Bourgeois pigs kill suicidal 16 year old boy.

[DeeBye]

So if Jester and Shadow want to keep side-stepping my objections by pretending that "birthing" is the only true meaning of being alive.... well then I think they are sadly mistaken

I don't think they are saying that the physical act of being "birthed" makes one alive - they are saying that once a fetus is physically able to survive outside the womb they can be defined as a person.

edit: as an aside, have you watched the movie Gattaga? I think you might find it interesting.

[FireIceTalon]

I really hope none of this pseudo-science eugenics crap comes to pass. Genetically engineered people - the child being human whether they are born or not is beside the point. Seriously, anyone who advocates this, is fucked in the head. This has Nazism written all over it.

[eppie]

I understand the reticence of pro-abortion folks to not attempt to hold the line at the birth event, but it truly makes no sense scientifically. The process is a continuum, where it starts as cells and ends up a child. At some tipping point depending on your definition of what a child is, it gets civil rights. I don't believe it's day one, but it surely isn't the day of birth either.

Brilliant! Pro-lifers who use science to prove a point.

The pro life stance does not have anything to do with science, it has to do with wanting to tell other people what to do.
These Christians in different stages of history have had problems with a lot of things....problems they would kille and maim for:
(being, gay, jewish, black, communist, scientist, person who thinks the earth is not flat, person who don't believe the earth revolves around the sun etc, etc, etc.).

It has NOTHING to do with science, and nothing with protecting life.
The ones that protest abortion are the same who applaud bombings of pakistani wedding parties because someone told them their might have been a friend of a terrorist present.
Let them go to Africa and help people there if they are so worried about ending lives.

[kandrathe]

It has NOTHING to do with science, and nothing with protecting life.

Science is science. It defines organism, mammal, gestation, etc. It is because of science that we have the ability to examine the development of the fetus. What is the definition of a living organism. Apply that.

The ones that protest abortion are the same who applaud bombings of Pakistani wedding parties because someone told them their might have been a friend of a terrorist present.

This is a bigoted statement unfounded in facts.

[Jester]

I really hope none of this pseudo-science eugenics crap comes to pass. Genetically engineered people - the child being human whether they are born or not is beside the point. Seriously, anyone who advocates this, is fucked in the head. This has Nazism written all over it.

I don't understand how you reconcile this position with being okay with aborting a fetus who would have Down syndrome. If it's okay to do eugenics in some cases, why not others? You say it's "doing them a favour," but of course, this is the argument for all eugenics, and all transhumanism.

-Jester

---

When will the first child be grown in a lab? Perhaps for their organs? Do you honestly believe we will be able to grow organs separately from the body in a few years time? With the laws for this type of stuff slowly fading into obscurity, I wonder when the rich will have clones nurtured for their organs. Morality stopping us you say?

I'm okay with organ cloning. There's no point in creating an actual human being for that. It's a waste - just grow the organs directly.

Not if the letter of the law says a child isn't "human" unless they are "born". There are ways around that as I just proved. So if Jester and Shadow want to keep side-stepping my objections by pretending that "birthing" is the only true meaning of being alive.... well then I think they are sadly mistaken, and not from any misguided biblical standpoint, but from a scientific one: Opinion Piece, and Scientific Fact.

To be clear, and I think I was before as well, being "alive" is not he same as being "human," and not being "human" does not mean that there are no applicable rights. A sperm or ovum is, in every meaningful sense, alive, and is certainly human. But nobody sane suggests we enforce that as murder. And a dog is not a human, but it still has rights, albeit quite restricted ones.

Ironically, this proves my point even further. The baby is alive and conscious before birth, but being in a more stimulating environment is required for learning and mental growth.

And the baby is alive before it is conscious. And a fertilized egg is alive before it becomes a baby. And sperm and ova are alive before they become fertilized eggs. "Alive" is not the question.

-Jester

[Jester]

Science is science. It defines organism, mammal, gestation, etc. It is because of science that we have the ability to examine the development of the fetus. What is the definition of a living organism. Apply that.

No. Science is not a definitions game. Science is about developing theories that explain empirical reality, and testing them against the evidence. Science does not "define" things except for explanatory convenience. There was a time when we "defined" the atom as the smallest possible unit of matter ... until we discovered smaller, at which point we threw away that definition, because it didn't match reality.

What you are suggesting is not the scientific method. It is an appeal to authority. There is no definition of a living organism that transcends our epistemology, and somehow matters to the self-organizing chemicals of the world.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What you are suggesting is not the scientific method. It is an appeal to authority. There is no definition of a living organism that transcends our epistemology, and somehow matters to the self-organizing chemicals of the world.

