It is a living and genetically-distinct member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, and it is my opinion that this fact should not matter one iota for purposes of the early-term abortion debate.

The whole heartbeat argument is a big, smelly red herring. Humans are just one of the millions of species on this planet that have a heartbeat. With impunity, we kill all the other organisms with heartbeats. There is nothing special about a heartbeat, even if the organism with that heartbeat is genetically a member of our species.

Some trait OTHER than “heartbeat” distinguishes us from every other organism on the planet.

I have formed the belief that this distinguishing trait is sapience ... something that no other species shares and something that an early-term fetus has not yet developed. Others think that the distinguishing trait is a “soul,” which magically pops into the fertilized egg of just one single species among the millions of species on this rock, apparently swimming up the vagina alongside spermatozoa. Still others eschew the metaphysics and assert the circular argument that humans are special because they are humans. Hard to contest with the “logic” of a circular argument, other than to realize that it is entirely circular. This latter argument is “intelligent design” to the first argument’s “creationism” ... a smokescreen designed to hide the fact that the two arguments are indistinguishable at their core.

No answer is inherently right or wrong, because philosophical questions do not really lend themselves to that sort of binary analysis.

I think my analysis of the distinguishing factor makes more sense, because it would protect ANY sapient organism that we might encounter ... be it a race of extraterrestrials wandering into orbit (Alien Nation) or a porpoise that swims up to a dock in Key West and starts speaking English to the fishermen.

I say it would be wrong to kill and eat both E.T. and Flipper’s evolved cousin. The competing analyses would allow you to kill either of them with impunity and dine with gusto and a clear conscience ... simply because neither of them is “human.”

If the proper distinguishing characteristic is “sapience,” there is nothing immoral about ending the life of an organism (even with that heartbeat) which does not display the trait of sapience... especially if the continued existence of that organism infringes upon the rights of another organism which DOES display sapience.

This post was edited on 6/25/19 at 12:05 am

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by L.A.

The Mojave Desert

Member since Aug 2003

61397 posts

Posted on 6/25/19 at 1:04 am to AggieHank86

quote:
The whole heartbeat argument is a big, smelly red herring. Humans are just one of the millions of species on this planet that have a heartbeat

I chose heartbeat as a way to frame my question. In other words, when the fetus has a heartbeat it is clearly alive, in the same way that a cow fetus with a heartbeat is clearly alive. What I'm wondering is how pro choice people look at an unborn baby on an ultrasound, for example, and conclude that it is not a human being?

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by bfniii

Member since Nov 2005

17840 posts

Posted on 7/21/19 at 1:59 am to AggieHank86

quote:
AggieHank86

there goes the neighborhood

quote:
it is my opinion that this fact should not matter one iota for purposes of the early-term abortion debate.

noted. your opinion is stupid

quote:
With impunity, we kill all the other organisms with heartbeats

tell me why this has ANYTHING to do with humans murdering humans for the sake of convenience. i've asked you this question numerous times

quote:
I have formed the belief that this distinguishing trait is sapience ... something that no other species shares

you've never said WHY you think this matters. you've merely asserted it.

quote:
something that an early-term fetus has not yet developed

as stated many times before, this is a losing qualification. can we start murdering old people because they are a drag on society/medicine? can we start murdering people with genetic defects? can we start murdering people with mental illness or neurological impairment? they most certainly lack "sapience." yet another question you've never answered

quote:
Others think that the distinguishing trait is a “soul,” which magically pops into the fertilized egg of just one single species among the millions of species on this rock, apparently swimming up the vagina alongside spermatozoa

1. prove that it doesn't exist.
2. you've admitted your "sapience" qualification is the same in that you don't know precisely what it is or when it is fully manifested.

quote:
humans are special because they are humans. Hard to contest with the “logic” of a circular argument, other than to realize that it is entirely circular

yet in this case, it's literally true, by your own admission - sapience. so again, tautologies are not unreasonable if the premise is epistemically sound in an axiomatic way, which is true in this case, again, as you have acknowledged.

quote:
No answer is inherently right or wrong

is it acceptable to murder a baby merely for he sake of convenience? yet another question you won't answer

quote:
especially if the continued existence of that organism infringes upon the rights of another organism which DOES display sapience

ah yes, the old mother's "burden." yet another aspect you won't explain

your take on this issue sucks. also, you don't understand the term sapience. it merely means wisdom, which animals can display, thus destroying your entire "analysis."

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board