MedVision ad

When is it a baby? (2 Viewers)

R

redfield

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
50
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
It seems to me like the 6 months time period is only suggested for the convenience of the mother. Someone mentioned about the human vs person issue. Interesting point... though I do think that human rights suggests that all those of the human species deserve those rights, like the right to life. I think a number of modern philosophers (such as Peter Springer) base the whole human vs. person issue on one's level of cognitive response. but that does seem very shallow considering no one can really determine how cognatively responsive one is without getting inside their head. I heard a little while ago that Spain gave some human rights to apes, and I fail to see the grounds for such a decision considering apes are apes, not humans. I find it even more astonishing that the Spanish government would recognise apes as being more human than a child in the womb. quite indicative of how our world today is governed by ideological emotion rather than common sense.
 
DavidBenGurion

DavidBenGurion

Banned
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
688
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Human rights aren't exact a concrete thing, dude. They're rights we ascribe to people because and only because of their cognitive abilities. It makes perfect sense to give those rights, given because intelligent and active species require them, to apes. That apes are apes matters no more than black people are black. Apes, and probably some other animals such as pigs, parrots, maybe even dogs and cats etc, feel pain and pleasure on a scale that's comparable to our own. Since human rights are rights that insist basic provisions such as
-you should not undergo undue pain and suffering
-you should not unjustly do things against against your will
-you should not be tortured
-etc
I really don't see the problem.

Fuck off.
 
R

redfield

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
50
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
But I think you're missing the point... apes are not humans, a baby in the womb is. they don't call it human rights for nothing. so why should an ape of all things deserve these rights moreso than a child that is growing in the womb? and what makes you and all those other radical politicians think that they know when a baby feels pain or not?

and please refrain from using foul language; it ruins the argument and is very immature.
 
T

*TRUE*

Tiny dancer
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,654
Location
Couch
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Ben Netanyahu said:
i think that if you permit abortion, then you also permit;

infanticide
murder of vegetables
murder of the elderly
murder of the crippled
murder of the race you dislike
murder of the neighbour you dislike
murder of religion

etc
Click to expand...
Hmm. Interesting.
 
Kwayera

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
redfield said:
But I think you're missing the point... apes are not humans, a baby in the womb is. they don't call it human rights for nothing. so why should an ape of all things deserve these rights moreso than a child that is growing in the womb? and what makes you and all those other radical politicians think that they know when a baby feels pain or not?

and please refrain from using foul language; it ruins the argument and is very immature.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point that humans, too, are apes. There's a train of thought that both species of chimpanzee - Pan troglodytes & Pan paniscus are closely enough related to us that they should be inducted into our genus, Homo, which would make them human.

But that's neither here nor there.
 
DavidBenGurion

DavidBenGurion

Banned
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
688
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Kwayera said:
You're missing the point that humans, too, are apes. There's a train of thought that both species of chimpanzee - Pan troglodytes & Pan paniscus are closely enough related to us that they should be inducted into our genus, Homo, which would make them human.

But that's neither here nor there.
Click to expand...
and i think you're missing the point. it is neither here nor there, nor is whther or not these rights are given the name "human rights" or "rights ascribed to entities which have a level of understanding, consciousness etc approaching x" It's clear to everyone but this poster I originally replied to that the apes have a differences in x that can be disregarded as being close enough to zero, on the grand scale of where human rights should kick in.

it's likem comparing 1,000,000
to 999,999

they're not really all that different, and there's no need to dictate a log of rights for such a minimal difference.
 
pman

pman

Banned
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,127
Location
Teh Interwebz
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
If humans are 100,000, then bananas are 50,000 and most animals are over 85,000 based on dna percentages!
 
Serius

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I dont really know, these things are really hard to determine. Some people like to take different ethical stances on this. The safer option is to just say "at conception" that way you dont accidently kill a whole heap of babies because society previously thought that at 6 months fetuses cant feel pain [or whatever little criteria they are using to determine when its ok to abort or not] when it turns out they can.

I dont think i am against abortion exactly, but i do see it as a pretty extreme option and it sickens me how lightly it is taken these days. I also wonder about fathers rights, it seems wrong that someone could legally kill my unborn child and theres nothing i can do about it and i have no say in the matter.

I guess i just basically disslike the idea of legalised killing of anybody in our country. I am also against capital punishment and euthanasia if thats relevant at all
 
HumanDichotomy

HumanDichotomy

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
687
Location
NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Serius said:
I dont really know, these things are really hard to determine. Some people like to take different ethical stances on this. The safer option is to just say "at conception" that way you dont accidently kill a whole heap of babies because society previously thought that at 6 months fetuses cant feel pain [or whatever little criteria they are using to determine when its ok to abort or not] when it turns out they can.

I dont think i am against abortion exactly, but i do see it as a pretty extreme option and it sickens me how lightly it is taken these days. I also wonder about fathers rights, it seems wrong that someone could legally kill my unborn child and theres nothing i can do about it and i have no say in the matter.

I guess i just basically disslike the idea of legalised killing of anybody in our country. I am also against capital punishment and euthanasia if thats relevant at all
Click to expand...
You raise some really interesting points. In SOR, we learn that, yeah, people have many different ideas on abortion, and also that it is rarely taken lightly.

And also, you're right that people rarely seem to take the father's POV into account, which I actually hadn't really thought of. I guess it's because it is growing inside the mother's body, but it is still half of the father's genetic material...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top