not mean the definition has not been altered to include other animals. As far as I am concerned, sentience is bullshit without self-awareness.


Not only do they have the right to make that choice (because they have the capacity to choose), but they are practically under a moral obligation to make that choice (because the infant does not have the capacity to choose).

But you're forgetting the inalienable human right to life. Your argument is based entirely upon choice, but you ignore the fact that choice is merely one of the rights we have. You are also forgetting the fact that our right to choose is limited to our own bodies. I cannot make a choice for you or ANYONE else, including a 28-day old newborn.


I try to be concise, and avoid excessive comments and ramblings. It is easier to digest, and more efficient in doing so.

I respond to what is relevant for the sake of clarity.

This has to be the least concise and most inefficient debate I've ever had with someone, and all the short one-line quotes make it pretty messy after a while too.


Hitler was irrational, his arguments as well.

That's not science. Have you read his arguments? He could have been right after all.

Then again, there is no rationalization for what he did. If you're willing to admit that, then you're willing to admit that it is not necessary to read a person's arguments before dismissing his conclusions.

[1stoic1]

No, I haven't read one lunatic's opinion on the subject. He didn't write the book on killing 28 day old babies, he just wrote his own position on it.

Who else has? What were their arguments?


Essentially, he's appealing to the masses. All the more reason to ignore him.

He is being condemned by the masses according to said titles, so how is that an appeal? Much like the reactions in this thread, he's exposing the automatic generic folly of a fundamentalistic mass, not appealing to them.

Edit: This is an appeal as far as stimulation is concerned, which I see nothing wrong with.


It used to mean self-aware, but that does not mean the definition has not been altered to include other animals. As far as I am concerned, sentience is bullshit without self-awareness.


What you want the definition to be is irrelevant. Do you have any evidence to support your dubious claim of alteration for the sake of animals?


But you're forgetting the inalienable human right to life. Your argument is based entirely upon choice, but you ignore the fact that choice is merely one of the rights we have. You are also forgetting the fact that our right to choose is limited to our own bodies. I cannot make a choice for you or ANYONE else, including a 28-day old newborn.

I already addressed the human right to life, it is unfounded.


This has to be the least concise and most inefficient debate I've ever had with someone, and all the short one-line quotes make it pretty messy after a while too.

How so?


That's not science. Have you read his arguments? He could have been right after all.

Yes I have, and no he wasn't. Feel free to submit any item of his arguments you think could be construed as 'right'.


Then again, there is no rationalization for what he did. If you're willing to admit that, then you're willing to admit that it is not necessary to read a person's arguments before dismissing his conclusions.

I wouldn't admit that without knowing his arguments, counterarguments, and evidence supporting or to the contrary of both.

[WhiteRaven]

But as you seen in the very definition that you referenced, discrimination is an unfair treatment, not simply "judging them to be unequal", and so I think you were confused when you quoted me. Also, intelligence is not a parameter for equality, because as you know, equality is extended to all people despite the fact that the intelligence among them is varied.

Like what you say about dogs, I haven't met a person - until now - that claims to remember their birth, or even the first year or so of their lives with a strong perceptibility; nevermind remembering life in the womb. This is contrary to what research on the structural functioning developement of the nervous system has shown. Your claim is extraordinary, and without evidence I presume; it is more probable that either you are deceived about what you think you remember or that you intend to deceive others with this information.

I don't think it would be possible to provide evidence of the fact that I remember that far back, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing I could possibly do to prove such a thing. I don't blame you for your skepticism, but don't demand proof when I have neither the desire, nor the ability to give it to you.

Am I deceived? Maybe. I wouldn't know if I was, would I? Kind of the whole point of being deceived, really. Do I intend to deceive others? Well naturally, I wouldn't say yes, unless I was being ironic.

Oh, as for equality among people, I don't think I ever said I believed in it, so you jumped a conclusion there didn't you? I certainly don't believe everyone is equal. I'm not sure whether everyone deserves equal treatment, though. Equality seems like something someone might have told people to comfort them, or to keep them under control...

