Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: loco on September 30, 2008, 10:41:23 AM
-
Where is our world headed? This goes beyond abortion. I believe in freedom of speech, but this guy, professor Peter Singer, is teaching our future leaders at Princeton University. He is a professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton. Look at what he is saying:
''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''
''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''
"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260
http://www.utilitarian.guy/by/1993----.htm
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
-
Where is our world headed? This goes beyond abortion. I believe in freedom of speech, but this guy, professor Peter Singer, is teaching our future leaders at Princeton University. He is a professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton. Look at what he is saying:
''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''
''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''
"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."
WOW.
And he's on the chairman fo the ethics department?
Princeton should make him resign.
This goes right up their with what some accuse of religion of.
-
did you guys ever take ethics in college, ethics can be looked at from multiple angles and his view points fall in line with some...I bet his classes are interesting as shit and have some crazy debates in them i would love to take his class. I can actually see this statement
"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."
coming true although maybe not in the next 35 yrs but at somepoint down the road with demographic trends heading down the road they are on.
-
did you guys ever take ethics in college, ethics can be looked at from multiple angles and his view points fall in line with some...I bet his classes are interesting as shit and have some crazy debates in them i would love to take his class. I can actually see this statementcoming true although maybe not in the next 35 yrs but at somepoint down the road with demographic trends heading down the road they are on.
I'd hate to be disabled in 35 years. I'd have to hide from society to keep my life.
-
I'd hate to be disabled in 35 years. I'd have to hide from society to keep my life.
LOL i was referring more to life in general probably birth control and abortion, if the worlds demographics go the way they are going then life will begin to lose its value due to the competition for resources and when resources hit a limit it could become cut throat and the value on human life especially the life of an unborn child who will have to be cared for and not contribute for many years could be looked at as a disadvantage.
-
Where is our world headed? This goes beyond abortion. I believe in freedom of speech, but this guy, professor Peter Singer, is teaching our future leaders at Princeton University. He is a professor of ethics and the Chairman of the Ethics Department at Princeton. Look at what he is saying:
''I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being,''
''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person.''
"we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C04E2D91530F930A25753C1A96F958260
http://www.utilitarian.guy/by/1993----.htm
American economist Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position.
http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html
Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote to organizers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp
Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, strongly criticized Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organization's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.
http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/convent/banque01.htm
:o Chair of the ethics department?? They need to take his teacher card away immediately.
-
:o Chair of the ethics department?? They need to take his teacher card away immediately.
LOL OMG again did you ppl take ethics in college? just b/c something seems wrong to you doesnt mean its universally wrong. Ethics is LOGIC not morals from the bible, morals derived from LOGIC. You ppl need to go take a ethics class it might open your minds to some stuff
-
LOL OMG again did you ppl take ethics in college? just b/c something seems wrong to you doesnt mean its universally wrong. Ethics is LOGIC not morals from the bible, morals derived from LOGIC. You ppl need to go take a ethics class it might open your minds to some stuff
I took ethics in college over 10 years ago, but I never heard stuff like this in that class. The only time I heard stuff like this was in world history, Nazism.
If professor Singer's ideas are harmless, then why did Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position?
Why did Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal so strongly criticize him?
Why did Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, so strongly criticize Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty?
-
I took ethics in college over 10 years ago, but I never heard stuff like this in that class. The only time I heard stuff like this was in world history, Nazism.
If professor Singer's ideas are harmless, then why did Steve Forbes ceased his donations to Princeton University in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to an honorable position?
Why did Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal so strongly criticize him?
Why did Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, the leading organization for blind people in the United States, so strongly criticize Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty?
well you they must have not taught the course the same as they do these days. My ethics professor didnt teach things like this but you can see how some of the views and theories in ethics could lead to this type of thinking. I never said his ideas where harmless especially in a world where ethics are derived from religion his ideas are certainly going to offend some ppl but that doesnt mean he is wrong look at it from a non religious stand point and maybe you will get an idea of what i mean...
