If a cow why not a baby

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Actually I think they do base abortion rights with regards to intelligence... that is they have tried to identify when a thing become intelligent so as to identify when it is ok to abort a impregnated egg... some argue that it is a matter of potential of intelligence though... but then that still involves intelligence...

This is not an argument I have encountered. I am sure some people may think like this, but the arguments I have seen generally have to do with it being a part of the woman's body, not a separate entity. Likewise I do not see abortion rights people arguing that we should be allowed to eat severely retarded or brain damaged people, some of whom are at fetus IQ levels.

I would think that typically it being a part of a woman's body is an argument against abortion legalization it is not something against abortion. Depends on who you are talking to...

Kovacs wrote:

And arguments against eating humans or killing them, tend to have to do with the species, not the intelligence - and this is true for both anti and pro abortion people. We are speciesist, most of us.

So why not be racist too?

Abstract wrote:

Honestly I understand well enough many reasons for it... I am interested particularly if their are legitimate moral reasons, beyond one's that are purely survivalistic...

Meat is not necessary to survive...in some situations yes, but now it is not...
so then how is it justified, your say it is not proper to take a human life but why?
What is it that makes humans "more" than other life... is it simply that we can, that we have power... is it that we have intelligence, or what.

Meat is actually a necessary food group to survive for some blood types. Many people have felt strongly about vegetarianism/veganism and several years later ended up with terrible health problems (even with b12 vitamins).

I'm one of those blood types.

Poison IV wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Honestly I understand well enough many reasons for it... I am interested particularly if their are legitimate moral reasons, beyond one's that are purely survivalistic...

Meat is not necessary to survive...in some situations yes, but now it is not...
so then how is it justified, your say it is not proper to take a human life but why?
What is it that makes humans "more" than other life... is it simply that we can, that we have power... is it that we have intelligence, or what.

Meat is actually a necessary food group to survive for some blood types. Many people have felt strongly about vegetarianism/veganism and several years later ended up with terrible health problems (even with b12 vitamins).

I'm one of those blood types.

What is it that is in the meat that is necessary?
I have heard that though.. that would be a case where it is necessary
B12 can be gotten by things other then meat, specifically by supplementation as produced by bacterias...

But again this is not about vegetarianism...
I am interested as to whether you think there is any reason other then survival that can justify eating meat?

and other than tradition and taste?
I expect baby meat is quite tasty actually...

Abstract wrote:

So why not be racist too?

My point is not that we should be speciesist, but rather that I don't think you are formulating the reasons why most people allow or think we should allow for abortions.

And as far as I can tell pretty much everyone is speciesist. I am sure there are a few people living alone with cats or dogs or out in the woods, who prefer animals over humans and actually would rescue the drowing duck and let the human child drown if they only had time to save one, but there are not many of these people. Wanting to treat all races as human however is much more common, if not common enough.

phoneutria wrote:

We should definitely eat retarded babies. It would fix overpopulation, famine AND promote a more intelligent population.
Vote for me.

Eating the babies of the orthodox religious would do much more for overpopulation.

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

So why not be racist too?

My point is not that we should be speciesist, but rather that I don't think you are formulating the reasons why most people allow or think we should allow for abortions.

And as far as I can tell pretty much everyone is speciesist. I am sure there are a few people living alone with cats or dogs or out in the woods, who prefer animals over humans and actually would rescue the drowing duck and let the human child drown if they only had time to save one, but there are not many of these people. Wanting to treat all races as human however is much more common, if not common enough.

I think it is reasonable for one to do what is more close to the self first.
I am more interested specifically as to why people think abortions are wrong on moral level, as to see given that moral thinking if it fairly should apply to other animals... so as to identify a hypocrisy if there is one.

Abstract wrote:

I would think that typically it being a part of a woman's body is an argument against abortion legalization it is not something against abortion. Depends on who you are talking to...

it's an argument for a woman's right to abort if she wants. That it is her decision and a part of her that is in question.

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

I would think that typically it being a part of a woman's body is an argument against abortion legalization it is not something against abortion. Depends on who you are talking to...

it's an argument for a woman's right to abort if she wants. That it is her decision and a part of her that is in question.

So I should have at least the right to eat my self. I guess...

Abstract wrote:

I think it is reasonable for one to do what is more close to the self first.
I am more interested specifically as to why people think abortions are wrong on moral level, as to see given that moral thinking if it fairly should apply to other animals... so as to identify a hypocrisy if there is one.

OK. So you are, in a sense, trying to get the antiabortionists to be consistent about right to life. (I am sure this is an oversimplification, but just to make sure I follow).

Most people are speciesist and certaintly the bulk of the most vocal antiabortionists have the Abrahamic prejudice against animals, that they are for us, that they do not have souls. The Muslims have the kindest rules, where the halal death of the animal is attempting to be as considerate as possible - their solutions are not great but that is the stated intent. But we are not animals, are special in creation in these views and so we do not have to be consistent. It is not intelligence that is at issue, it is being human. The fetus is human, therefore it cannot be killed.

Though oddly in some Christianity it must be baptized since it is filled with sin. How it can be wrong to send an entity filled with sin to hell is beyond me - given their beliefs. And if it is wrong - and permanently wrong since hell is forever - why would God places fetus in front of beings with free will who might send them to hell for all time?

I can see letting us be accountable for the errors of our free will, but fetuses?

Very strange religion. There must be gaps in the film of their consciousness to keep them from noticing the ludicrousness.

Abstract wrote:

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

I would think that typically it being a part of a woman's body is an argument against abortion legalization it is not something against abortion. Depends on who you are talking to...

it's an argument for a woman's right to abort if she wants. That it is her decision and a part of her that is in question.

So I should have at least the right to eat my self. I guess...

Bite your fingernails, drink your urine. Probably somewhere it is illegal to, say, eat your own liver, but I doubt you would stand trial unless you did it in front of children.

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

I think it is reasonable for one to do what is more close to the self first.
I am more interested specifically as to why people think abortions are wrong on moral level, as to see given that moral thinking if it fairly should apply to other animals... so as to identify a hypocrisy if there is one.

OK. So you are, in a sense, trying to get the antiabortionists to be consistent about right to life. (I am sure this is an oversimplification, but just to make sure I follow).

Most people are speciesist and certaintly the bulk of the most vocal antiabortionists have the Abrahamic prejudice against animals, that they are for us, that they do not have souls. The Muslims have the kindest rules, where the halal death of the animal is attempting to be as considerate as possible - their solutions are not great but that is the stated intent. But we are not animals, are special in creation in these views and so we do not have to be consistent. It is not intelligence that is at issue, it is being human. The fetus is human, therefore it cannot be killed.

Though oddly in some Christianity it must be baptized since it is filled with sin. How it can be wrong to send an entity filled with sin to hell is beyond me - given their beliefs. And if it is wrong - and permanently wrong since hell is forever - why would God places fetus in front of beings with free will who might send them to hell for all time?

I can see letting us be accountable for the errors of our free will, but fetuses?

Very strange religion. There must be gaps in the film of their consciousness to keep them from noticing the ludicrousness.

Anything can be rationalized...

Abstract wrote:

Anything can be rationalized...

Which is why rationality is not enough.

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Anything can be rationalized...

Which is why rationality is not enough.

Which is why everything comes down to be faith in something...

Abstract wrote:

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Anything can be rationalized...

Which is why rationality is not enough.

Which is why everything comes down to be faith in something...

Or at least must be supported by faith - though I prefer the term intuition, which places the nature of that quality in a black box.