Utopia Talk / Politics / Mass darwin award ceremony

Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 19 09:14:38 Cut hole in gasoline pipeline. 100s of mexicans gather round to steal gasoline Bring families and dance around the spilling fuel to celebrate their bounty 80 dead when it caught on fire http://www...31e6&__twitter_impression=true
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 19 09:32:20 http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=sLpTO_1547875958 A dozen burning people running through the fields after it lights off. Rough way to go...
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 19 09:33:15 Massive high pressure fuel leak. Lets go all gather round it!
Paramount Member	Sat Jan 19 09:59:50 I remember this happened someplace in Africa or maybe it was in India some while ago. Some guy thought it was a proper moment to light a cigarette.
Hrothgar Member	Sat Jan 19 14:04:03 I think that Africa incident(s?) was a gasoline truck theft if I'm remembering correctly. But yeah, that's awful, and very Darwinist.
Hrothgar Member	Sat Jan 19 14:16:51 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46929950
Hrothgar Member	Sat Jan 19 14:17:03 damn https!! http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46929950
hood Member	Sat Jan 19 14:20:19 Hard to tell if there are many children there, but any adults with surviving children would negate the darwin impact. But still highly retarded.
Dukhat Member	Sat Jan 19 14:37:47 We need more cullings like this to deal with the massive human overpopulation.
obaminated Member	Sat Jan 19 23:12:48 yeah cuckhat, 100 people dying at a time is going to stop human overpopulation
Dukhat Member	Sun Jan 20 01:12:54 That's why I said we needed more idiot.
Pillz Member	Sun Jan 20 02:38:19 Leave to democrats to endorse mass shootings and man made disasters as means of control.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 20 06:27:40 It is I think related to how people reason around the very inception of human life. Not that pro-abortion people are all manifestly evil like dickface, but it is a moral issue to which I have never heard a coherent argument from people who tell me ”it is just a clump of cells”. Why would you give a fuck if a more complex web of clumps of cells go up in flames? Why not proscribe it as way of protecting the clump of cells related to you? The same person will come here and talk about ”alt-right” and ”incels” and how going to university should teach you basic human emotions like empathy.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 20 07:21:20 Liberalism is a literal death cult.
Average Ameriacn Member	Sun Jan 20 08:04:48 Dukhat = Thanos
jergul large member	Sun Jan 20 09:30:52 We simply need current developed world birth rates to reduce the human population to 200 million. It will only take 350 years. Nimi The right to self trumps the right of cells a body might be hosting. Within reason. You are welcome.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 20 09:35:02 "The right to self trumps the right of cells a body might be hosting." No one is stopping you from having sex, bruh.
Dukhat Member	Sun Jan 20 09:48:15 Not a democrat anyways. Still a registered Republican so we still homeys.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 20 10:04:52 Libertarian Rod You seem to have a pretty narrow understanding of the integrity of self. I would have nothing philosophically against the State caring for undesirable fetus and raising them as wards of the State. Or a privatized venture offering fetus up for adoption if that rocks your boat more.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 20 10:27:30 jergul, You make it, you buy it. If there is no objection to the concept that a parent has eighteen year-long legal responsibility to act as guardian of a child and provide for their welfare, there's no logical reason why that same concept can't be applied to the nine months immediately following your decision to have unprotected consensual sex. On the other hand, if you want to make the argument that women as a class lack the necessary intellectual capacity to be held responsible for their decisions, that's certainly a more feasible position.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 20 10:38:26 But let's not get off track debating the legal and moral aspects of abortion. Those are irrelevant in the face of liberalism's overarching goal, which is to achieve the extinction or near extinction of humanity.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 20 10:38:43 Ruggy "You make it, you buy it" is not even a thing, let alone a philosophical position. Your example illustrates that child support is on shaky philosophical ground. Why indeed is support mandatory if the father is known? Parents can opt out of responsibility for their children at any time in Norway. I assume it is similar in the US. As for fetal hosting. Integrity of self trumps the rights of a clump of cells. Within reason. You can disagree if you like, but it is a sound moral philosophical position.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 20 10:40:24 What on earth is wrong with thinking a gradual reduction of the human population to 200 million is a good and sustainable goal? Particularly as we have clear indications that will take place organically over the next 350-400 years?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 20 10:52:11 ”Within reason” Yes that is the problem, it is a fluid definition of ”reason” which depends on how early you could sustain a fetus outside a womb. Every generation of medtech moves that closer to conception. The other end of that is, a newborn baby isn’t a full human being by any stretch of the imagination. The right to self should trump right of cells a house may host. ”Within reason”. This inconsistency means that the larger issue isn’t resolved, the can has been kicked further down the road. 50 years of ”succesful” moral inconsistency doesn’t mean anything.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 20 10:56:31 jergul, That phrase was merely a play on "you break it, you buy it." The idea being that your actions have consequences. US states do have limited safe haven provisions that are practical remedies designed to prevent acts of infanticide. In no case is it legal to kill a child, at any age. Norwegian law may be different, but fuck Norway. A person's right to self-determination is of course to be respected; rape is a felony in all 50 states. What you do with your vagina is your own business, but if you're using it a manner that tends to cause procreation you should be prepared to live with the ramifications of that. At least you acknowledge the desire to wipe out humanity as we know it. Eradicating your sick philosophy from the world should be humankind's greatest priority in the 21st century.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 20 11:12:12 Nimi Philosophically, a woman has no say in what happens to a fetus she no longer wishes to host. As medicine advances, then it is actually on society if it chooses to render the fetus non-viable instead of nursing it in alternative hosting facilities. That could be a worthy debate. Why indeed are fetus rendered unviable? Ruggy I do not find your position convincing. I also am not a fan of wiping out humanity as we know it and feel that it should be allowed to develop organically. 200 million as an end result of that organic development simply has a lot of positive sides. For example it becomes imaginable that humanity might exist indefinitely. Its a scenario that gives more total humanity over a longer timeline. Just with less humans at any given time.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 20 11:16:13 In Norway you can hand children over to the State and terminate your responsibility for them. I imagine it is the similar in the USA.