You disagree with abortion but why? more than likely b/c you are religious and the bible say you should not "murder" and this is fine for you as an individual to believe and to subscribe to but what gives you the right to tell a non religious person that they dont have the right to have an abortion?
-
Tony,
How could you insinuate a man in his position that makes comments like that as harmless?
-
well you they must have not taught the course the same as they do these days. My ethics professor didnt teach things like this but you can see how some of the views and theories in ethics could lead to this type of thinking. I never said his ideas where harmless especially in a world where ethics are derived from religion his ideas are certainly going to offend some ppl but that doesnt mean he is wrong look at it from a non religious stand point and maybe you will get an idea of what i mean...
You disagree with abortion but why? more than likely b/c you are religious and the bible say you should not "murder" and this is fine for you as an individual to believe and to subscribe to but what gives you the right to tell a non religious person that they dont have the right to have an abortion?
I don't want this to turn into another abortion thread. Professor Singer is not talking about unborn babies alone. He is talking about born infants, people with disabilities, cripples, elderly people with Alzheimer's decease, etc. Pretty much all the stuff we already saw the Nazis do during WWII. Someone teaching these ideas, in his position, is very dangerous.
-
LOL OMG again did you ppl take ethics in college? just b/c something seems wrong to you doesnt mean its universally wrong. Ethics is LOGIC not morals from the bible, morals derived from LOGIC. You ppl need to go take a ethics class it might open your minds to some stuff
I completely disagree. Ethics is about logic, common sense, the law, morality, black, white, and gray.
If this guy believes ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person'' he should not be teaching kids about ethics. I'm astounded that someone with that belief heads an ethics department at a reputable school. Unbelievable.
-
Tony,
How could you insinuate a man in his position that makes comments like that as harmless?\
Never said he was harmless but then again being anti abortion could be looked at as being harmful, everything in this world could be...Ever heard the idea that there is no selfless act, LOL hey i learned about this theory in guess what ETHICS CLASS!!!!!!! Just depends on your point of view much like the statements of this man.
-
I completely disagree. Ethics is about logic, common sense, the law, morality, black, white, and gray.
If this guy believes ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person'' he should not be teaching kids about ethics. I'm astounded that someone with that belief heads an ethics department at a reputable school. Unbelievable.
Again beach you have to understand the point in which he is coming from, if you step on an acorn is it the same as cutting down a full grown tree? You should look up "A defense of abortion" i forget who its by some lady but i read it in my ethics class and it brings up good points. Yes beach ethics is about all those things but what you are ignoring is that different ppl have a different idea of these things. Canabalism would be considered wrong by the many ppl but does that make it wrong, NO it makes it wrong to you but universally whos to say its wrong or right? Again most ppl base their opinions off of Religon but what gives you the right to impose your religious beliefs on non religious ppl?
-
I don't want this to turn into another abortion thread. Professor Singer is not talking about unborn babies alone. He is talking about born infants, people with disabilities, cripples, elderly people with Alzheimer's decease, etc. Pretty much all the stuff we already saw the Nazis do during WWII. Someone teaching these ideas, in his position, is very dangerous.
sorry didnt see this post before i mentioned the abortion thing
-
Again beach you have to understand the point in which he is coming from, if you step on an acorn is it the same as cutting down a full grown tree? You should look up "A defense of abortion" i forget who its by some lady but i read it in my ethics class and it brings up good points. Yes beach ethics is about all those things but what you are ignoring is that different ppl have a different idea of these things. Canabalism would be considered wrong by the many ppl but does that make it wrong, NO it makes it wrong to you but universally whos to say its wrong or right? Again most ppl base their opinions off of Religon but what gives you the right to impose your religious beliefs on non religious ppl?
Tony a baby isn't a plant. There really isn't any similarity between stepping on an acorn and killing a baby.
