Bourgeois pigs kill suicidal 16 year old boy.

[eppie]

Kandrathe:

If you want to use science to make your point, what is your stance on ending life of animals?
Many animals have exactly the same feelings and brain functions when babies (or fetus) and even more when adult.

Here I assume you will make a qualitative judgement where you say life of a human is worth more than that of an animal.*

So science on one end.....and a qualitative judgement based on your world view on the other hand.

So what is it?

And if you say a human life is worth more than an animal life is that statement based on religion?
Or is it based on more concern for 'your own group'.....and if that last thing holds for you is it all humankind you consider as your own group? Or only americans? And if 'no' wouldn't it be wiser to instead of stigmatizing young pregnant women who are in serious mental difficulty just go to africa and help over there. I mean women who loose their child against their will because of poverty or disease?


* I answered the question for you because I remember such a statement from you before.

[kandrathe]

The right to life is set out in the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note: your rights as a citizen start when you are born. Not when you are conceived, not when you are a viable fetus, not when your heart starts beating. You can extend the definition of personhood to include fetuses if you can muster the support to amend the constitution, but it is neither currently enshrined in the constitution, nor the product of common law.

Which takes the 14th amendment entirely out of context of its purpose which was emancipating black slaves. The children of citizens are always considered citizens, but a child born in the US is also then considered a citizen to non-citizen parents (who may choose to be naturalized). It defines citizenship, as opposed to personhood. If a Canadian visits the US, should they be afforded "Human Rights"?

The trouble with democratic society is all the other jerks who don't think like I do.

I'm a social libertarian. I am not a communitarian. I don't believe people should impose their *cultural* values on others, unless they can make the case for an *ethical* imperative.

Which is my take on it however libertarian I am, there is the issue of harms -- if we believe that issues such as determining life and death are *ethical* issues, and not *cultural* values.

I don't think there is a way to resolve this by reference to any accepted principle or empirical reality.

It is amongst the hardest of bioethics decisions.

[Jester]

Which takes the 14th amendment entirely out of context of its purpose which was emancipating black slaves.

It is the only part of the US constitution referring to a guarantee of life. If you believe this is taken out of context, then what do you mean when you talk about life being a constitutional guarantee? It's either in the 14th, or it's not in the constitution.

It defines citizenship, as opposed to personhood.

The reigning interpretation of the 14th is that fetuses are not persons. If you think that's wrong, feel free to take it to court. So far, all state courts have rejected it, and the Supremes have refused to consider the question. Since the judiciary is the final word on the constitution as it stands, that's the end of it, unless they change their minds, or someone amends the constitution.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If you want to use science to make your point, what is your stance on ending life of animals?
Many animals have exactly the same feelings and brain functions when babies (or fetus) and even more when adult.

We are omnivores, we eat plants and animals. We didn't invent meat eating. It is a wide spread phenomenon in the natural world. I don't begrudge the carnivore their instincts to kill and eat their prey, even when they occasionally eat us. I've taken my chances in the wilds with bears, and swam with sharks. It's a Popeye philosophy; I ams, what I ams. I like's me spinach, and I like's me bacon too.

I don't purposefully try to kill animals. I do eat domesticated ones occasionally (cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys). When it comes to the farming and slaughter, I want it to be humane and stress free. Our domesticated livestock only exist for the purpose of being consumed or used by people. You probably remember that I used to raise beef cattle and each fall (not without some sadness) would bring them to the slaughter house. I do find some reports from "factory" farms disturbing.

And if you say a human life is worth more than an animal life is that statement based on religion? Or is it based on more concern for 'your own group'.....and if that last thing holds for you is it all humankind you consider as your own group?

I value all species, and want to share the earth with them, and wherever possible to respect natural habitats. Are we equals? No. We clearly have some advantages over them, and also many disadvantages. There is a food chain, and we tend to be on the upper end of it (even if we need not be, it is a choice we make due to our nature). I want the entire biome to flourish and coexist, and I think we humans need to be smarter about how we affect what happens.