It is an appeal to logic. How is it an appeal to authority? We define things based on our understanding. Aren't we correct in relying on our understanding afforded by the study of human biology?

Must we define what living means? http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/t...lp_living/ Is the pre-born child ready to be born a living human, or not?

[Jester]

]It is an appeal to logic. How is it an appeal to authority? We define things based on our understanding. Aren't we correct in relying on our understanding afforded by the study of human biology?

What understanding is this? Is there some piece of developmental biology that has legal consequences? There is no objective "scientific definition" of when "life" begins, let alone when "human" life begins, let alone when "rights" begin. We assign these things according to our values. They have no objective scientific merit.

Must we define what living means? http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/t...lp_living/ Is the pre-born child ready to be born a living human, or not?

This is great for grade 2, when students need simple, grokkable concepts to help them organize the world. It is useless for the philosophy of science, and determining which of our beliefs are empirical science, and which is simply the language we use to describe it.

Our understanding does not emerge from our definitions. Our definitions are arbitrary-but-perhaps-useful signposts we use to organize information, nothing more or less than a filing system for facts.

We can use logic to puzzle out the implications of our assumptions, which may involve our definitions. But these are mental games, tautologies rather than science. (Which is not to say they are not incredibly useful sometimes. But not here.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What understanding is this? Is there some piece of developmental biology that has legal consequences? There is no objective "scientific definition" of when "life" begins, let alone when "human" life begins, let alone when "rights" begin. We assign these things according to our values. They have no objective scientific merit.

By the same logic; there is no reason to prosecute any crime against a mass of chemicals we call human that may or may not be living.

We either have a way of defining harm against animals, or against people, or we do not? Which is it?

[Jester]

By the same logic; there is no reason to prosecute any crime against a mass of chemicals we call human that may or may not be living.

There is no scientifically objective reason, no. Were you expecting to find the Code of Hammurabi written in our DNA? Values are values, and biology is biology. Trying to justify the one in terms of the other is fruitless.

We either have a way of defining harm against animals, or against people, or we do not? Which is it?

This seems to mean "either we have a grand unified system of science and ethics, in which all values can be reduced to their scientific components, and all science justified in terms of our values, or we don't." We make do with what we've got. Science isn't very messy, but it doesn't imply any particular values. Values are messy, but we can't ask science to tell us right from wrong.

I think that we owe ethical treatment to anything which can feel pain. Unnecessary cruelty to animals should be a criminal offense, but killing animals per se is not murder. Killing a fetus is not murder, but if you violate a mother's body, you violate her rights, which is serious assault, or even attempted murder, given the possible consequences. I think we owe human rights to anyone who has been born. I can't reduce these positions to science, because they aren't science.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I think that we owe ethical treatment to anything which can feel pain. Unnecessary cruelty to animals should be a criminal offense, but killing animals per se is not murder. Killing a fetus is not murder, but if you violate a mother's body, you violate her rights, which is serious assault, or even attempted murder, given the possible consequences. I think we owe human rights to anyone who has been born. I can't reduce these positions to science, because they aren't science.

I'm not basing the code of law on the laws of science. Science informs us of the truth of our observed reality. We base our laws, and our ethics on what we know to be true. The science of human biology informs us of what we know about human gestation. These are observable facts. Science informs us on the difference between living, and not living. Science informs us on what is human, and what is not human.

You don't see the disconnect in that a human, hours before delivery feels pain, but doesn't have the same protections you feel are afforded to animals in general. So no, it's not that I seem to be saying... We in fact have a way of defining harm against animals, or against people, or we do not? Can you tell me the difference between living or not living? Can you tell me the difference between human and not human? What is the difference between this pre-birth baby a few hours before delivery, and the post-birth baby a few hours after delivery? Does it's position outside a womb really afford it humanity? When you say that it's not a human hours before delivery, it is contrary to my scientific, and logical mind.

[Jester]

I'm not basing the code of law on the laws of science. Science informs us of the truth of our observed reality. We base our laws, and our ethics on what we know to be true. The science of human biology informs us of what we know about human gestation. These are observable facts. Science informs us on the difference between living, and not living. Science informs us on what is human, and what is not human.

Science can answer specific, empirical questions. It can return an answer for any given definition of "human." But it cannot define "human."
We decide that. It does not tell us if a fetus at 8 months is human, or 4 months, or 1 month, or at the moment of conception. It doesn't tell us whether sperm and ova are human.