[1stoic1]

I don't think it would be possible to provide evidence of the fact that I remember that far back, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing I could possibly do to prove such a thing. I don't blame you for your skepticism, but don't demand proof when I have neither the desire, nor the ability to give it to you.

True, but a controlled experiment on the phenomenon of remembering birth is possible, such as documenting the environment and then conducting a Q&A with the test subject years later. Unfortunately, that opportunity has passed for you, so I must settle for the more likely alternatives until some credible evidence is at least established elsewhere.



Oh, as for equality among people, I don't think I ever said I believed in it, so you jumped a conclusion there didn't you?

You didn't, my mistake.


I certainly don't believe everyone is equal. I'm not sure whether everyone deserves equal treatment, though. Equality seems like something someone might have told people to comfort them, or to keep them under control...

It is important that we do not mistreat anyone\thing, especially when such conduct can be deduced to be the antithesis of what is morally right by use of practical reasoning.

If interested in ethical theory, I suggest looking into:

John Rawls - " Political Liberalism" and "Theory of Justice"
Immanuel Kant - "Metaphysics on Morals"
John Stuart Mill - "On Liberty"
And on topic, any of Peter Singer's work.

[General Septem]

Who else has? What were their arguments?

Nobody has really touched on the subject specifically, but it all boils down to the whole idea that murder is generally bad.


He is being condemned by the masses according to said titles, so how is that an appeal? Much like the reactions in this thread, he's exposing the automatic generic folly of a fundamentalistic mass, not appealing to them.

Edit: This is an appeal as far as stimulation is concerned, which I see nothing wrong with.

You're making no sense right now.


What you want the definition to be is irrelevant. Do you have any evidence to support your dubious claim of alteration for the sake of animals?

Only that sentience has implied self-awareness ever since its inception.


I already addressed the human right to life, it is unfounded.

Kill yourself and prove it? :D


Yes I have, and no he wasn't. Feel free to submit any item of his arguments you think could be construed as 'right'.

That's the point, there are none. The difference is, I didn't have to read everything he's ever said to come to that conclusion. All I did was see his conclusion, namely, that the mass genocide of Jews, Poles, and Catholics was justified, and that was enough for me to denounce the man as a raving lunatic. My point is, certain conclusions are just plain wrong, no matter what argument you make in their favor.


I wouldn't admit that without knowing his arguments, counterarguments, and evidence supporting or to the contrary of both.

So if you had agreed with his arguments, would you have followed the Nazi idealism?

[1stoic1]

Nobody has really touched on the subject specifically, but it all boils down to the whole idea that murder is generally bad.

Then you haven't read any arguments on infanticide, and therefore your view on the subject is limited. < Perfectly suitable argument.


You're making no sense right now.

What specifically are you having trouble understanding?


Only that sentience has implied self-awareness ever since its inception.

Perhaps that's simply what you thought it to mean, being mistaken all along. Do you have any record showing the alteration?


Kill yourself and prove it? :D

How would that prove it?


My point is, certain conclusions are just plain wrong, no matter what argument you make in their favor.

If you cannot rationalize why they are wrong, then you forfeit your opposition's credibility. Why should someone agree to your "it's wrong, it's wrong" mantra when the other person is making more sense (incidentally due to lack of adversarial proficiency)?


So if you had agreed with his arguments, would you have followed the Nazi idealism?

Agreeing with arguments does not demand a fundamentalist commitment. Difficult to say though, because to believe specifically in Hitler's arguments would endow me with an irrational perspective, and irrational behavior just may follow.

[General Septem]

Then you haven't read any arguments on infanticide, and therefore your view on the subject is limited. < Perfectly suitable argument.

If you really want to split hairs, your view is limited as well, though perhaps to a lesser degree. Limit does not imply adequacy, however, so the only thing you are arguing is that I am not all-knowing. Neither are you. What's your point?


Perhaps that's simply what you thought it to mean, being mistaken all along. Do you have any record showing the alteration?

Alteration of words don't just happen overnight, people start using words incorrectly and before you know it, they mean something entirely different.

The point isn't the meaning of sentience, the point is, animals are not self-aware.


How would that prove it?