And if 'no' wouldn't it be wiser to instead of stigmatizing young pregnant women who are in serious mental difficulty just go to Africa and help over there. I mean women who loose their child against their will because of poverty or disease?

If I'm worried about something ethical like global warming, should I concentrate on developing China, or should I also consider the US?

Africa is a separate issue where, in your mind, we are being ineffective in helping to prevent harm. Beyond that, Africa is a big place with a myriad of problems depending on which country we are speaking about. What should we do about the Janjaweed militia who drive people from their homes? What should we do about the repressive and violent rule of Mugabe? How do you think we should bring back a sovereign government to Somalia?

[kandrathe]

It is the only part of the US constitution referring to a guarantee of life. If you believe this is taken out of context, then what do you mean when you talk about life being a constitutional guarantee? It's either in the 14th, or it's not in the constitution.

The US constitution is and was always viewed as a federal addition to States constitutions.

For example, Virginia in 1776, had; "Article I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Those things not defined federally are the responsibility of the States.

[Jester]

The US constitution is and was always viewed as a federal addition to States constitutions.

Not since Grant accepted Lee's sword.

Those things not defined federally are the responsibility of the States.

Except that Roe vs. Wade is federal, supported by due process, and if you want to tangle with abortion rights, you have to tangle with the 14th...

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Not since Grant accepted Lee's sword.

I think that is a mis-perception. The civil war amendments did not change the 10th amendment. It's weakness is in the elastic interpretation of the "Necessary and Proper" clause and not due to the civil war.

Those things not defined federally are the responsibility of the States.

Except that Roe vs. Wade is federal, supported by due process, and if you want to tangle with abortion rights, you have to tangle with the 14th...

It would be Roe, and Doe that would need to be overturned., and just a reinterpretation on the 14th amendment, but due to stare decisis it is somewhat improbable unless the court were stacked with more Catholics.

[Occhidiangela]

Kandrathe:

If you want to use science to make your point, what is your stance on ending life of animals?
M

That's called getting dinner. If you have a problem with eating, your attitude is not pro survival.

[Jester]

I think that is a mis-perception. The civil war amendments did not change the 10th amendment. It's weakness is in the elastic interpretation of the "Necessary and Proper" clause and not due to the civil war.

Of course it didn't change the 10th. It introduced the 14th. Much more powerful, especially given that the interpretation of the 10th you are proposing is federalist fantasy, not existing jurisprudence. States' rights advocates invoke it whenever they want to feel mighty, but nobody's ever managed to get it to support so much as a coffee table, let a lone a major piece of legislation.

It would be Roe, and Doe that would need to be overturned., and just a reinterpretation on the 14th amendment, but due to stare decisis it is somewhat improbable unless the court were stacked with more Catholics.

Yeah. It's pretty much just Scalia up there all alone, isn't it?

Oh, well, and Alito. Of course.

And Thomas.

And Kennedy. Can't forget Kennedy.

And Sotomayor, naturally.

Oh, and Roberts. That whole chief justice deal.

Actually, come to think of it, that makes the court 2/3 Catholic. How many more exactly do they need?

-Jester

[eppie]

Kandrathe:

If you want to use science to make your point, what is your stance on ending life of animals?
M

That's called getting dinner. If you have a problem with eating, your attitude is not pro survival.

Well I guess you don't eat humans....so somewhere you make a choice right?

[Occhidiangela]

eppie, your usage of the word "right" is meaningless.

In a survival situation, you eat what you must or you die. Check out Chilean rugby players, if you doubt me. What you don't do is preemptively declare "I would never eat that" and then face that choice.

Unless you are all about non-advantageous survival strategies.

But as usual, you miss the essence of the point, so I'll not waste any more time on you this evening.

Bon appetito

PS: calling a human an animal is usually perceived at the receiving end as an insult.

Think about that before you attempt to form a reply.

[eppie]

eppie, your usage of the word "right" is meaningless.

In a survival situation, you eat what you must or you die. Check out Chilean rugby players, if you doubt me. What you don't do is preemptively declare "I would never eat that" and then face that choice.

Unless you are all about non-advantageous survival strategies.