We can test for various things. Does it have DNA? Yes, but then, so do your skin cells. Does it react to stimuli? Yes, but so do sperm. Can it feel pain? Maybe, to varying degrees, but at what point does that matter, and at what point, not? Science can't answer these questions. Those are value judgements.

You don't see the disconnect in that a human, hours before delivery feels pain, but doesn't have the same protections you feel are afforded to animals in general.

I'm saying a fetus before delivery does have rights and protections, analogous to (though obviously not identical with) those we afford to animals. You cannot kill a fetus without the consent of the mother. You cannot harm it unnecessarily. You cannot be cruel to it. But it is not a citizen. A late-term abortion is not murder, in exactly the same sense that putting down a pet is not murder. That it is alive and feels pain does not mean it has full human rights. Those, I say, begin at birth - which, I might emphasize again, is NOT a conclusion emerging from science, but a value judgement.

We in fact have a way of defining harm against animals, or against people, or we do not? Can you tell me the difference between living or not living? Can you tell me the difference between human and not human?

Not without definitions for those things, and those definitions are value-laden. Nothing wrong with values, but they are inputs into science, not outputs from science.

What is the difference between this pre-birth baby a few hours before delivery, and the post-birth baby a few hours after delivery?

Birth.

Does it's position outside a womb really afford it humanity? When you say that it's not a human hours before delivery, it is contrary to my scientific, and logical mind.

Then there's something wrong with your scientific and logical mind, because those definitions are arbitrary. Logic can take you from your assumptions and definitions to valid conclusions, but it cannot determine your assumptions or your definitions. Science can test empirical claims, but it cannot determine what those claims are or should be. You can stick up for your definitions and values if you like, but they are not independently justified by science.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

I don't understand how you reconcile this position with being okay with aborting a fetus who would have Down syndrome. If it's okay to do eugenics in some cases, why not others? You say it's "doing them a favour," but of course, this is the argument for all eugenics, and all transhumanism.

-Jester

Aborting a down-syndrome baby simply falls into the fact that I am pro-choice and believe that no one can tell a woman what to do with her body. Abortion being a form of eugenics is very hotly debated, but I fall into the camp that says that it isn't. I know you are emphasizing motive here (Down Syndrome), but at the end of the day this comes down to the mothers rights to choose. I think many people with Down Syndrome are prone to have a much harder life than someone who doesn't, but I or anyone else is in no position to make that judgement if they should be aborted or not - that is the mothers call and hers only. For many working class or single poor mothers, aborting a Down Syndrome fetus may also be a preferable choice for economic reasons, as many of these children might have additional expenses (such as therapy or special programs for disabled children to help them in life better - many of these can be very costly). Uff, that last statement sounds horrible, because now it probably seems like I am putting a price on someone's life, but that isn't my intention. I believe full rights and equality for disabled people (once they are born), and it is heart breaking to me that in some situations a mother will be forced with such a decision - aborting a child they may possibly still want but facing potential economic and financial ruin if they dont (and this goes for disabled or non-disabled fetuses). Either way, it is the mothers decision, but I don't think she should be scrutinized for motive either, whatever her decision is.

But genetically engineered humans and designer babies is a completely different thing altogether - It opens up possibilities for all kinds of abuse, and in general I just see much more bad coming out of it then good - the scientific, social, and political consequences are potentially disastrous, and once that box is open, there is no closing it. I never have nor ever will be in favor of eugenics.

[Jester]

Aborting a down-syndrome baby simply falls into the fact that I am pro-choice and believe that no one can tell a woman what to do with her body. Abortion being a form of eugenics is very hotly debated, but I fall into the camp that says that it isn't. I know you are emphasizing motive here (Down Syndrome), but at the end of the day this comes down to the mothers rights to choose. I think many people with Down Syndrome are prone to have a much harder life than someone who doesn't, but I or anyone else is in no position to make that judgement if they should be aborted or not - that is the mothers call and hers only.

Okay. So why isn't it the mother's right to choose if their child has blue eyes and blonde hair? Or, for that matter, six eyes, wings, and solar panels? If it's entirely up to the mother, then what right do the rest of us have to tell her she can't modify the genetics of her fetus?

And if you're going to say "because that's a Pandora's box," then by what right to mothers have the right to abort fetuses with Down Syndrome? That's the same Pandora's box.