hood Member	Sun Jan 20 11:36:36 "liberalism's overarching goal, which is to achieve the extinction or near extinction of humanity." This is why everyone not part of the cult makes fun of conservatives. "Yes that is the problem, it is a fluid definition of ”reason” which depends on how early you could sustain a fetus outside a womb." I think there's a pretty easy way to define it. Developed brain = protected. This occurs around 24 weeks.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 20 12:24:24 Fetus develop over 9 months and the brain starts to develop far earlier than week 24 (2-3 weeks after fertilization) and it doesn’t stop, well, until adulthood, but certainly major things are happening with the brain during the first 18 months outside the womb. They are barely ”human” when they are born. We can point to phases where significant things happen and that are more critical for normal development, but they all exist along the continuum of normal development.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jan 20 14:56:30 Dukhat Member Sat Jan 19 14:37:47 We need more cullings like this to deal with the massive human overpopulation. Correct. Holy shit you got one right duckhat. Your ahead of seb now.
obaminated Member	Sun Jan 20 16:26:31 Eh. Dont waste your time nim. You cant argue about the sanctity of life with people who think that phrase is a joke.
hood Member	Sun Jan 20 16:36:51 I think you have confused people thinking the phrase is a joke (false) with people thinking the people who most often use the phrase are jokes (true). false/true, of course, referencing the opinions of said people. There is also high correlation between people who use the phrase and being laughable idiots.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 20 16:44:08 obam The sanctity of life is a pretty well established principle. There are two entirely reasonable arguments that can be made. 1. The sanctity of life applies to satient beings. 2. Integrity of self trumps the sanctity of life. The 2. point applies to many things. For example the right to self-defence, stand your ground, and castle defence. The point was never to reach agreement, but rather simple recognition that the arguments are morally and philosophically defensible.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 20 17:27:47 For me there are two different sets of questions. 1. The right to self determination and integrity. I don’t think anyone can be forced to do with their body something that they do not want to. 2. The status of a human fetus. It is the kind of creature we ought not to kill. They are not easy to reconcile morally, and I don’t think we have and I do believe we have only kicked this can further down the road. The big issue I have is that most of the arguments from pro-choice crowd are rooted in denying basic biological facts (it is not just a clump of cells, it is most certainly alive and a human) and eroding the instrinsic value to human life by reducing it to some point/phase in its’ development or slippery arguments about the viability outside the womb contingent on what medicine can do at that point in history. I don’t have any moral solutions, but on a personal level this is not something I could support or engage in. Even though I did end up there once with an ex for what I can only describe as purely selfish panicked reasons (I was a student). The best I can give you is, a fetus is the type of creature we ought not to kill. But see even that makes me uneasy because life is black is white, either it has value or it doesn’t, being insentient for a few months and then barely sentient for a few months outside of it, it really doesn’t mean anything. This is how life is created we grow from insentient, either it has value or it doesn’t. I think it does.
