(split from FW thread) Abortion Debate

[jmdrake]

Dolphins communicate with each other extensively for their survival: they're very social creatures. Their hearing is of primary importance because of their need to communicate: because oil exploration produces seismic booms that are some of the loudest noises on earth, this often harms and even destroys their hearing ability: when this happens, they cannot survive.

Additionally, dolphins understand human language.

Now show me a human who understands what dolphins are saying to each other? Even more, show me a fetus that understands what dolphins are saying...

Dogs "understand" human speech on a rudimentary level. I guess you think dogs are smarter than humans too?

Also a newborn baby doesn't understand very much. Can he then be "aborted" postpartum?

So far there is no evidence that oil exploration is causing the extinction of whales and dolphins. But if it is such a problem then that's all the more reason to allow more oil exploration closer to shore and in places like ANWAR (you never answered that) which are currently off limits.

 

[specsaregood]

Now show me a human who understands what dolphins are saying to each other?

I do believe the last time I talked to one, what it said roughly translated to: "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish!"

 

[jmdrake]

For what it's worth.

http://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Talks-Whales-Communication/dp/B000KHXC26
Editorial Reviews
Product Description
In The Man Who Talks to Whales, an internationally known pioneer in interspecies communication vividly describes his experiences of forging new relationships with animals in the wild. Using music as a common language, he "talks" with dolphins, whales, seagulls, buffalo, and bears in their natural environment. He doesn't hesitate to get up-close and personal, either. He swims ten feet from gray whales, stands within forty feet of a 2,000-pound bull buffalo and its herd, and plays music to killer whales who surface next to his kayak and vocalize their response. His astounding encounters with these creatures offer controversial new evidence of the deep natural wisdom of animals and the interconnectedness of all life.

This new edition of the book formerly titled Dolphin Dreamtime includes a chapter, "Interspecies Protocol," on the idea that an animal is an individual with its own personality, deserving of respect from humans. There is also a substantial new epilogue that brings readers up to date on the current state of dolphin research. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
About the Author
Jim Nollman was born in Boston in 1947 and graduated from Tufts University in 1969. He has been a composer of music for theater, an internationally distinguished conceptual artist, and an environmental activist. He is the founder of Interspecies Inc. (IC), which sponsors research for communicating with animals through music and art, and whose best-known field project is a 25-year communication study using live music to interact with the wild orcas on the west coast of Canada. He is currently directing a project in Arctic Russia to communicate with and protect the last beluga whales in Europe.

 

[Krugerrand]

...And 1st amendment? When did I bring that up? When did I say someone doesn't have the right to voice their opinion? I didn't. I wouldn't on a public discussion board otherwise.

And let's be honest, anti-choice protests do encourage violence and hate. Especially at clinics where the people need no more stress. Abortion is legal, protesting at abortion clinics is not protesting the law, it is protesting the WOMEN. They are innocent people, and so protesting there is hateful and rude and selfish (and self righteous)

You didn't bring up the 1st ammendment. jmdrake did.

Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
Pro life people actually try to do that. But the federal government has passed laws making it illegal to try to talk to women headed to an abortion clinic once they have gotten outside the "free speech zone". Yes the "right" to an abortion which is not in the constitution actually trumps the first amendment these days.

To which to replied.

bullcrap. Any woman who is getting an abortion doesn't need to be pestered by a bunch of self-righteous religious nutbags. She is already making probably the hardest decision in her life. More grief is not needed and thats exactly what the crazy Christian taliban does at the clinics. If she was going to give the baby away, she wouldn't be at an abortion clinic.

And lets be honest, most protests at abortion clinics end in a doctor being killed. That's certainly pro life.

Free speech means more than protesting the government. How much time have you spent with pro-lifer's at abortion clinics? Many that I've seen are simply there praying and say nothing to other people. I guess those are the violent types you're worried about.

I stand by my challenge: It sounds like you don't support the 1st amendment rights of those who disagree with you.

EDIT ADD: "And let's be honest, anti-choice protests do encourage violence and hate." try not paying your taxes that go to Planned Parenthood and you'll see some real violence and hate.

 

[jmdrake]

A law does not establish rights, or support your argument..



Since born twins each have rights, uniqueness does not qualify as a determining criterion for assessing rights. Cancerous tumors may also be “unique”, but they certainly have no rights.

How many cancerous tumors grow up to be president? Ok, scratch that. How many cancerous tumors grow up to be brain surgeons? Are cancer patients advised to sing to their cancer tumors in order to increase the chance of the tumor becoming intelligent? If someone's cancer dies of natural causes does the hospital offer them counseling and condolences for their loss? Go to any obstetrician and ask him or her for materials they give their patients who have miscarriages. See if any of this material calls the miscarriage a "clump of cells" and get back with us.

 

[jmdrake]

I am a clump of cells capable of surviving on my own. A fetus is not. Murdering a pregnant woman is very different from abortion. That argument has no place here and doesn't apply.

Why is murdering a pregnant woman worse than murdering a non pregnant woman if only one individual is murdered in each case?