But as usual, you miss the essence of the point, so I'll not waste any more time on you this evening.

Bon appetito

PS: calling a human an animal is usually perceived at the receiving end as an insult.

Think about that before you attempt to form a reply.

Even though it sounds like bon it is written with a 'u'.

My point to kandrathe was that if you try and use science in an argument against abortion (which still seems strange coming from the religious science hating anti-abortion crowd) you need to keep your whole reasoning so objective and scientific. So when you start about heartbeats and neural functions, the same would for sure apply for animals.....so don't then make a subjective choice of regarding humans above animals.

Of course I understand that you will make that subjective choice, but please ditch the scientific talk.



on your ps. What do I have to do with such a statement. I as a natural scientist know a human is an animal.


By the way I am still thinking (as you suggested) what your example of the chilean football team has to do with anything.


By the way; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

sad example from one of the extremist european countries.

[kandrathe]

My point to kandrathe was that if you try and use science in an argument against abortion (which still seems strange coming from the religious science hating anti-abortion crowd) you need to keep your whole reasoning so objective and scientific.

Ah. Well, you are wrong. My supposition is entirely from the responsibility of human rights, justice and the law in a secular society. The sticky points are where we allow by law, some harm to occur (e.g. eminent domain). In this case, feticide, and what is justifiable.

So when you start about heartbeats and neural functions, the same would for sure apply for animals.....so don't then make a subjective choice of regarding humans above animals.

To preserve some semblance of natural harmony we need to understand human, or bear for that matter within the natural order. Would you permit a wolf to kill? It is in the natural order. Humans kill animals for the same reason, albeit we've drifted far from nature. Our diet has contained meat for aeon, and through farming, we've found a way for that meat eating tradition to continue.

But, I think you stray from your argument when you conflate it with eating meat. A better moral comparison would be the millions of unwanted pets that are exterminated at animal shelters when owners cannot manage their pet, or irresponsibly allow them to breed refusing to have their pets spayed or neutered. I also think this lack of prior planning is wrong. http://www.nokilldeclaration.org/

[Occhidiangela]

Even though it sounds like bon it is written with a 'u'.

Sure, I mix my French and Italian. Both are horrid.

on your ps. What do I have to do with such a statement. I as a natural scientist know a human is an animal.

I guess you may be a bit young to have heard of the reported cannibalism after a plane crash in the Andes.

I also note that you continue to miss the point about casually referring to humans as animals. This is a matter of meaning, rather than your attempt to be clinical. We are a higher order of organism, thanks to our gift of higher brain function, by orders of magnitude. It is a significant distinction. It is the crucial difference. Please note, that when you refer to someone ( a person ) as having animal intelligence, you are being insulting. The reductionism about "well, we are just animals" is crap, see the brain function issue above. It is a critical distinction.

There are food animals, there are predators, and there are some that fill both rolls. (Humans, for example).
Sometimes, you kill animals for dinner.
Sometimes, you kill them because they are trying to eat your dinner.
And sometimes, you kill them because they are a public health hazard. (Rabid dogs, one example. Rats. )

[eppie]

Even though it sounds like bon it is written with a 'u'.

Sure, I mix my French and Italian. Both are horrid.

on your ps. What do I have to do with such a statement. I as a natural scientist know a human is an animal.

I guess you may be a bit young to have heard of the reported cannibalism after a plane crash in the Andes.

No I have heard about it. That is why I commented on it. I just don't see what it has to do with the things I said previously.

Please stop saying I don't understand, I think you don't et the point. At least you are reacting on completely different things than those that I discussed.

Of course I understand that you can insult people with animal names, or saying that they have animal intelligence.
Also; the question is not about eating meat and if that is good or bad (I at least don't feel like discussing that here).

I also understand that humans are in many ways superior to other animals, but there is biologically very little difference. I am waiting for some experiment where they send some human babies to live with the chimps, and some chimp babies to live with a human family. You will see there will be less difference than you thought......you probably can even teach them to go to church.

[kandrathe]

...you probably can even teach them to go to church.

[attachment=155]