Nekran Member	Sun Jan 20 22:50:35 "it is not just a clump of cells, it is most certainly alive and a human" Alive most definitely. Human... debatable. I think it's funny you just decided that it is though. You're gonna have a tough time defining "human" in a way that that clump of cells fits it, but not a bunch of other stuff you don't want to protect at all. You don't wanna end up with hospitals full of placentas on life support.
obaminated Member	Mon Jan 21 00:32:44 yeah, you are the person i was referring to. there is no common ground to be found with you when you have zero respect for human life.
hood Member	Mon Jan 21 00:40:39 Again, you confuse a lack of respect for retards with a lack of respect for human life. Your sputtering vagina mumblings is completely unrelated to my stance on human life or abortion.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 21 01:16:55 Nimi It is part of being human to find and overcome moral dilemmas. It is no doubt a hard decision. It just is not your decision. I do agree with the sentiments you shared to some extent. I would never give anyone a hard time about abortion specifically because I think it fair to assume the decision was painful enough without me making it worse.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 21 01:21:39 >>I think it's funny you just decided that it is though.<< I think it is hilarious that you think a human fetus could be anything other than a human. >>You're gonna have a tough time defining "human" in a way that that clump of cells fits it, but not a bunch of other stuff you don't want to protect at all.<< This should be interesting. Please tell us about the difficulties doctors and the field of medicine have to distingish the fetus from all the other crap in the placenta.
Dukhat Member	Mon Jan 21 01:46:27 Nim's on another of his drug benders. Like most male social conservatives, he really gets enraged at women making choices with their own bodies. But first he needs to create a false sense of moral superiority railing against everybody not in his in-group: particularly women and scientists.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 21 02:31:47 I am socially liberal: pro gay marriage, pro third gender, support your cuckoldry and peoples right to drug use and abuse. I know it is difficult for your brain (as it has imploded) witnessing an atheist defend the pro-choice position from a purely scientific and biological POV. But then again it isn’t really a surprise to anyone. Two sets of issues: 1. The right to self determination and bodily integrity 2. The status of a human fetus as a live human and the sanctity of life and the fetus right to bodily integrity. come into conflict with abortion. Your inability to see this and coherently reason around it instead going full retard is a testament to how stupid you are and how correct I was in my first post. Thanks for playing dickhat :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 21 02:33:49 *pro-life obviously.
McKobb Member	Mon Jan 21 02:50:40 Don't get gaslit!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 21 06:58:12 ”I am not locked in here with you, you are all locked in here with me!” That is how I think of this place.
Nekran Member	Mon Jan 21 09:30:49 "I think it is hilarious that you think a human fetus could be anything other than a human." Well obviously it isn't a fully formed human. It's a fetus. Which is something that is developing to become a human. "This should be interesting. Please tell us about the difficulties doctors and the field of medicine have to distingish the fetus from all the other crap in the placenta." There's none. But it would be difficult to make a working definition for "a human" that includes the embryo and the fetus, but doesn't include that other crap. For me it is mostly a pragmatic view. Abortions are good for society and you want people to be able to get them in proper circumstances. Hence, I'm all for them being allowed. Abortions also aren't something people do lightly. It's not like people see it as an alternative to safe sex. People tend to want to prevent them. There's no real danger for abuse here. All pros for abortions. Zero cons. Unless you consider them murder, of course... I get that. But I don't. Especially not in the first couple of months of pregnancy. Not fertilizing an egg seems equally murderous to me as not allowing a fertilized egg to fully develop. I can see the case against abortion though... if you consider it a human from the moment of conception, you have an issue with morality. I just think that's not only a weird view, but also a very unpractical one. Apart from all that, from a moral pov, I think forcing an unwanted child into the world is way worse than ending its development before it ever becomes aware. Once again, very much debatable of course.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 21 10:47:09 I agree with Nekran on this issue.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 21 11:09:41 Nekran And that is why women spontanously get pregnant, because there is no difference between a fertilized egg and other cells? That is how poorly thought what you are saying is. There are no other cells in your body that if put into a placenta will turn into a human being. Small and large gametes differ from the other cells in your body significantly in how they look and how they behave and there is no stage in that process - starting from gametes to new born - that we can not tell them apart from other cells or clumps of cells. Ever heard of embryotic stemcells? We can tell the difference even between those and adult stem cells. There already are ”working medical definitions” for gametes, embryo, fetus and so on, their properties etc. It is very well mapped. Non fertilized eggs do not turn into humans, only fertilized can eggs turn into humans, saying there is no difference is a false equivalency and wrong by definition. The gist of the second part of your post is, it may be beneficial for me (society) to kill other living creatures. I agree. If we start executing murderers and rapists it could be beneficial. Or even better just kill billions of people to reach the pop level that is sustainable, kill all people with IQ below 95, crime would evaporate over night. Kill everyone over 80 that isn’t working. All these do is cost money, pollute and clog up roads. I only see positive things with this. All pro and zero cons if you do not consider it murder, and I get that... Sam Yes, but you would also agree with the above post. Consistently murderous.