Yes we all have different ideas, but there are some ideas that make their way into our books, become the law of the land, form part of our overall human decency, and are universally wrong. It is fine to discuss differing viewpoints, but there are some things that are simply wrong. Murder is wrong. Abusing a child is wrong. Killing disabled children is wrong. It really doesn't matter if some people engage in this behavior. Look at that Jeffs pedophile. The fact he raped young girls and has a following who advocate and practice the rape of young girls doesn't legitimize his behavior.
I didn't say anything about religion. Some of our societal views on ethics are grounded on religion and some are not. The "right" to impose views on people, regardless of where those views originated, comes from the voting process. We put people in office and give them the authority to pass laws and we either follow those laws, break them and suffer the consequences, or change them.
-
sorry didnt see this post before i mentioned the abortion thing
No problem! ;D
-
i dont necessarily think that Singer is that malicious of a guy. i think what hes doing is exploring the direction we're headed with regards to our world's changing view on the sanctity of a human life. he is exploring how we as a planet deal with ethical guidelines and how we stretch them as far as we can. i think he knows that we are becoming a planet that can rationalize any behavior. hes a smart man. he knows that these horrible acts that he speaks of, given enough time, will be looked upon as something else completely. i dont want to make this an abortion debate but just look at roe v wade as an example. the law was put into place so we could help women who had been forcibly impregnated through rape or incest. seems like a good law. who could really have a problem with it? Now that same law allows about 2 million abortions per year and only about .01% of those abortions are from a women being raped. we have been given an inch and taken that inch and stretched it a mile. i think he recognizes this and is discussing it. hes not making these rules. he is just observing our behavior once we are given these rules.
-
"Singer's mother suffers from severe Alzheimer's disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today." (Singer's mother died shortly thereafter.)
http://guy-slippery-mind.html
When Singer's mother became too ill to live alone, Singer and
his sister hired a team of home health-care aides to look after
her. &guy's mother has lost her ability to reason, to be a person,
as he defines the term[/b]. So I asked him how a man who has written
that we ought to do what is morally right without regard to proximity
or family relationships could possibly spend tens of thousands
of dollars a year on private care for his mother. He replied that
it was "probably not the best use you could make of my money.
That is true. But it does provide employment for a number of people
who find something worthwhile in what they're doing.''
This is a noble sentiment, but it hardly fits with Peter Singer's
rules for living an ethical life. He once told me that he has no
respect for people who donate funds for research on breast
cancer or heart disease in the hope that it might indirectly save
them or members of their family from illness, since they could
be using that money to save the lives of the poor. ("That
is not charity,'' he said. "It's self- interest.")
http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/1999/1999_09_06_philosopher.html
-
I completely disagree. Ethics is about logic, common sense, the law, morality, black, white, and gray.
If this guys believes ''Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person'' he should not be teaching kids about ethics. I'm astounded that someone with that belief heads an ethics department at a reputable school. Unbelievable.
not quite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct.
-
Tony a baby isn't a plant. There really isn't any similarity between stepping on an acorn and killing a baby.
Yes we all have different ideas, but there are some ideas that make their way into our books, become the law of the land, form part of our overall human decency, and are universally wrong. It is fine to discuss differing viewpoints, but there are some things that are simply wrong. Murder is wrong. Abusing a child is wrong. Killing disabled children is wrong. It really doesn't matter if some people engage in this behavior. Look at that Jeffs pedophile. The fact he raped young girls and has a following who advocate and practice the rape of young girls doesn't legitimize his behavior.
I didn't say anything about religion. Some of our societal views on ethics are grounded on religion and some are not. The "right" to impose views on people, regardless of where those views originated, comes from the voting process. We put people in office and give them the authority to pass laws and we either follow those laws, break them and suffer the consequences, or change them.
Its an analogy, an acorn will grow into a tree, a fetus or baby will grow into a person if a person is pro choice does it really suprise you that they might be pro infantcide as well? After all what is the logical cut off for these ppl on abortion?