You said the notion of the human right to life is unfounded, so I figure if you don't think we have an inalienable right to life, you might as well kill yourself or maybe an old woman on the street in order to demonstrate that we have no right to life.


If you cannot rationalize why they are wrong, then you forfeit your opposition's credibility. Why should someone agree to your "it's wrong, it's wrong" mantra when the other person is making more sense (incidentally due to lack of adversarial proficiency)?

Typically they won't agree, because they're idiots to begin with.


Agreeing with arguments does not demand a fundamentalist commitment. Difficult to say though, because to believe specifically in Hitler's arguments would endow me with an irrational perspective, and irrational behavior just may follow.

Irrational arguments made by irrational people lead to irrational conclusions.
Peter Singer is an irrational person who states irrational conclusions.
Therefore, his arguments are likewise irrational.
Q.E.D.

[WhiteRaven]

It is important that we do not mistreat anyone\thing, especially when such conduct can be deduced to be the antithesis of what is morally right by use of practical reasoning.

I don't really care for morality, aside from not hurting things that never hurt me, unless it's for food.
Does there really need to be more to it? Even if there does, does it really require making everyone and everything "equal"?

Animals have some basic rights, but not to the extent of humans, though sometimes I think they deserve more rights.

For example, I saw a story once about a kid wandering into an alligator filled pond, then reality ensued and one of the alligator's ate the kid. The gator was cut open to get the child's remains. Why did they kill the alligator? Was that really necessary? Did they think the kid was still alive or something? Because if there was some magical way a kid could survive being in the acid filled stomach of an alligator, I could see trying to get the kid out. But alas, the kid was dead, so the alligator died in vain.

[RoseandCross]

I don't see why people even want to have abortions, I've always wanted a baby I went around screwing everything that moves in high school for that very reason, of course later I realized how stupid that was.

[sailormoonusai]

I am a mom of three yes having kids are rough. but if they are raised right with out these fkn laws then we would be alright. these pple need to see that god created us. its not a job for us...to make choices i would never
ever do anything to harm my children maybe they should look at those who abuse thier kids and stuff child killets and stuff gastrate them and sterilze them.

not take away freedom of choice...but im against abortion. they are parents that want to be parents they should get credit. not put down.
it takes a world to raise a child and one person to start the ripple of
a world without harm.

[RoseandCross]

I am a mom of three yes having kids are rough. but if they are raised right with out these fkn laws then we would be alright. these pple need to see that god created us. its not a job for us...to make choices i would never
ever do anything to harm my children maybe they should look at those who abuse thier kids and stuff child killets and stuff gastrate them and sterilze them.

not take away freedom of choice...but im against abortion. they are parents that want to be parents they should get credit. not put down.
it takes a world to raise a child and one person to start the ripple of
a world without harm.

you're dumb.

[MrJim]

I don't see why people even want to have abortions, I've always wanted a baby I went around screwing everything that moves in high school for that very reason, of course later I realized how stupid that was.

Sounds like you were trying for a spot on Maury.

[RoseandCross]

what's maury?

[WhiteRaven]

"what's maury?"

Some retarded ass talk show, isn't it?

[Renaschelle]

"what's maury?"

Some retarded ass talk show, isn't it?

LMAO...Yes it is! I watched it this summer, because it was hilarious to see the hoe-bags on there that slept with about 7 guys, tested paternity on all 7 and NONE of them were the dad. It was horrible for the babies, but why embarrass yourself like that?!?

[Hammerhead]

Good thing atheists are going to save the world by their use of reason, reason unencumbered by such quaint notions as believing God exists or believing that life has meaning and purpose.

Peter Singer is a professor at Princeton, and an outspoken atheist. His expertise is apparently ethics.

He believes that the right for a mother to kill her infant should extend to 28 days AFTER birth! He calls it the 4th trimester. I doubt many women would do such a thing, but child hating biological fathers may fancy the idea and want to convince the mother to commit such an act to save a few bucks on child support payments.