hood Member	Mon Jan 21 11:21:52 "And that is why women spontanously get pregnant, because there is no difference between a fertilized egg and other cells?" Not every fertilized egg is realized. Nature already performs plenty of abortions without us noticing. Nekran may not have worded it well, but we certainly can't equate a fertilized egg (beginning of pregnancy) with a born child or even a developing fetus a few months in.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 21 11:40:06 So, sometimes bad things happen that are outside our control. People get hit by cars and die in cancer. My objective is to have a starting point for when human life begins and is unambigious and does not chnage. It is when the egg is fertilized. My point was to illustrate that if cells are all ”cells” then spontanous pregenancy would be a major issue. Beyond that there are many properties and charachteristic that gametes and embroys have, that other cells do not. They are uniquely purposed for one thing. While that may have been poorly worded, the rest of Nekrans post indicates he does not really know wat he is saying in terms of how we can define and distinguish any clump of cells from a human embryo.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 21 11:44:11 That was a wordy way of saying a utility argument has significant flaws. I would simply note that criminalizing abortion would merely be punitive. It would not reduce abortion rates. Killing humans to protect the integrity of self firmly recognized principle. I have mentioned this earlier. So even if you believe that life starts at conception, it would not follow that abortion is morally wrong.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 21 11:44:56 is a firmly recognized principle.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 21 11:51:08 Jergul is also consistenly murderous. Grats. Some consistent positions are more evil than others. Sometimes it is better to live like a hypocrite :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 21 11:54:53 ”That was a wordy way of saying” Yes you have bitched about this all day, but as soon as I keep it short you start acting like a retard who needs everything spelled out. So I will keep it to zero from now on.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 21 11:57:36 My position is quite close to the Roe vrs. Wade ruling (I use the term integrity of self instead of the right to privacy that arises from that principle).
jergul large member	Mon Jan 21 11:58:43 Au contraire. I lavished praise on you.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 21 12:39:53 "Consistently murderous." Consistently logical. And besides you dont have to murder many people. Policies against stupid people breeding is... easier.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 21 12:56:25 Nekran and Hood Personally I would never give unsolicited advice to anyone on anything, let alone try to shame anyone to defer an abortion. I am just not conviced by any of the arguments for why abortion should be legal and I don’t know that anyone should be. Unless one resolves the dilemma by biting the bullet. But I think if I need to be consistent on anything it is on the matter of life and protecting innocents. So my position on this is much closer to the conservative one. I wouldn’t even mind executing violent incorrigible criminals as the argument can be made that they have forfeited their right through repeated unforgiavable transgression. If it wasn’t for doubting we wouldn’t kill innocent people, so I am against it. My position on that brain dead child in the UK was a product of this as well. I think life is worth clinging on to, despite the shitty odds. However, like most of you I have accepted dead children as an acceptable cost fighting the Islamic State and other savages, I just don’t see another option. Can’t outrun bullets.
hood Member	Mon Jan 21 12:59:27 Egg, fertilized or not, != life
jergul large member	Mon Jan 21 13:01:13 Nimi Its fair enough that you are unconvinced. But you should be able to see that other positions are morally defensible despite you not sharing them.
Forwyn Member	Mon Jan 21 13:14:17 Overpopulation is a spook. We have an entire universe to expand to.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 21 13:27:37 Forwyn Turns out that we act less like virus when we have better control over our personal destinies. We should be about 200 million people in 10-12 generations.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 21 13:48:27 Hood A fertilized egg is an unambigious starting point for when a new human life begins. This is the medical consensus as evident in all the medical literature, ”human life begins with the fusion of female and male gamates...”, ”human development begins with the fertilization of an egg...” etc. I am not talking about life in any broader terms than that. When do you think human life begins and why not earlier or later?
hood Member	Mon Jan 21 13:58:38 Nim, Whether conception is the starting point or not is not being debated. I think everyone aware of human reproduction recognizes this. However, a fertilized egg is not life. It is not living, it is not alive. It meets no biological definition of life. This: "human life begins with the fusion of female and male gamates" is an oft used shortcut that assumes most people recognize the difference between the colloquial use vs. medical/biological use.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jan 21 15:57:04 "When do you think human life begins and why not earlier or later?" This is subjective of course. The earliest would be when the fetus is viable outside the womb. Birth is a reasonable choice, as would be the appearance of sentience. Under no intelligent line of thinking does human life begin at conception.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 21 16:22:55 Sammy That is pretty classic R&W. http://www...fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx State laws are pretty consistent. Exceptions for the mother, or by authorized medical personnel. The legal question is not about if a fetus is a person or not (it is a person in the eyes of state law). This is true for federal law after 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
Nekran Member	Mon Jan 21 22:01:34 "And that is why women spontanously get pregnant, because there is no difference between a fertilized egg and other cells? That is how poorly thought what you are saying is." I never said that. I didn't say "there is no difference" between those two. I said it is equally murderous. Both are a potential human and not allowing them to reach that potential could be equated to murder. Even though I think that's a stupid position. "A fertilized egg is an unambigious starting point for when a new human life begins." It's unambiguous. But I still don't see you defining "a human" in any sort of sensible way. You can complain about being able to differentiate between all sorts of cells, which we indeed can, and which I never denied. But you're still not giving me any definition of what life it is you want to protect. "When do you think human life begins and why not earlier or later?" Birth. It's both unambiguous and practical. "However, a fertilized egg is not life. It is not living, it is not alive. It meets no biological definition of life." I don't think anyone argues that it is alive, actually. It's obviously a living cell. It's no human though. And won't be anything even remotely recognizably human for some months.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 22 00:50:51 Nimi What is your position on assisted fertilization? Scores of fertilized eggs die in every attempt. Nekran In my view, abortion is about women's rights, not fetal rights (or lack thereof). When it is reasonable and pragmatic to abridge a woman's right to privacy (to use US Supreme Court language as the right to privacy is constitutionally protected)?