Right but just b/c something you percieve is wrong doesnt make it universally wrong these days i person cant get married if they arent 18 not but a few decades ago it was common practice for teenagers to get married. Its all different points of views and different ways of looking at things. I agree with you that mudering ppl is wrong but if you look at if from the side that there is no wrong and right then you can understand why someone might think this way.
I can agree that in a society there are universal wrongs but the rules are put in place to help society so if killing infants and disabled ppl are beneficial to society those will become the rules. In general a person who is non religious and believes that we are just here by chance believes there is no higher meaning to right and wrong other than one is acceptable and one isnt socially so they are more apt to think like this all the time.
I seem to think you might have a problem with ppl imposing secular views on you even though they are the majority and are able to get legislation passed. Like you said just b/c many ppl follow this guy doesnt legitimize his actions, well just b/c the majority feels one way doesnt make that way right.
-
not quite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Here is the Webster's definition: "1. . . a system of moral principles. 2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics. 3. moral principles, as of an individual. 4 . . . that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions."
-
Its an analogy, an acorn will grow into a tree, a fetus or baby will grow into a person if a person is pro choice does it really suprise you that they might be pro infantcide as well? After all what is the logical cut off for these ppl on abortion?
Right but just b/c something you percieve is wrong doesnt make it universally wrong these days i person cant get married if they arent 18 not but a few decades ago it was common practice for teenagers to get married. Its all different points of views and different ways of looking at things. I agree with you that mudering ppl is wrong but if you look at if from the side that there is no wrong and right then you can understand why someone might think this way.
I can agree that in a society there are universal wrongs, but in general a person who is non religious and believes that we are just here by chance believes there is no higher meaning to right and wrong other than one is acceptable and one isnt socially.
I seem to think you might have a problem with ppl imposing secular views on you even though they are the majority and are able to get legislation passed. Like you said just b/c many ppl follow this guy doesnt legitimize his actions, well just b/c the majority feels one way doesnt make that way right.
I understand your acorn analogy, but I don't think it works well because people > than plants. I do agree that there isn't much of a logical leap from abortion to infanticide.
I agree that my perceptions on right and wrong aren't necessarily universal, although the things I mentioned are considered wrong in pretty much every society. There are always exceptions (for example "honor killings") but that behavior is still wrong.
No I don't have a problem with "secular views." Unless you live in something like a monastery, secular views are all over the place. It actually sounds like you have a problem with "religious views" or religious-based views being part of the democratic process. I believe in the process and that everyone has a right to have their views decided at the ballot box.
I agree that just because the majority passes a law that the "law" isn’t necessarily right. We pass bad laws all the time.
-
I understand your acorn analogy, but I don't think it works well because people > than plants. I do agree that there isn't much of a logical leap from abortion to infanticide.
I agree that my perceptions on right and wrong aren't necessarily universal, although the things I mentioned are considered wrong in pretty much every society. There are always exceptions (for example "honor killings") but that behavior is still wrong.
No I don't have a problem with "secular views." Unless you live in something like a monastery, secular views are all over the place. It actually sounds like you have a problem with "religious views" or religious-based views being part of the democratic process. I believe in the process and that everyone has a right to have their views decided at the ballot box.
I agree that just because the majority passes a law that the "law" isn’t necessarily right. We pass bad laws all the time.
b/c you believe that God put us here and we are his children, but to a person who holds no religious views a humans life might not be any more important than tree or another humans for that matter. Even if every society thought something was wrong wouldnt make it universally wrong, again the honor killings are wrong to you but if the majority of society felt they where ok they would be acceptable.
I do have a problem with religious views when they are pushed on ppl for the sole purpose that they think they are right b/c the bible says so, again what right do they even if in the majority have to impose their religious beliefs on others. Im sure you would feel the same way I do if secular views where imposed upon religious ppl to the extent that it interferred with their beliefs.