-Jester

[Taem]

First, I should clarify my stance on this issue before I commence. I'm not arguing from an "anti-abortion" point of view, but strictly from a dissemination of your statement point of view. I'm actually completely pro-choice and don't feel there should be any restrictions on when a woman want's to abort. I'm also pro-stem cell research and even cloning. I'm also pro-doctor assisted suicide. I believe Einsteins theory of energy that energy cannot be destroyed, but is converted, thus we can never truly die, but are reborn, not that one life to live crap the bible teaches; because of my views, I'm not afraid of death and I don't think life's morality should be thrown around with such heavy weight, i.e. doctor-assisted suicides and abortions. Of course, I feel, like you Jester, that once born, the right to abort is gone, and while alive, I do feel we should all have our own freedoms once we reach independence from our parents. Having said all that, I should not that my argument is not against you Jester, but against what your statement represents and how it can be misappropriated:

We are not "alive" until we are "born"

I still feel in cases where a parent intentionally has another child to give their ailing child their newborns organs, giving that newborn a possibly crappier life or even chance of death, has not been adequately touched on by you, and hence this line of logic could be used against your statement.

As well as the theory of human cloning, although I think you and Kath are correct that organ growing will probably supplant any possible cloning efforts in the near future. Nonetheless, it's an argument on semantics that breeches your concept of being alive when your clone is grown in a tube. Abuse absconds morality (in theory). This is what I was arguing and why I feel your statement does not stand up to my points of criticism.

[Jester]

Having said all that, I should not that my argument is not against you Jester, but against what your statement represents and how it can be misappropriated:

We are not "alive" until we are "born"

I still feel in cases where a parent intentionally has another child to give their ailing child their newborns organs, giving that newborn a possibly crappier life or even chance of death, has not been adequately touched on by you, and hence this line of logic could be used against your statement.

As well as the theory of human cloning, although I think you and Kath are correct that organ growing will probably supplant any possible cloning efforts in the near future. Nonetheless, it's an argument on semantics that breeches your concept of being alive when your clone is grown in a tube. Abuse absconds morality (in theory). This is what I was arguing and why I feel your statement does not stand up to my points of criticism.

I'm sorry, are you arguing against me? Or arguing against some misappropriation of what I'm saying that directly contradicts what I've actually said? You seem to be saying both...

To be abundantly clear: to be ALIVE is not the same as to have HUMAN RIGHTS. To be BORN is not the same as to be ALIVE. If anyone is paraphrasing me that way, then they've got my argument wrong, and I couldn't care less what their interpretation implies.

I don't believe that using yourself as an incubator to grow a fetus to save an existing child is wrong, no, although the impracticality of it boggles the mind. Nor do I believe that using a lab to do so is automatically wrong. One could, however, legislate against such things without requiring any change of stance on abortion.

-Jester

[Taem]

Clearly, we share the same beliefs so no, I am not arguing against you personally because I agree with you. I was simply playing devil's advocate against this statement:

to be ALIVE is not the same as to have HUMAN RIGHTS. To be BORN is not the same as to be ALIVE. If anyone is paraphrasing me that way, then they've got my argument wrong, and I couldn't care less what their interpretation implies.

Sorry if you feel I misappropriated your words. I guess the reason it came to mind in the first place was not because of anti/pro abortion arguments, but pondering that declaration and thinking of how absurd it would seem if that were in fact law and creatures grown in a lab had no rights, but in reality, this will never happen among humans, so it's a null and void argument. Really, it was just a fanciful tangent. Thank you for allowing me to pursue your knowledge and opinion, and sorry if I agitated you. Nothing more to add. Peace out.

[FireIceTalon]

Aborting a down-syndrome baby simply falls into the fact that I am pro-choice and believe that no one can tell a woman what to do with her body. Abortion being a form of eugenics is very hotly debated, but I fall into the camp that says that it isn't. I know you are emphasizing motive here (Down Syndrome), but at the end of the day this comes down to the mothers rights to choose. I think many people with Down Syndrome are prone to have a much harder life than someone who doesn't, but I or anyone else is in no position to make that judgement if they should be aborted or not - that is the mothers call and hers only.

Okay. So why isn't it the mother's right to choose if their child has blue eyes and blonde hair? Or, for that matter, six eyes, wings, and solar panels? If it's entirely up to the mother, then what right do the rest of us have to tell her she can't modify the genetics of her fetus?

And if you're going to say "because that's a Pandora's box," then by what right to mothers have the right to abort fetuses with Down Syndrome? That's the same Pandora's box.

-Jester

Aborting a fetus, Down Syndrome or not, does not have social consequences - only circumstantial and personal ones within the individual situation. This has nothing to do with freedom, just like being pro Life has nothing to do with freedom or rights for the child. Milton Friedman was a capitalist propagandist that framed individual freedom as some "choice" of a lifestyle that was sold to us wrapped in nice fancy words and catch phrases as our own enslavement. Anyways...