Nekran Member	Tue Jan 22 07:43:51 "In my view, abortion is about women's rights, not fetal rights (or lack thereof)." I agree that the woman's rights trump those of the fetus she carries in any case. That's just not what was being argued. I really understand the problems with morality you get if you consider the fertilized egg to be a human being. Your question on assisted fertilization is interesting here indeed. Nimi has to consider it to be mass murder as well if he wants to be consistent. Even though it results in a net positive in actual fully grown humans. Weird stance.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 22 08:07:41 Nekran The argument could be extended to suggest humans are fundamentally amoral. How else to explain a biology that reabsorbs or expels the sanctity of life more often than it carries it to term? A position that would render the whole morality question moot as our biology simply does not allow us to hold life sacrosanct.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 22 08:08:26 We have to biological morality of rabbits.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jan 22 10:13:40 Hood Every cell in your body is alive, cells die, a fertilized egg most certainly is alive. Fungus, bacteria and plants meet the definition of ”life”. This is contrary to actual medical and biological definition. When does a new human life start then? Sam Viability arguments rely on current generation of technology, until such a day when artificial wombs are a thing, then the argument doesn’t work. Nekran No not every clump of cell is a potential human, only fertilized eggs can develop into humans. The definition of what is a human, when a bew human life start is very clear, but naturally in the reproduction process and in our medicial/biological understanding. Gamates fuse, egg is fertilized = zygote etc. I don’t understand which part you have trouble understanding. A human being starts with 2 gamtes fusing into a zygote creating new DNA for a new human individual. This process IS the definition. Not fully developed doesn’t mean it isn’t a human, it is a not fully developed human. So according to you then up until going through the birth canal a fetus can be killed? Well I appreciate the honesty.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jan 22 10:14:26 But then all the other arguments are pointless if you believe it is ok to abort full term babies.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jan 22 10:38:41 Nekran Though I am interested in why you think a 1 day old baby is different conpared to a 9 month old yet to be born baby. Other than one breathing air and not living in ambiotic fluid. Not alot changes between the two phases for the first weeks out of the womb. Babies are born earlier and later without too much issues, that is how ambigious their existence is around birth.
Nekran Member	Tue Jan 22 11:15:04 It annoys me that you keep on making strawman arguments. I understand your position. You refuse to try and understand mine and prefer to say inane things like "not every clump of cell is a potential human". Which I obviously never claimed. An egg cell is most definitely a potential human though. How about you answer the assisted fertilization question. Is it mass murder to you or not? "Though I am interested in why you think a 1 day old baby is different conpared to a 9 month old yet to be born baby." It isn't apart from the points you mentioned. But I think it is practical to set the legal line at birth. It's not like women are going to wait for 8,5 months before getting an abortion just for shits and giggles. Pretty much nobody wants to kill fully formed babies. Once again... a practical point of view. I realise no rule would be perfect and that setting limits will always be problematic one way or another. I think yours is way, way worse though, as it does bring with itself a lot of real problems for real people and whole societies.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jan 22 11:43:48 I don’t think abortion is murder. I explicitly stated, a fetus is the type of creature we ought not to kill. Assisted fertilization isn’t massmurder no, it is a very wateful process that makes progress and less and less wasted fertilized eggs are needed in the process. I think that is a good thing. I would view in the same way I view naturally rejected eggs, as an ubfortunate side effect of trying to create new life. I don’t care what hypothetical pregnant women do, I am discussing matters of principle with you. I am not trying to strawman you. But your started this off with and have repeatedly said, I have not defined human in such a way that doesn’t also include a bunch of other stuff. To quote you: ”You're gonna have a tough time defining "human" in a way that that clump of cells fits it, but not a bunch of other stuff you don't want to protect at all. ” I have said that neither the female womb nor the medical field have any difficulty defining these things without including other things that are not human (i.e an individual if this wasn’t clear). We can differentiate them from other cells, clumps of cells and other animals, you agree we can. In conclusion we know exactly what a human is, when it starts and when it ends. The fact that you use ”potential” human means that you understand that not every clump of cell is a new human. Yet you repeat that I have not defined what _a_ human is. I am not strawmanning you and I am not sure what it is you are doing. Please explain to me, starting with a human zygote all the way to human senior citizen, what else could be included in this definition that isn’t human or other human cells that I think are not worthy of protection.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jan 22 11:48:36 As for the practical, I agreed earlier killing things can bring great utility. But if utility is what you want I can show you droves and droves a people whose death would bring us all great utility. I don’t think this is a good reason to kill.
