Political Crossfire Forums

Obilisk18 · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 538

Selfish_Meme wrote: Obilisk18 wrote:
I am not trying to squirm around anything. Let me be clear then. If I were assured that these embryos would be implanted, and develop into an equal number of fully functioning children, and I had no way to see or relate to either the children or the embryos, my choice would be a toss-up. Please make a choice, you are being disenguous again.

Not at all. If I were to ask how who you would choose to save if there were 10 children in one room, and 10 in another, you would choose randomly. I am stating the same thing. If the factors above held, I would choose randomly because embryos, which will develop into 10 children, are as valuable to me as 10 children.

Selfish_Meme wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: But this does not pertain to my main point. I was considering how we, as individuals, assign value to human life in thought experiments such as these. And how this in no way relates to how we, as individuals again, assign rights.
I'm sorry the poll above proves you wrong, apart from someone who would rather lie than admit the truth. With a full majority there are no grounds for quibbling. Every single person would make the same decision, they would place the value of the children first. As they should, embryos are just potential which does not have the same value as actual.

No, no, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I did not vote in the poll because I do not have a choice. If there were a third option, "I have no preference", then I would have chosen that. You are free to assume I'm lying if you wish. I could really care less. Furthermore, I have never said that I consider embryos to be potential persons at all. I believe them to be actual persons, with the full rights that this entails.

Selfish_Meme wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: This thought experiment captures nothing. At best, even if one accepts your terms and chooses to save the children, you've only proven that one places a greater value on the born, not that a greater rights should be accorded to them.
I'm sorry but is not that how rights are determined, is anyone prosecuted for torturing ants or fish? Why not, they can feel pain like any other animal. What you propose is inconsistent with the way all rights are accorded.

What in the world are you talking about? We accord the highest order rights, life being chief among these, on the mere basis of personhood. It has nothing to do with something feeling pain. At what point did I bring up anything about pain?

Selfish_Meme wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: Virtually everyone on the planet is likely to place a greater value on a 8 year old girl with a loving family then a 77 year old malnutrished homeless man. Virtually everyone on the planet is likely to place a greater value on their family, then strangers they have never encountered. Your argument seems to be that these are special circumstances, where our intuitions about what or who is valuable do not coincide with our intuitions about rights. But if this thought experiment cannot succeed as a basis for assigning rights in some situations, then it cannot succeed at all. Either our valuing someone makes them more worthy of rights, or it does not. You cannot pick and choose to suit your whims.
Not that I said anything about rights, it was simply about value, however.
In most rescue situations, women and children go first, usually followed by the old and infirm, the old and infirm often have their rights circumscribed, just like children. So we have a basis for comparison that shows values, intellectual capability, and how their rights are accorded. In some cases, very old and infirm people have rights not much better than children.

Again, what is this meant to show? The right to life is never assigned unevenly to persons (as the category is currently defined). Never. Value is, on the other hand. You cannot derive an evenly distributed quality from an unevenly distributed one.

Furthermore, it doesn't follow, because many of us value children more then embryos, that the basis for this differentiation is intellectual capacity. There are all sorts of ways that embryos differ from children. Size, shape, consistency, etc. The absolute miserableness of this thought experiment continues to astound me.

Selfish_Meme wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: We assign value unevenly and arbitrarily. We do not, or should not assign higher order rights such as the right to life, in the same manner.
I think you would wish to interperet the world in a way it is not. We are predjudicial as a species, we caterogise things, people, animals, just about everything, constantly. If we didn't we would be virtually statues considering possible ramifications and values for any action. If you concede that it is we who assign the right to life, then we do it according to our natures.

We assign values to things, and we do it by their worth to us, first by our instinctual protective natures and then by their intellectual capabilities. [i]

I don't concede that we assign the right to life. I believe we've had this discussion before, but I believe it to be an intrinsic quality. I think, even if you reject that premise, the method you've presented of assigning the right to life still fails. Because, again, assignment of value is an uneven process. Even if we were to accept that our valueing individuals unevenly was morally relevant (which I think we must not), a system of laws that assigned rights on this basis would be completely unworkable and lead to a utilitarian society, where the right to life of any individual could be forfeited based on the vagaries of life.

aus blog · Joined: 17 Sep 2006 Posts: 11

DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN GET AN IMPLANT THAT IS - SAFE, 99.9% EFFECTIVE AND LASTS FOR THREE YEARS?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

A. This thought experiment never said anything about the right to life, it was simply to show that embryos and fetuses are valued differently. You may think they are the same value, good for you, I'm sorry I didn't think to put that category in. Now though I have a few ideas now about how to make the thought experiment better.

B. I never said YOU consider embryos to be potential persons, I said the they were.

C. We accord rights to things that have no concept of them, fetuses and animals. If those rights are not accorded by intellectual capacity, then why are people not prosecuted for torturing ants, or poisoning rats? Poison a rat and it dies a hideously painful death, no one cares, do it to a cat or a dog, get prosecuted. Maybe you are arguing that they look cuter? Or are worth more money? Pick your subjective judgement on their value.

D. Of course the right to life is assigned unevenly and subjectively. Ask LostSoul, he just classified no one, and especially not visitors to the US as having the right to life. The whole concept of right to life is subjective, who told you what it is and where it is assigned. Was it done scientifically?