-
b/c you believe that God put us here and we are his children, but to a person who holds no religious views a humans life might not be any more important than tree or another humans for that matter. Even if every society thought something was wrong wouldnt make it universally wrong, again the honor killings are wrong to you but if the majority of society felt they where ok they would be acceptable.
I do have a problem with religious views when they are pushed on ppl for the sole purpose that they think they are right b/c the bible says so, again what right do they even if in the majority have to impose their religious beliefs on others. Im sure you would feel the same way I do if secular views where imposed upon religious ppl to the extent that it interferred with their beliefs.
Where did I say that? My belief that people are more important than plants has nothing to do with religion.
How do you define a universal wrong? Seems like a practice that every society considers wrong should qualify.
No, I don't feel the same way regarding religious versus secular viewpoints. They should have an equal opportunity at the ballot box. If you disagree with a certain viewpoint, go vote. That's what I do.
-
Where did I say that? My belief that people are more important than plants has nothing to do with religion.
How do you define a universal wrong? Seems like a practice that every society considers wrong should qualify.
No, I don't feel the same way regarding religious versus secular viewpoints. They should have an equal opportunity at the ballot box. If you disagree with a certain viewpoint, go vote. That's what I do.
why do you believe that humans are more important then plants?
What logical basis do you have that says humans are more important then plants?
Again just b/c everybody thinks one way doesnt make that way of thinking right. A universal wrong is something that is logically wrong in this case if killing of ppl even though innocent made logical sense to society then logically and therefore ethically it would not be considered wrong.
I should state that there is a a theory in ethics called DCT devine command/control theory as well as many others and again some that might lead to this line of thinking...you said you can agree that there isnt much of a logical jump between abortion and infantcide well if you believe that again does it suprise you that somebody who believes in abortion might hold these views? if really shouldnt.
-
Where did I say that? My belief that people are more important than plants has nothing to do with religion.
How do you define a universal wrong? Seems like a practice that every society considers wrong should qualify.
No, I don't feel the same way regarding religious versus secular viewpoints. They should have an equal opportunity at the ballot box. If you disagree with a certain viewpoint, go vote. That's what I do.
The only problem is that there are no well represented secular view points in the political scene; you always have to vote for a religious nut or a lip service giver.
-
if the government said you had to have an abortion b/c ppl thought we had to many ppl in the world and there where enough secular votes to get it pasted despite your religious views you would adhere beach?
-
why do you believe that humans are more important then plants?
What logical basis do you have that says humans are more important then plants?
Again just b/c everybody thinks one way doesnt make that way of thinking right. A universal wrong is something that is logically wrong in this case if killing of ppl even though innocent made logical sense to society then logically and therefore ethically it would not be considered wrong.
I should state that there is a a theory in ethics called DCT devine command/control theory as well as many others and again some that might lead to this line of thinking...you said you can agree that there isnt much of a logical jump between abortion and infantcide well if you believe that again does it suprise you that somebody who believes in abortion might hold these views? if really shouldnt.
Humans think, feel, and make the world go round. Plants are dispensable and completely interchangeable. I can walk outside right now and pull a plant out of the ground with little or no repercussion. I can also replace it with another plant tomorrow. If I were to walk outside and shoot a random person, it's possible hundreds of people could be adversely affected. No comparison Tony.
Typically, if all societies believe an act is wrong, then the act is logically wrong. Do you have examples of acts considered wrong by all societies that were illogical?
There isn't a huge logical leap from abortion to infanticide, but not many people make that leap. And I'm aware of only one person (who I learned of today) that advocates infanticide while being chair of a university ethics department. That is what I find surprising.
-
if the government said you had to have an abortion b/c ppl thought we had to many ppl in the world and there where enough secular votes to get it pasted despite your religious views you would adhere beach?
Tony you have made two assumptions: (1) all people who are pro life are "religious"; and (2) my "religious views" shape my views on abortion.