jergul large member	Tue Jan 22 12:09:50 I think everyone agrees that fertilized eggs+ are worthy of protection for the potential they represent if nothing else. So a bit borderline straw man to suggest otherwise. But lets see: A gut reaction test to a pregnant woman micro-dosing should do the trick. Shall we share in a group frown and a stern tsk, tsk at that?
Nekran Member	Tue Jan 22 22:05:26 "I don’t think abortion is murder. I explicitly stated, a fetus is the type of creature we ought not to kill." Wait... you think a fertilized egg is a human being, but you think wilfully killing it is not murder? That doesn't seem to be very consistent. "As for the practical, I agreed earlier killing things can bring great utility. But if utility is what you want I can show you droves and droves a people whose death would bring us all great utility. I don’t think this is a good reason to kill." I didn't bring it up earlier, but I didn't agree with any of your examples. I think the negatives in allowing governments to kill criminals outweigh the positives. I don't think we have an unsustainable amount of people now. And the IQ-thing, apart from being sort of impossible, would definitely not solve anything and most likely make things far worse. Killing unwanted unborn embryos and fetuses is a good thing for all involved though.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jan 23 01:47:13 You are correct Nekran, thank you for pointing that out. I will change my position, yes killing a fertilized egg is murder. Assisted fertilization isn't massmurder for previously mentioned reasons. And it is very rare that huge amounts of eggs are fertilized and wasted, 1 egg at a time is put into the womb and the medical science makes headway to reduce the amount of eggs needed and wasted. The fetus is the type of creature we shouldn't kill. I don't want to strawman you, I think you are one of the few posters here who show good faith when discussing. I would appreciate if you answer my question. Starting with a human zygote all the way to human senior citizen, what else could be included in this definition that isn’t human or other human cells that I think are not worthy of protection. Killing incorrigable criminals would arguably be very beneficial. It would eliminate the cost of housing them, the risk to the people working with/around them. Low IQ people are usually the people who end up in prison, it isn't that hard to identify them with an IQ test. I am not sure how it would make things worse? They would not pass on their genes, they would not fucking things up in society. The point is that utility, which is hard to discuss with any empirical facts on this topic, isn't a factor when deciding who gets to live. Unless you pose a threat to mine. If a fetus poses a serious threat to the life of the mother, I believe the position to end it is morally defensible, the way it is defensible for me to protect myself from an attacker.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 23 02:37:08 Nimi And in many jurisdictions it is indeed murder if anyone other that the host or authorized medical personnel cause the termination of a fertilized egg. Nekran My point earlier is really that asking why abortion is legal is poorly framed. The correct question is why are there any limitations on a woman's right to privacy at all? This is where the utility argument comes into play. It is best for society that abortions occur in an early stage of pregnancy. Society is therefore willing to abridge a women's rights and insist a pregnancy is carried to term after a certain threshold.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 23 02:39:40 I understand your utility argument to mean that you find it morally indefensible that women's rights are curtailed, but accept limitations for numerous practical reasons.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 23 02:53:45 Nimi So you would be ok with abortions that a woman perceives as a threat to her health? Objective criteria are incidentally always met. Carrying a fetus to term is inherently dangerous, particularly if the fetus is unwanted.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jan 23 14:26:20 Don't get pregnant? But sure, if she also sterlizes herself. If the "inherent danger" argument is used, despite it being fairly safe today, that inherent danger wont diminish 3 or 10 years later. So you get 1 abortion out of fear of inherent danger and you sterlize yourself. It is reasonable. Killing out of convenience to then have a baby years later, I don't think is morally defensible. But I do accept that some women either because of fear (they may kill themselves) or other psychological and/or physical health issues can not have children without a serious risk to their own lives. The morally defensible thing to then is to sterilize.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jan 23 14:27:58 You should first talk to a psychologist to help you overcome your fear though. Alot of things are scary in life and when we overcome them we become stronger :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jan 23 14:55:40 "And in many jurisdictions it is indeed murder if anyone other that the host or authorized medical personnel cause the termination of a fertilized egg." In many jurisdictions the same applies to adults. Authorized staff may end an adult humans life by leathal injection, hanging or beheading. I don't believe any jurisdiction or individual has the right to end another human life. Self defence and previous post aside. "The correct question is why are there any limitations on a woman's right to privacy at all?" There are no limitations on her rights to anything, but where another individual comes in, your rights end.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 23 15:12:35 Nimi The woman's perception of threat may very well change. Yes, I am aware of your view that a person's integral self ends at the hip and begins again at the chest. The only important thing here is that you recognize that abortion is morally defensible. You just happen to think it ought to not happen and would not be morally defensible to anyone who had your perspective. There are other perspectives you see.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 24 13:55:35 That is why she should have counseling to overcome this perception. Overcoming fear makes you a stronger person, more mature. Killing someone because you thought they were a threat, when they were not, is not morally defensible. You would go to jail in Sweden for that, it wouldn’t count as ”nödvärn”, but excessive violence.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 24 14:05:47 I start with a principle (human life has intrinsic value) and use scientific definitions and logically end up in a place where killing a fetus isn’t morally defensible. Of course there are many perspectives on the value of human life. People with very different first principle using the same scientific definitions can fill thousands of mass graves with thousands of dead bodies. The ability to navigate this hypocrisy for 50 years does not impresses me. We thought owning other people was morally defensible for thousands of years before we came to our senses.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 24 14:12:43 Nimi You have contributed nothing new that was not fully discussed in 1973. You simply do not place a premium on an individual rights. How fundamentalist and conformist of you. A woman's right to integrity (privacy in US parlance) trumps the rights of a fetus existing inside her. This is a completely morally defensible position to hold. The only interesting moral question is why we abridge that right at all by generally limiting abortions to the first trimester. The answer to that is of course purely utilitarian.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 24 14:16:59 Your idea of moderation: forced sterilization and mandatory psychiatric treatment is classical Maoist communism by the way. Congrats. You have combined religious style fanaticism with atheist authoritarianism. You have indeed contributed something "new".