Other gems of wisdom from the guy:



I think I've heard similar statements from people here.


there are special places in hell for people like these
one day these atheist's are going to get a rude awakining
i support freedom of speech but this so called professer of ethics
should be shut up permanetly

[something]

I agree with his reasoning, but I think it's based on a false premise.
We don't know for sure exactly how self-aware infants are.

BTW: General Septem, seriously? Seven Thousand posts? :eek:

[1stoic1]

there are special places in hell for people like these
one day these atheist's are going to get a rude awakining

It isn't just that you have no apparent argument of reason against Peter Singer's proposal, but that you advocate something as immeasurably evil as eternal suffering that renders you unfit to morally critique anyone.


i support freedom of speech but this so called professer of ethics
should be shut up permanetly

You support freedom of speech while pining for oppression. This makes no sense.

[WhiteRaven]

that you advocate something as immeasurably evil as eternal suffering that renders you unfit to morally critique anyone.

You know, for once I agree with you...

[General Septem]

BTW: General Septem, seriously? Seven Thousand posts? :eek:

Welcome back man. :D Where've you been?


but that you advocate something as immeasurably evil as eternal suffering that renders you unfit to morally critique anyone.

For once I agree with you, but even blindfolded you have to hit a bulls eye at least once in a while.

[Hammerhead]

It isn't just that you have no apparent argument of reason against Peter Singer's proposal, but that you advocate something as immeasurably evil as eternal suffering that renders you unfit to morally critique anyone.



You support freedom of speech while pining for oppression. This makes no sense.

and murdering these children is fine then in your eyes.because that is exactly what it is , is murder

and peter singer is what is wrong with this country ( u.s.) his ideals are just plain wrong and i was not pining for oppression i was advocating his 4th trimester solution but his mother or father spoiled it by
loving him and raising him

[something]

Welcome back man. :D Where've you been?
Oh a little bit of everywhere. Got a lot of work to do so my Internet habits kind of went away for a while.

and murdering these children is fine then in your eyes.because that is exactly what it is , is murder

and peter singer is what is wrong with this country ( u.s.) his ideals are just plain wrong and i was not pining for oppression i was advocating his 4th trimester solution but his mother or father spoiled it by
loving him and raising him
If you don't actually believe that you are killing someone, I wouldn't call you a murderer.
BTW, Peter Singer is an Australian.

[1stoic1]

and murdering these children is fine then in your eyes.because that is exactly what it is , is murder

He makes a compelling argument for euthanizing nonautonomous infants that are substantially ill, which is difficult to ethically refute when the alternative is to prolong their suffering.


and peter singer is what is wrong with this country ( u.s.) his ideals are just plain wrong

How so?


and i was not pining for oppression i was advocating his 4th trimester solution but his mother or father spoiled it by
loving him and raising him

You vindictively advocate his proposal (your ignorant take on it anyhow) in the vein that he should die for said proposal, which is oppressive.

To advocate the proposal in the instance that you have would then nullify the moral quarrel you initially had with it. You are compounding more nonsense into your position.

[Hammerhead]

He makes a compelling argument for euthanizing nonautonomous infants that are substantially ill, which is difficult to ethically refute when the alternative is to prolong their suffering.



How so?



You vindictively advocate his proposal (your ignorant take on it anyhow) in the vein that he should die for said proposal, which is oppressive.

To advocate the proposal in the instance that you have would then nullify the moral quarrel you initially had with it. You are compounding more nonsense into your position.

as i stated i believe it is murder, the child is a human , every human has the right to life, who are we to kill a child just because they are born with a sickness or are so mentally imparied that they can do nothing.
who makes that decision, who gives us as humans that right


i did not know singer was a aussie, i assumed he was a american
but i still feel his thinking is wrong. a baby has a million times more right to a life then a pig, chicken or any animal.
humans are above animals in all things


i apologize that my ignorance in stating that the man should be silenced
comes across as nonsense
but then again no i don't, I believe without a doubt no matter what trimester
it is nothing more then murder

[1stoic1]

as i stated i believe it is murder, the child is a human , every human has the right to life, who are we to kill a child just because they are born with a sickness or are so mentally imparied that they can do nothing.

