Abortion due to gender.

[flyingfish]

Now I will summarize the truth.

Human beings are the highest form of creation on this earth.

No creature, be it an ameoba, a plankton, an elephant, a chimp, a fancy computer, an AI,. a dolphin, a lion, an orangutan, an ape who can sign, a parrot, chinchilla, a mouse, a flea are higher than a human.

So here is a question for you, not one you have to answer but just one to think about.

You are brought into a room. On your right is an adult chimpanzee who has been taught sign language (say Washoe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_%28chimpanzee%29). On your left is a petri dish containing a newly fertilized egg.

A man comes into the room and says that he will destroy one of these organisms, but it’s up to you to decide which. (If you refuse to choose, he’ll hypothetically kill everything on the planet, so you have to choose.)

 

[flyingfish]

No offence flyingfish, you already affirmed your belief that born childern should be allowed to die, at least under certain cases. I’m having trouble believeing, that when it gets right down to it, you’ll have any real desire to stop anyone having an abortion at any point for any reason.

That’s for the most part true, I can’t really think of a situation where I’d want to stop an abortion.

Or letting their child starve to death in a trash can…

This is completely untrue.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

n.

Also, just because I have lost faith doesn’t mean I don’t believe in objective moral standards. I do, because our nature is not arbitrary. People have specific needs (like we need food, water, we need to be in the sun, our brains benefit from learning). There’s plenty on which to form an objective moral standard without requiring an extraneous authority such as a deity.

You don’t seem to believe in objective moral standards at all. It seems that the standards you use for what is a person are all over the place, no offense, very subjective.

The thread has gone on and on because you initially stated that you have decided that your hypothetical, future baby son is not a person, and won’t even be allowed to turn into your idea of person for the entirely subjective reason that you don’t want to be bothered by mothering a son.

I’m not sure when your future hypothetical daughter makes the person grade, in your pov. When she’s born, her first birthday?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

That’s for the most part true, I can’t really think of a situation where I’d want to stop an abortion.

This is completely untrue.

Location changes it1

 

[flyingfish]

You don’t seem to believe in objective moral standards at all. It seems that the standards you use for what is a person are all over the place, no offense, very subjective.

Yes and no. My choice of the criteria on which to base moral standards is subjective (just as your choice to base your moral standards on Catholic teaching is subjective), but since I try to base my moral beliefs on scientific understanding of our nature, there is plenty of room for objectivity. For instance I will never say water is evil, since we clearly need it to live.

I’m not sure when your future hypothetical daughter makes the person grade, in your pov. When she’s born, her first birthday?

When she thinks her first thought.

 

[flyingfish]

Location changes it1

It does, once the baby is out of the mother it no longer depends on her to live and there is no longer a conflict of interest between the baby and the mother (should the mother not want to be pregnant or have a more serious issue like a threat to her health).

At that point an “abortion” can be performed by giving the baby away to be raised by someone else.

 

[crazzeto]

That’s for the most part true, I can’t really think of a situation where I’d want to stop an abortion.

This is completely untrue.

why not? in your estimation it’s not even a person, I guess that would make it a thing? So why not let it die in a trash can, using your moral standards, I really can’t think of a convincing justification for not doing this whenever convinent.

 

[flyingfish]

why not? in your estimation it’s not even a person, I guess that would make it a thing? So why not let it die in a trash can, using your moral standards, I really can’t think of a convincing justification for not doing this whenever convinent.

Read the posts above, I repeatedly stated that non-persons have value as well.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So here is a question for you, not one you have to answer but just one to think about.

You are brought into a room. On your right is an adult chimpanzee who has been taught sign language (say Washoe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_%28chimpanzee%29). On your left is a petri dish containing a newly fertilized egg.

A man comes into the room and says that he will destroy one of these organisms, but it’s up to you to decide which. (If you refuse to choose, he’ll hypothetically kill everything on the planet, so you have to choose.)

No brainer…bye-bye Washoe. :bighanky:

If I took my baby to the zoo to see the chimps, and one escaped and tried to attack my child, does the guard say, “Well. sorry ma’am, the chimp is of more value.” The guard would be obligated to defend my baby, by force.

What about the chimp in CT who attacked a woman and maimed her permanently? What if it attacked a baby in a stroller? Would the cops on duty think twice about shooting it?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yes and no. My choice of the criteria on which to base moral standards is subjective (just as your choice to base your moral standards on Catholic teaching is subjective), but since I try to base my moral beliefs on scientific understanding of our nature, there is plenty of room for objectivity. For instance I will never say water is evil, since we clearly need it to live.

When she thinks her first thought.

Sorry…not being subjective.

I became pro-life before I came back to the Church.

Wow, if you think that my line of thinking is subjective, what is objective then? Anything?

 

[flyingfish]

No brainer…bye-bye Washoe. :bighanky:

If I took my baby to the zoo to see the chimps, and one escaped and tried to attack my child, does the guard say, “Well. sorry ma’am, the chimp is of more value.” The guard would be obligated to defend my baby, by force.

What about the chimp in CT who attacked a woman and maimed her permanently? What if it attacked a baby in a stroller? Would the cops on duty think twice about shooting it?

To be honest I’m surprised you’d kill Washoe instead of a single cell, even though it’s human.

Your example doesn’t accurately reflect the situation however. if a man attacked your child or attacked a woman the cops would shoot him as well, and good cops shouldn’t think twice about shooting an attacker.

 

[flyingfish]

Sorry…not being subjective.

I became pro-life before I came back to the Church.

Wow, if you think that my line of thinking is subjective, what is objective then? Anything?