Nekran Member	Thu Jan 24 15:18:35 "I start with a principle (human life has intrinsic value) and use scientific definitions and logically end up in a place where killing a fetus isn’t morally defensible." You don't use scientific definition. I still haven't heard one for "human life". Mind you, I have to admit that I don't have a good one myself. Definitions are a bitch. "The ability to navigate this hypocrisy for 50 years does not impresses me. We thought owning other people was morally defensible for thousands of years before we came to our senses." You realise you thinking the government should have more to say about what can or can't be going on inside people's bodies than those people themselves, puts you on the side of something akin to slavery, right?
Forwyn Member	Thu Jan 24 15:25:51 "the government should have more to say about what can or can't be going on inside people's plantations than those people themselves"
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 24 15:48:11 "You don't use scientific definition. I still haven't heard one for "human life"." Human zygote all the way to human senior citizen, that is a human individual. The trajectory of a living organism changing over it's life cycle, while still at every point being distinctly human, seperable and distinguishable from other "clumps of cells" human other otherwise. Or for general and generic common knowledge use Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Life_cycle As with other mammals, human reproduction takes place by internal fertilization via sexual intercourse. During this process, the male inserts his erect penis into the female's vagina and ejaculates semen, which contains sperm. The sperm travels through the vagina and cervix into the uterus or Fallopian tubes for fertilization of the ovum. Upon fertilization and implantation, gestation then occurs within the female's uterus. The zygote divides inside the female's uterus to become an embryo, which over a period of 38 weeks (9 months) of gestation becomes a fetus. After this span of time, the fully grown fetus is birthed from the woman's body and breathes independently as an infant for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend various levels of personhood earlier to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus. **(Nimatzos note, this legal/moral persohood with rights is what we are arguing about, the rest is uncontested as to what a human is scientifically)** Compared with other species, human childbirth is dangerous. Painful labors lasting 24 hours or more are not uncommon and sometimes lead to the death of the mother, the child or both.[114] This is because of both the relatively large fetal head circumference and the mother's relatively narrow pelvis.[115][116] The chances of a successful labor increased significantly during the 20th century in wealthier countries with the advent of new medical technologies. In contrast, pregnancy and natural childbirth remain hazardous ordeals in developing regions of the world, with maternal death rates approximately 100 times greater than in developed countries.[117] In developed countries, infants are typically 3–4 kg (7–9 lb) in weight and 50–60 cm (20–24 in) in height at birth.[118][not in citation given] However, low birth weight is common in developing countries, and contributes to the high levels of infant mortality in these regions.[119] Helpless at birth, humans continue to grow for some years, typically reaching sexual maturity at 12 to 15 years of age. Females continue to develop physically until around the age of 18, whereas male development continues until around age 21. The human life span can be split into a number of stages: infancy, childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, adulthood and old age. The lengths of these stages, however, have varied across cultures and time periods. Compared to other primates, humans experience an unusually rapid growth spurt during adolescence, where the body grows 25% in size. Chimpanzees, for example, grow only 14%, with no pronounced spurt.[120] The presence of the growth spurt is probably necessary to keep children physically small until they are psychologically mature. Humans are one of the few species in which females undergo menopause. It has been proposed that menopause increases a woman's overall reproductive success by allowing her to invest more time and resources in her existing offspring, and in turn their children (the grandmother hypothesis), rather than by continuing to bear children into old age.[121][122] Evidence-based studies indicate that the life span of an individual depends on two major factors, genetics and lifestyle choices.[123] For various reasons, including biological/genetic causes,[124] women live on average about four years longer than men—as of 2013 the global average life expectancy at birth of a girl is estimated at 70.2 years compared to 66.1 for a boy.[125] There are significant geographical variations in human life expectancy, mostly correlated with economic development—for example life expectancy at birth in Hong Kong is 84.8 years for girls and 78.9 for boys, while in Swaziland, primarily because of AIDS, it is 31.3 years for both sexes.[126] The developed world is generally aging, with the median age around 40 years. In the developing world the median age is between 15 and 20 years. While one in five Europeans is 60 years of age or older, only one in twenty Africans is 60 years of age or older.[127] The number of centenarians (humans of age 100 years or older) in the world was estimated by the United Nations at 210,000 in 2002.[128] Jeanne Calment is widely believed to have reached the age of 122;[129] higher ages have been claimed but are unsubstantiated." ^Science^ I would appreciate if you answer my question now that I have answered yours. Starting with a human zygote all the way to human senior citizen, what else could be included in this definition that isn’t human or other human cells that I think are not worthy of protection?