Designer babies is nothing more than Nazi eugenics wrapped in a 21st century bourgeois package. Firstly, only the wealthy will be able to afford it, and thus it is just a new twist on some concept of the creation of a 'master race' but with more of a class foundation to it. A new genetically advanced political class, with a genetically inferior class created to be their slaves, so the door swings both ways - I can see it coming already if this ever becomes a norm. This can easily also be used in a 'social darwinian' context to create a gene pool that gradually weeds out other 'undesirables' in society. If we found a gene in people that leads to homosexuality, are we going to eliminate that gene to prevent the child from being gay or lesbian, just because we don't like it? And repeat the process until the entire population is a reflection of the ruling classes idea of what a 'perfect person' is? Pretty fucked up if you ask me. The same applies to hair, skin, eye color. It has fascism, racism, sexism, and discrimination in general written all over it.

Secondly, the above problems aside, the whole concept is dripping with egoism, the desire to control, and shallowness. One of the most interesting things about us is that our genes are so random and it is what makes a diverse gene pool. This isn't about personal preference of hair, skin, or eye color, or trying to weed out undesirable personality traits, this is about creating a friggin robot that has YOUR desired phenotype and personality. The whole idea is selfish at best, completely narcissistic and shallow at worst. In general, I find the whole thing repulsive.

Lastly, without considering the above social and ethical repercussions, there are lots of significant genetic risks involved. Undesirable, permanent side effects, including disease are very possible, and many genes have very important connections to others and the environment. Even the best scientists cannot possibly predict the paramount negative outcomes that may occur as a result of tampering with our complex genetic code. This is just a way for people to try and "play god", and it is a very dangerous and risky idea at best when humans are involved; a very bad idea at worst.

This and abortion (for disabled fetuses or otherwise) are not the same Pandora's box, they aren't even in the same ballpark. Even though I disagree with you politically most of the time, I am very surprised that you of all people here support this crud, and don't see the dangers in it - unless you are just playing Devil's advocate (which I hope you are). I do not see how any reasonable person that doesn't wear a swastika sign can advocate this. Defending capitalism is one thing, but this isn't tenable.

[eppie]

Anyway, the most important thing that is never mentioned by the pro-lifers is that people don't just 'have an abortion for fun'.

An abortion is always a thing which has a heavy psychological impact on a family and especially on a mother.

Legal abortion doesn't mean that everyone is now going to have 2 a year. The only thing it does is to at least remove the fear of imprisonment when a family needs to make one of the hardest decisions in their life.

Kandrathe the vision about abortion of these pro lifers is not based on science, it is based a a world view in which the man is the boss over the woman.

[Jester]

This and abortion (for disabled fetuses or otherwise) are not the same Pandora's box, they aren't even in the same ballpark. Even though I disagree with you politically most of the time, I am very surprised that you of all people here support this crud, and don't see the dangers in it - unless you are just playing Devil's advocate (which I hope you are). I do not see how any reasonable person that doesn't wear a swastika sign can advocate this. Defending capitalism is one thing, but this isn't tenable.

I do not oppose people dying their hair. So why should I oppose them changing their hair colour genetically? I believe in giving people robotic limbs or organs in replacement for ones damaged by disease or genetic disorders, so why should I not support the use of biotechnology to solve those problems? I believe we should provide special education for children with disabilities, so why not fix those disabilities in the first place? The immediate future of genetic engineering is not in creating some science fiction dystopia, but in making some first steps towards solving genetic disorders.

The wealthy always have better access to goods and services, since that's the definition of wealth. But if you want to improve the lot of everyone, you have to develop scientific knowledge and technological applications, and then roll them out as we understand them and they become cheaper. In the 1910s, motorcars were only for the incredibly wealthy. In the 1950s, a television set was a major purchase. In the 1980s, a cellular phone meant you were a high-flying executive. Hell, in 1500, SUGAR was only for the upper classes. Everything is for the rich, until it isn't.

Your own argument has implications about "weeding out the undesirables." A child with Down Syndrome is aborted because they are undesirable. Because they put a severe burden on the parents, or on whomever must raise the child. It puts a burden on the state, to provide support for the child through schooling. To never have such a person born is socially convenient. It leads down exactly the same roads as genetic engineering (strictly speaking, it IS genetic engineering). But you're okay with that, so why not other things?

I do not think we should regulate against egoism, selfishness, or shallowness. I do not think we should regulate against things because I find them repulsive. To do so would be reactionary and oppressive, imposing my personal preferences on society's laws. I strongly oppose this.

-Jester