I mean, it depends on how you define subjectivity. Your choice to follow Catholic moral teaching as opposed to Muslim moral teaching or Hindu moral teaching or Secular Humanist moral teaching is subjective insofar as you decided that Catholic moral teaching is true.

Your choice to believe that person = biologically human is as subjective or objective as my choice to believe that person = mind.

People choose whether they are going to base their beliefs on what makes sense to them, what they believe to be divinely revealed, what they believe is consistent with scientific findings, etc. I think to an extent the choice is subjective, but within a system there can be an objective standard (like say God once a person has chosen to follow a system they believe to have been divinely revealed, or say Plato, for those who have chosen to follow his teachings).

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

To be honest I’m surprised you’d kill Washoe instead of a single cell, even though it’s human.

Your example doesn’t accurately reflect the situation however. if a man attacked your child or attacked a woman the cops would shoot him as well, and good cops shouldn’t think twice about shooting an attacker.

Why? You’ve stated numerous times that small babies are not persons… Why should the cops shoot a “person” to save a “non-person.”

Check-mate.

 

[sanctareparata]

To be honest I’m surprised you’d kill Washoe instead of a single cell, even though it’s human.

Your example doesn’t accurately reflect the situation however. if a man attacked your child or attacked a woman the cops would shoot him as well, and good cops shouldn’t think twice about shooting an attacker.

I’d kill Washoe too. :knight2: It would be a no brainer.

Fact is, the chimp will always be just a chimp. It can only learn what it is trained to learn, and function with the limited function of an animal. Ever seen a chimp build a house? Drive a car? Invent a new drug?

The tiny human embryo, on the other hand, has all the information it needs to become a fully functioning human being. What if that tiny human is the next Einstein? Or Mozart? What if that tiny human will become my son’s wife one day, or my daughter’s best friend? What if that human is the one who discovers the cure to AIDS? Killing just that *one *embryo deprives this world of a *person *who may have changed the world.

 

[flyingfish]

Why? You’ve stated numerous times that small babies are not persons… Why should the cops shoot a “person” to save a “non-person.”

Check-mate.

Clever, but I was commenting on your example. If a man broke into the zoo and started stabbing every chimp there, wouldn’t the cops would shoot him too if he didn’t stop when asked.

 

[flyingfish]

The tiny human embryo, on the other hand, has all the information it needs to become a fully functioning human being. What if that tiny human is the next Einstein? Or Mozart? What if that tiny human will become my son’s wife one day, or my daughter’s best friend? What if that human is the one who discovers the cure to AIDS? Killing just that *one *embryo deprives this world of a *person *who may have changed the world.

Or it could become the next Hitler, or it would be miscarried and never live at all. What if after that day, you knew that the world would come to an end, would you still save the embryo?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Clever, but I was commenting on your example. If a man broke into the zoo and started stabbing every chimp there, wouldn’t the cops would shoot him too if he didn’t stop when asked.

What a very strong hypothetical man you’ve made up. Able to go mano-a-mano with a pack of chimps, nonetheless. . Where did he get his training?

Chimps are stronger than humans. To stab one you need to get close. I can’t fathom being able to get more than one.

Actually a few years ago, a deranged man got into the lion exhibit at the Bronx zoo. He started to hit them.

He wasn’t shot. but rescued.

He was actually quite fortunate that they had just eaten because if they had attacked him, they would have had to be all destroyed. Once a captive lion knows they can kill a human, they are considered too dangerous to be displayed or interacted with.

 

[flyingfish]

What a very strong hypothetical man you’ve made up. Able to go mano-a-mano with a pack of chimps, nonetheless. . Where did he get his training?

Chimps are stronger than humans. To stab one you need to get close. I can’t fathom being able to get more than one.

Actually a few years ago, a deranged man got into the lion exhibit at the Bronx zoo. He started to hit them.

He wasn’t shot. but rescued.

He was actually quite fortunate that they had just eaten because if they had attacked him, they would have had to be all destroyed. Once a captive lion knows they can kill a human, they are considered too dangerous to be displayed or interacted with.

Okay, or the man could start shooting chimps, or start systematically killing every animal in the zoo. You don’t think the cops would shoot him if that was the only way of stopping him?

I don’t even see why we’re discussing this. I guess you want to have “got me”? Okay, you got me. I don’t see what the point is, is this supposed to make me say I think the unborn are persons?

Taking chimps out of the equation, if a man decided to try to kill your baby before it’s a person, do I think the comps should shoot him? I would think so. Even if the man is a person and the baby isn’t, the baby has value to you, and by killing the baby the man would do damage to you. I’m not sure. I mean in some places it’s considered okay to shoot a man to protect your property. If a man tried to burn down your house (even if no one was in it), I’d think you’d be justified in shooting him to stop it.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Or it could become the next Hitler, or it would be miscarried and never live at all. What if after that day, you knew that the world would come to an end, would you still save the embryo?

Yes.

Especially if the world were coming to an end.

My entire judgment could depend on that, knowing I would see God the next day…yeah I’ll be saving the embryo created in His likeness.

 

[crazzeto]

Okay, or the man could start shooting chimps, or start systematically killing every animal in the zoo. You don’t think the cops would shoot him if that was the only way of stopping him?

I don’t even see why we’re discussing this. I guess you want to have “got me”? Okay, you got me. I don’t see what the point is, is this supposed to make me say I think the unborn are persons?

Maybe maybe not, the only reason why that person might get shot is due to the danger the gun presents to people, and the officers estimation as to how likely he is to start killing people.