E. Do we need a poll to consider why born children are inherently more valuable, on what basis we make that decision? I will lay money on it being traits expressed by their minds.

F. Obelisk wrote: We do not, or should not assign higher order rights such as the right to life, in the same manner.
So who assigns rights if we don't, the great goat in the sky?

G. Again, the thought experiment said nothing about the RIGHT TO LIFE.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 14789

I think the poll is silly, so I didn't vote in it. It's a ludicrous question. I don't think anyone here is ever going to be faced with this choice, and then there would probably be compelling details to consider.

In one fantasy, for example, what if all ten children had been exposed to a disease that would kill them in six months or a year or six years whereas the cannister contained the only hope for humanity's survival?

LOL, I mean, whatever. You can say that you know how you'd choose, but until you're actually in a situation, you simply don't know. It's like losing a child--you can imagine all you want, but unless you've experienced this, you do not know.

aus blog · Joined: 17 Sep 2006 Posts: 11

DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN GET AN IMPLANT THAT IS - SAFE, 99.9% EFFECTIVE AND LASTS FOR THREE YEARS?

gemma · Joined: 04 Aug 2006 Posts: 142 Location: AZ

aus blog wrote: DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN GET AN IMPLANT THAT IS - SAFE, 99.9% EFFECTIVE AND LASTS FOR THREE YEARS?

:spam:

aus blog · Joined: 17 Sep 2006 Posts: 11

Did we win?

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

aus blog wrote: Did we win?
No but I suspect you will be banned soon

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Lumina wrote: I think the poll is silly, so I didn't vote in it. It's a ludicrous question. I don't think anyone here is ever going to be faced with this choice, and then there would probably be compelling details to consider.

In one fantasy, for example, what if all ten children had been exposed to a disease that would kill them in six months or a year or six years whereas the cannister contained the only hope for humanity's survival?

LOL, I mean, whatever. You can say that you know how you'd choose, but until you're actually in a situation, you simply don't know. It's like losing a child--you can imagine all you want, but unless you've experienced this, you do not know.
Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Of course a woman can only be hypothetically pregnant, until she is, so why should we concern ourselves with abortion, it is only a hypothetical discussion.

aus blog · Joined: 17 Sep 2006 Posts: 11

NO ONE WOULD LOG ON TO THE INTERNET WITHOUT AN EFFECTIVE FIREWALL AND ANTIVIRUS, THE RISKS WOULD BE TOO GREAT.
PITY PEOPLE AREN'T AS CAUTIOUS ABOUT SEX.......

aus blog · Joined: 17 Sep 2006 Posts: 11

Gemma , are you glad your here?

Gitana · Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:06 am Post subject:

Save the children of course - who are probably standing there wondering why they are standing there, and getting very, very bored. And wanting a candy bar. :)

aus blog · Joined: 17 Sep 2006 Posts: 11

Over 3,500 per day, over 1.3 MILLION per year in the United states alone.
50 or 60 MILLION per year world wide.
Some time in the not to distant future people will look back in disbeleif and horror at many of the practices of today.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

aus blog wrote: Over 3,500 per day, over 1.3 MILLION per year in the United states alone.
50 or 60 MILLION per year world wide.
Some time in the not to distant future people will look back in disbeleif and horror at many of the practices of today.

Or, perhaps, they'll thank us for stemming the tide of overpopulation.

See, I can speculate too!

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy · Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 104 Location: Your bathroom!

LostSoul3412 wrote: aus blog wrote: Over 3,500 per day, over 1.3 MILLION per year in the United states alone.
50 or 60 MILLION per year world wide.
Some time in the not to distant future people will look back in disbeleif and horror at many of the practices of today.

Or, perhaps, they'll thank us for stemming the tide of overpopulation.

See, I can speculate too!

Oh yea! I forget that the higher aim of genocide is always 'population control'. That's the thing all cool fascists do!

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Don't facists also restrict the rights of groups of people and deprive them of liberty?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: aus blog wrote: Over 3,500 per day, over 1.3 MILLION per year in the United states alone.
50 or 60 MILLION per year world wide.
Some time in the not to distant future people will look back in disbeleif and horror at many of the practices of today.

Or, perhaps, they'll thank us for stemming the tide of overpopulation.

See, I can speculate too!

Oh yea! I forget that the higher aim of genocide is always 'population control'. That's the thing all cool fascists do!

You're a fascist.

Wow! Throwing insults and foretelling the future is a blast! Why didn't I try this sooner?

Oh yeah...

Sometimes having a brain is such a burden. :roll:

Gitana · Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject:

The thing about debate or polling is this: a proposition is put forth. There are always parameters. Either you choose to participate or not under the parameters given.

You don't join a football team and then refuse to play within the games parameters.

Jumping in just to attack the proposition isn't debate.

Obilisk18 · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 538

Gitana wrote: The thing about debate or polling is this: a proposition is put forth. There are always parameters. Either you choose to participate or not under the parameters given.

You don't join a football team and then refuse to play within the games parameters.

Jumping in just to attack the proposition isn't debate.

Debate involves the issues at hand having relevance to an actual topic. In the abortion forum, there's not much room for deviation. If his proposition doesn't relate to abortion then he's either being intentionally disingenuous, or he's misread the situation and the proposition belongs in another forum. Either way, I have a duty to call him on it.