I expect pro abortion protests will quickly die out.

[Stoic]

He can be forced into a vasectomy...

I guess I've lost track of your point. Are you suggesting that some men should be forced to get vasectomies, the way some women will be forced to give birth?

[Starlight]

It actually fits with the philosophy of the Left. They value collectivism over individualism, contributions to the whole, so an individual human infant has little worth because it doesn't (and can't) contribute. They find more value in a farm animal.

I have never heard such a view espoused by anyone in all my life of listening to progressives and leftists. I think you're just plain full of it. I explained my moral view in an earlier post that the level of mental ability is what I consider the relevant factor, and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the reasoning you suggests in your quote here.

Maybe try basing your views of others on what they actually say, rather than weird and wacky views you make up out of whole cloth to attribute to them?

[Starlight]

It's about valuing the clear sentience of other beings and not wanting to cause harm and suffering to another being that CLEARLY can understand and feel suffering and harm.

I am pleased to see you are also using moral reasoning based on mental capacity here (clear sentience / ability to understand and feel suffering). Given there is clearly a period of time in embryonic development during which the collection of cells do not yet posses these mental capabilities, are you then okay with abortions performed early in the pregnancy?

[Starlight]

the reality is most of that food is grown to feed it to animals to fatten them up and then kill and eat them. Sadly there are unforseen deaths in farming, but vegan is about causing the least harm as far as practicable and possible. If the world went vegan we'd have far less crop deaths.
image-asset.png?format=1000w.png

In my country, sheep and cows almost always directly graze on grass rather than having other crops fed to them. So you then get only 1 death for quite a lot of meat. Whereas in grain farming, quite large numbers of insect and mice deaths occur. I would certainly place less value personally on insects and mice, due to their lower level of mental function, than livestock animal, but from things you have said, I am not sure if you would do the same?

[Gondwanaland]

I am pleased to see you are also using moral reasoning based on mental capacity here (clear sentience / ability to understand and feel suffering). Given there is clearly a period of time in embryonic development during which the collection of cells do not yet posses these mental capabilities, are you then okay with abortions performed early in the pregnancy?

Nope. Just as I'm not okay with crushing turtle or eagle eggs. The only difference is time.

[Gondwanaland]

In my country, sheep and cows almost always directly graze on grass rather than having other crops fed to them.

Your country consumes around 6 million metric tons of grain for livestock feed and grain a year, most of it imported. And much of it goes to your dairy industry which is, to be frank, even crueler than the livestock/beef industry.

So you then get only 1 death for quite a lot of meat. Whereas in grain farming, quite large numbers of insect and mice deaths occur. I would certainly place less value personally on insects and mice, due to their lower level of mental function, than livestock animal, but from things you have said, I am not sure if you would do the same?

See above.

[rogue06]

He can be forced into a vasectomy...

That Alabamastan wimmenfolk trick of using a weed wacker on poor Billy Bob on Saturday morning after he drank waaay too much Friday night, is illegal in other states.

[Starlight]

Nope. Just as I'm not okay with crushing turtle or eagle eggs. The only difference is time.

So when you say...

It's about valuing the clear sentience of other beings and not wanting to cause harm and suffering to another being that CLEARLY can understand and feel suffering and harm.

...you don't actually mean that the entity currently has the ability to "understand and feel suffering and harm". You mean, that, in future, assuming it survived and developed, it would have those abilities?

Obviously, if you kill such an entity in the present, it does not mentally experience any feelings of suffering and harm, or understanding of them, because it doesn't presently possess those abilities. So by killing it, you're not causing pain, you're not causing suffering. It doesn't seem very obvious that if those avoiding those things are what you value, why you would see it as wrong in cases where you're not causing those things, since the entity lacks the development to experience them.

[Gondwanaland]

So when you say...

...you don't actually mean that the entity currently has the ability to "understand and feel suffering and harm". You mean, that, in future, assuming it survived and developed, it would have those abilities?

Correct. Because a freaking unconscious person doesn't 'CURRENTLY" have the ability to understand and feel suffering and harm. Just as I wouldn't be okay with shooting an unconscious person in the head I'm similarly not okay with harming an unborn child of any species.

How are you this bloody braindead? Oh wait, are you that nutjob who is fine with infanticide? No wonder.

[Ronson]

I have never heard such a view espoused by anyone in all my life of listening to progressives and leftists. I think you're just plain full of it. I explained my moral view in an earlier post that the level of mental ability is what I consider the relevant factor, and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the reasoning you suggests in your quote here.

Maybe try basing your views of others on what they actually say, rather than weird and wacky views you make up out of whole cloth to attribute to them?

On what you actually say? Then my only conclusion would be that you're evil. To value a pig over a human infant is evil.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[Machinist]

egg.JPG


Photo of fertilized human egg.



Are there processes in the human body with cells, that say, come together, and the information that each cell contains, causes the resulting union to act with greater intelligence...not necessarily an organism, but another cell that just has some greater functionality? The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts sort of thing? I can't think of any such example, I was just wondering if any of you who have studied this would have some insight.

What I am proposing here, is perhaps the zygote is not an organism, but rather a union of cells that possesses information as a whole, that is greater than the sum of the information that sperm and egg possess individually. The zygote, just like the sperm, seems to know where to go. And if neither make it to their destination and successfully complete it's mission to either fertilize or implant, then the mission is aborted, over...it's a blank slate again.

Is that a thing in bio-sciences? Where two cells come together and form some other cell that only through a cellular genetic union, does it possess the information for the next step in some larger function?

The zygote is the first stage of human development, but is the image above that of a human? Or is that still a cell, just like a sperm cell? Is this a supercell, with two pieces of genetic information, that only through the synthesis of their specific information does this newly formed cell know the next step? Everything seems to be just following information at this phase.

The reason I ask, is because my moral compass doesn't jitter at all at the thought of terminating pregnancy at this point.

[seer]

The point is that you would consider a fully grown tree much more valuable than an acorn.

I don't put any real value on trees, but I do on human life. BTW I think a squirrel would find the acorn more valuable.

[seer]

An oak tree that is hundreds of years old may be considered far more valuable than an acorn.

Not to the squirrel.

If the child values herself, then she still has some worth, regardless of what any adults think.

We were speaking of a just born baby. So by your lights she has no value.

As I recall, I said it's partially cultural, and partially genetic. It's certainly possible to rise above culture, if there is a reason to.

Are you suggesting that I should "rise above culture" and consider babies to be worthless? On what basis?

No, rise above culture and see the unborn as valuable. Whether wanted or not.

[Ronson]

I don't put any real value on trees, but I do on human life. BTW I think a squirrel would find the acorn more valuable.

And one would think that a person would place more value on a person than on a pig, but some on the Left are in need of therapy.

[Mountain Man]

An oak tree that is hundreds of years old may be considered far more valuable than an acorn.

I'm curious how you are defining "value" in this statement.