Again, most anti-choicers base their decision on religion. To argue otherwise is silly. And 1st amendment? When did I bring that up? When did I say someone doesn't have the right to voice their opinion? I didn't. I wouldn't on a public discussion board otherwise.

And let's be honest, anti-choice protests do encourage violence and hate. Especially at clinics where the people need no more stress. Abortion is legal, protesting at abortion clinics is not protesting the law, it is protesting the WOMEN. They are innocent people, and so protesting there is hateful and rude and selfish (and self righteous)

Most pro-life protesters are peaceful. Your attack on an entire movement based on the actions of a view is truly sad. And if you think peaceful protesters shouldn't be able to try to talk women out of having abortions then you are attacking the first amendment whether you have the courage to admit that or not. Also while most pro life protesters are not hateful, it wouldn't matter if they were for first amendment purposes. "Hate" speech is still speech and should be protected. You're engaging in your own version of "hate" by "hating" on people you don't know, don't like and don't understand. (Pro-life protesters). While you are wrong in doing that you are within your first amendment rights.

 

[Krugerrand]

Maybe I misspoke. Of course “elementary biology” isn’t a “political science” and doesn’t include political theory or teach about rights, but its scientific facts “establish” that the unborn is inside an individual person’s body. Is that clearer?

And speaking of what biology does not teach…The fact that species reproduce their own kind says nothing about this topic. Besides, your analogy of a chicken egg could not be less analogous, since the chicken’s egg is outside the chicken’s body - and for wisdom about chicken’s rights, I suppose one must consult chickens.

I stand by my chicken analogy. Many people on the thread are trying to discount the unborn child as not being a unique individual human. I will concede that the unborn child is inside its mother. Still it is as much an individual human as its mother is. Just as a unborn child does not magically become human once it is born, an unhatched chicken not magically become a chicken once it hatches.

Some here will concede that the unborn child is a unique human yet because it happens to live inside its mother it may still be murdered. That is not the specific argument I was addressing. I was addressing thsoe who wrongly fail to admit the turth of what that unborn child is.

 

[Krugerrand]

A law does not establish rights, or support your argument..

Since born twins each have rights, uniqueness does not qualify as a determining criterion for assessing rights. Cancerous tumors may also be “unique”, but they certainly have no rights.

You are correct on the law. Again, I'm first establishing that the unborn child is a separate human, unique from its mother.

While genetically copied, each twin is a unique individual human.

 

[Krugerrand]

--haven't read this whole thread, but can't help but be curious:

if there was a choice between saving a healthy, thriving, intelligent (>= human intelligence) living-and-swimming-in-the-water sperm whale, dolphin, or porpoise in the gulf,

which would you save: the already living independent mammal or the human fetus?

If I'm hungry, I'm willing to eat the dolphin.

And why do you put human fetus opposite of "already living?" It is already living.

 

[Krugerrand]

Dolphins communicate with each other extensively for their survival: they're very social creatures. Their hearing is of primary importance because of their need to communicate: because oil exploration produces seismic booms that are some of the loudest noises on earth, this often harms and even destroys their hearing ability: when this happens, they cannot survive.

Additionally, dolphins understand human language.

Now show me a human who understands what dolphins are saying to each other? Even more, show me a fetus that understands what dolphins are saying...

Some of that applies to ants as mush as dolphins. I'd eat dolphin before I eat ants.

 

[idirtify]

How many cancerous tumors grow up to be president? Ok, scratch that. How many cancerous tumors grow up to be brain surgeons? Are cancer patients advised to sing to their cancer tumors in order to increase the chance of the tumor becoming intelligent? If someone's cancer dies of natural causes does the hospital offer them counseling and condolences for their loss? Go to any obstetrician and ask him or her for materials they give their patients who have miscarriages. See if any of this material calls the miscarriage a "clump of cells" and get back with us.

Obviously, growth potential is not a factor in determining personhood or you would be arguing against the killing of any human sperms or eggs, against birth control, and against sterilization and abstinence.

 

[tasteless]

Not correct. Loss of rights from being in a prison is quite a separate topic; and I don’t believe there is an analogy to being inside an individual person’s body.

How did you arrive at such a backwards conclusion?

I'm not coming to any conclusions... I'm asking you to explain inconsistencies in your argument. What rights you have isn't contingent on where you happen to be in the world. Your rights are there when you become a human being.

How far outside the woman's body does a child have to be to be considered an individual? Once the head is out? More than half the body? If even a hair is out? What's the margin of error? A centimeter? Millimeter? One angstrom?

To illustrate further how ridiculous this notion is, lemme ask you. What about when one has sex? Does a man lose his personhood when he's inside the woman? Or does he just lose the rights to his penis? Do only women get to suspend someone else's rights when they are inside the woman, or does it apply to homosexual men performing sodomy?

Since born twins each have rights, uniqueness does not qualify as a determining criterion for assessing rights. Cancerous tumors may also be “unique”, but they certainly have no rights.

Substitute the word unique with discrete.