I could just as easily pose the question: who are we to allow human suffering? Inaction can be just as morally contemptible as action, and death is not as severe as suffering.


who makes that decision, who gives us as humans that right

Rights are created and allotted by humans, so obviously we give ourselves the 'right' to make that decision. The infant doesn't have the right to choose because they don't have the capacity to choose.


a baby has a million times more right to a life then a pig, chicken or any animal.
humans are above animals in all things

How so?


I believe without a doubt no matter what trimester
it is nothing more then murder

So as not to repeat myself too much. (http://forum.bullshit.com/showthread.php?t=2573&page=5)

[General Septem]

I could just as easily pose the question: who are we to allow human suffering? Inaction can be just as morally contemptible as action, and death is not as severe as suffering.

But that creates a situation where you have to draw a line between one person's suffering and another's, and decide what degree of suffering warrants death and what degree of suffering can be lived with. Would you advocate killing any child with fibromyalgia? Scoliosis? Autism? It is entirely possible to live a normal life with any of these, albeit having to live with occasional or even constant pain. I don't see any of these people choosing to be euthanized as adults.

[1stoic1]

But that creates a situation where you have to draw a line between one person's suffering and another's, and decide what degree of suffering warrants death and what degree of suffering can be lived with. Would you advocate killing any child with fibromyalgia? Scoliosis? Autism? It is entirely possible to live a normal life with any of these, albeit having to live with occasional or even constant pain. I don't see any of these people choosing to be euthanized as adults.

It can be problematic when determining the line to be drawn, but I think it is ultimately resolved by the availability of safe efficacious treatment and the discretion of the legal guardian\s.

[MrJim]

RE: "For some reason, I look like Ben Stiller..."

Long since I made that remark, I found that stock photo googling for something else you clever bastard you :D

[michelle]

I typed in bullshit.com just to see if the name existed and found myself looking through the threads particularly this one. I most likely wont say much in the future but I just had to say lets kill all pro-killers. They want death so much I don't see why they can't obliged. Hypocrits all of them. They want others to die for there benefit but are unwilling to die themselves. pro-choice is pro-selfish, pro-murder, and all should treated the same as the babies they are in favor of killing.
You have some saying what about the rape cases. Well I have to say this. I was raped and concieved a child from it, but it was the kid who saved me because if it wasnt for him i would have killed myself a long time ago.
This isnt christian ideaology that I am speaking. Nothing to do with morals or getting a ticket to heaven, or even a clear mind. It's just plain simple doing whats right.
Thats all thank you.

[LedZap]

Welcome to the board,Michelle.

[Comrade]

I wonder, Limbo, have you actually read Practical Ethics in its entirety? If you had, you would be aware that he is not actually advocating 4th trimester abortions - the statement that you are going off about is actually commentary on the ethics surrounding abortion and various other things, not advocation of any particular standpoint. His goal in Practical Ethics is to approach common social issues from as objective and logical a standpoint as possible - which he does extremely well. He presents quite a logical case for why infanticide is ethical, however as he has frequently stated; what is logical is not necessarily humane.

[Montanarchist]

I wonder, Limbo, have you actually read Practical Ethics in its entirety? If you had, you would be aware that he is not actually advocating 4th trimester abortions - the statement that you are going off about is actually commentary on the ethics surrounding abortion and various other things, not advocation of any particular standpoint. His goal in Practical Ethics is to approach common social issues from as objective and logical a standpoint as possible - which he does extremely well. He presents quite a logical case for why infanticide is ethical, however as he has frequently stated; what is logical is not necessarily humane.
I knew there was something fishy about this, thankyou.

I'll better pick up that book soon.

[Comrade]

I knew there was something fishy about this, thankyou.

I'll better pick up that book soon.

You should, its very interesting. I've actually met Peter Singer in person and got my copy signed :D

[Limbo]

You should, its very interesting. I've actually met Peter Singer in person and got my copy signed :D

Why am I not surprised that this guy is your hero.:rolleyes:

[Comrade]

Why am I not surprised that this guy is your hero.:rolleyes:

Hrm no he's not my hero - I just enjoyed reading his work a lot and admire him for pursuing the goal he did in writing Practical Ethics.