jergul large member	Thu Jan 24 16:02:28 Uncombined semen and eggs *become* a zygote that *becomes* a embryo that *becomes* a fetus that *becomes* an infant. The transitory nature indicates a egg is not a zygote, a zygote is not an embryo, an embryo is not a fetus, a fetus is not an infant. That nimi chooses to define all as person (though he is very careful not to use the legal term) is a semantic, not a philosophical argument. A person does gains full rights in a philosophical sense until it reaches the age of maturity and becomes enfranchised.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 24 16:11:29 I don't really agree with the argument that a fetus somehow has more rights than a embryo, and therefore abortion after a certain time should be illegal. To me it is all about a woman's right not to host something inside of her body. But I do get the utilitarian argument that it is best that abortions occur in a certain window. Philosophically, we can reconcile the rights of women with a right to life perspective by simply terminating pregnancies without terminating fetus. That society chooses not to develop viable alternatives to fetal termination is on it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 24 16:15:54 These are categories we have defined to mediate information through language, my aspie friend. They are not discrete units like a "log" that turns into a "chair" through a mechanical process. Biology is actually quite hard to understand for mechanically oriented people as they need to think in distinct stages like an industrial process. It works OK to teach them the basic things, until you get deep and the metaphors break down.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 24 16:25:02 I actually find the distinctions irrelevant as I posted. Do try to keep up: "I don't really agree with the argument that a fetus somehow has more rights than a embryo, and therefore abortion after a certain time should be illegal. To me it is all about a woman's right not to host something inside of her body."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Jan 24 16:36:43 "I actually find the distinctions irrelevant" Great me too as I have argued all along, a human individual starts with a zygote and goes through multiple by our language categorizes phases, fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult, middle aged human, old fuck, dead fuck. I am not being careful, you are to dumb to see the forest for the trees. Starting with the first principle and using medical definitions and observing the biological process, ultimately a zygote is a new PERSON and should have the same rights as other people. Nekran?
jergul large member	Thu Jan 24 16:51:39 Semantics, not philosophy. Your take on full enfranchisement from conception is unique.
Nekran Member	Thu Jan 24 16:59:20 "Starting with a human zygote all the way to human senior citizen, what else could be included in this definition that isn’t human or other human cells that I think are not worthy of protection?" I have already stated that a placenta is a perfect example of this. Your argument that we can differentiate a placenta from a fetus doesn't change that. If you attempt to define what constitutes a human, it's hard to only include what you want to include. It's the same with life. Or any number of tricky definitions. You have not given a definition either. Which is OK... as I said, definitions are a bitch and it's not like I have a good one myself. Just saying "zygote to senior citizen" is in no way being scientific though. It's just saying what you think it should be. Which is fine, though I obviously disagree (qualifying a single cell as a human is simply insane to me)... but it is not at all scientific, as you claim that it is. Also the wiki dump was thoroughly uninteresting. The fact that it's titled "human lifecycle" really does nothing to support your claim of being scientific. And once again it leads back to you logically having to condemn a bunch of things you don't want to condemn. Like the techniques used to prevent terrible genetic diseases which sacrifices some embryos... you have to consider that murder to be consistent once again. People keeping frozen embryos have to be monsters in your eyes as well. So many common and universally lauded practices are horror shows when you think like you do. Apart from all that, it's still very weird that you think the government should have more to say about what happens inside people's bodies than those people themselves.
	show deleted posts