 

[idirtify]

I stand by my chicken analogy. Many people on the thread are trying to discount the unborn child as not being a unique individual human. I will concede that the unborn child is inside its mother. Still it is as much an individual human as its mother is. Just as a unborn child does not magically become human once it is born, an unhatched chicken not magically become a chicken once it hatches.

Some here will concede that the unborn child is a unique human yet because it happens to live inside its mother it may still be murdered. That is not the specific argument I was addressing. I was addressing thsoe who wrongly fail to admit the turth of what that unborn child is.

If you want to stand by what I have refuted, it would be wise for you to supply some sort of new/better support for it; beyond merely reasserting it.

 

[idirtify]

Again, I'm first establishing that the unborn child is a separate human, unique from its mother.

While genetically copied, each twin is a unique individual human.

If you want to stand by what I have refuted, it would be wise for you to supply some sort of new/better support for it; beyond merely reasserting it.

 

[Krugerrand]

If want to stand by what I have refuted, it would be wise for you to supply some sort of new/better support for it; beyond merely reasserting it.

Please clarify how you believe you refuted it. The closest I could find was your line: "since the chicken’s egg is outside the chicken’s body."

As I pointed out, this does not affect my analogy. You had been arguing that since the unborn child is inside the mother, it has no rights. My analogy was not about the rights of the unborn child. My analogy was that the unborn child is a unique human.

If you can find a way to refute the analogy, I'll gladly address it.

EDIT: as I read back through this again ... I realize that I should have placed my analogy in reply to somebody who was questioning that the unborn child is an individual human. So while I stand by the analogy ... it was misplaced and did not address your points.

 

[Krugerrand]

Elementary biology establishes that the pre-born can not have rights; as does any elementary science that deals with location of matter. The elementary distinction is of course that the unborn is INSIDE another’s body, which dictates that it can not physically or literally or practically be an “individual person” (the term implying the characteristic of having rights).

“Individual” means “single / solitary / separate unit”. Although the pre-born may arguably exist as a somewhat defined “individual” human, its location inside the body of a certified “individual person” inescapably means that it can not be a “person”; since everything about rights are dependant on the body of the person occupying its own space.

Say whatever you want about degrees of pre-personhood, but it won’t much matter to the fact that being inside another’s body makes individual rights impossible.

Allow me to take another stab, since this is where I detoured off of your point.

If everything about rights depends on the body of a person occupying its own space, how does this affect conjoined twins?

 

[idirtify]

I'm not coming to any conclusions...

Of course you are.

I'm asking you to explain inconsistencies in your argument. What rights you have isn't contingent on where you happen to be in the world.

Of course they are contingent on location, when “where you happen to be” is INSIDE another.

Your rights are there when you become a human being.

“Human being”? Call it whatever you want, but “personhood” (implying “with rights”) happens when you have an individually separate body.

How far outside the woman's body does a child have to be to be considered an individual? Once the head is out? More than half the body? If even a hair is out? What's the margin of error? A centimeter? Millimeter? One angstrom?

That’s your best point so far, but it only consists of hair splitting. Let me propose an example which may shed light on your answer (as I said, there’s no good analogy): If someone were to hold you down without your consent and shove their arm in your rectum, wouldn’t you agree that the arm loses all rights it previously had? IOW your rights immediately trump the arm’s rights. And if you could, you would be rightfully justified in dissolving that arm in acid while it remains inside you – but technically/maybe not any other part of the offender’s body. Would not you agree? Now that might be splitting hairs too, but it’s no worse than yours. AND your next paragraph, when you ask about an inserted penis, confirms my point. If that penis has been inserted without consent (no matter the gender of the victim), the victim certainly has the right to remove it in any way – including destruction (if it were physically possible).

To illustrate further how ridiculous this notion is, lemme ask you. What about when one has sex? Does a man lose his personhood when he's inside the woman? Or does he just lose the rights to his penis? Do only women get to suspend someone else's rights when they are inside the woman, or does it apply to homosexual men performing sodomy?

Substitute the word unique with discrete.

huh?

 

[klamath]

This space argument has to be one of the dumbest ones out there for abortion. The unborn baby occupies its own space even if it is surrounded by the women. I guess Austria has no right to exist because it is surrounded by other countries. If you own property surrounded by other peoples property then you have no right to it.

 

[idirtify]

This space argument has to be one of the dumbest ones out there for abortion. The unborn baby occupies its own space even if it is surrounded by the women. I guess Austria has no right to exist because it is surrounded by other countries. If you own property surrounded by other peoples property then you have no right to it.

Your comparison is illegitimate. If real estate had rights like individual human persons, you might have a point. But property does not only not have rights, it is that which can rightfully be OWNED (certainly CAN NOT have rights).

 

[idirtify]

Allow me to take another stab, since this is where I detoured off of your point.

If everything about rights depends on the body of a person occupying its own space, how does this affect conjoined twins?

Good question; similar debate - although CTs aren’t normally “inside” one another. Unless hopelessly intertwined (low survival rates anyway), they generally have bodies that are perceivably separate enough to identify.