That said, I don't have the plumbing to get pregnant. :D Seriously, I can't really answer this one, because I don't have definitive views on the legality of abortion. If you substitute infants in your hypothetical, then I would say "no," I wouldn't kill my child because the government told me to.
Pretty unrealistic in any event.
And why do you keep bringing up religion?
-
The only problem is that there are no well represented secular view points in the political scene; you always have to vote for a religious nut or a lip service giver.
That's not true. Most of the laws we pass are "secular."
-
Tony you have made two assumptions: (1) all people who are pro life are "religious"; and (2) my "religious views" shape my views on abortion.
That said, I don't have the plumbing to get pregnant. :D Seriously, I can't really answer this one, because I don't have definitive views on the legality of abortion. If you substitute infants in your hypothetical, then I would say "no," I wouldn't kill my child because the government told me to.
Pretty unrealistic in any event.
And why do you keep bringing up religion?
not really unrealistic after all the same thing has happened but in the opposite direction, forcing women to keep their children and not allowing abortion. So if the majority said you must have an abortion you would tell your wife to go get one?
I didnt assume all pro life ppl are religious
-
not really unrealistic after all the same thing has happened but in the opposite direction, forcing women to keep their children and not allowing abortion. So if the majority said you must have an abortion you would tell your wife to go get one?
I didnt assume all pro life ppl are religious
Then what did you mean when you said if there are "enough secular votes" to get it passed? I interpreted that to mean only "secular" or non-religious people would pass such a law.
I don't agree with your view that killing a baby is the same as a woman being "forced" to have a baby.
Assuming in some bizarre circumstance that Congress passed a law that required my wife to have an abortion if she got pregnant (again), the president signed such a law, and the courts did not invalidate that law as unconstitutional, no I would not tell my wife to get an abortion.
-
Humans think, feel, and make the world go round. Plants are dispensable and completely interchangeable. I can walk outside right now and pull a plant out of the ground with little or no repercussion. I can also replace it with another plant tomorrow. If I were to walk outside and shoot a random person, it's possible hundreds of people could be adversely affected. No comparison Tony.
Typically, if all societies believe an act is wrong, then the act is logically wrong. Do you have examples of acts considered wrong by all societies that were illogical?
There isn't a huge logical leap from abortion to infanticide, but not many people make that leap. And I'm unaware of only one person (who I learned of today) that advocates infanticide while being chair of a university ethics department. That is what I find surprising.
LOL beach gonna take a lot more than those reasons to logically state that a human is more important than a plant
the world will still be here even if humans are not, humans dont make the world go round. You mention b/c we think we are more important than plants, well mentally handicapped ppl and elderly dont think with the same capacity of normal adult humans does that mean that they are less worthy of life? NO logically this doesnt make sense either. I think you overstate importance of a humans, humans are interchangeable and dispensable. If you use these things to justify that humans are more important then plants you can also use these things to justify why some humans are more important then other humans and come up with the same beliefs that the professor has.
LOL i dont think you could get all societies to agree on any one thing...this was meant as an example just b/c everyone agrees on things doesnt make them right logically.
The state of sparta practiced infantcide and everybody there thought that it was the right thing to do.
-
Then what did you mean when you said if there are "enough secular votes" to get it passed? I interpreted that to mean only "secular" or non-religious people would pass such a law.
I don't agree with your view that killing a baby is the same as a woman being "forced" to have a baby.
Assuming in some bizarre circumstance that Congress passed a law that required my wife to have an abortion if she got pregnant (again), the president signed such a law, and the courts did not invalidate that law as unconstitutional, no I would not tell my wife to get an abortion.
was a reference to an earlier post not important...LOL you keep finding these details your missing the forest for the trees beach.
This is my point you wouldnt force your wife to get an abortion b/c it goes against your views but you would vote to make it so that a person who doesnt hold your beliefs is forced to give birth to a baby they dont want even though its against theirs?
-
LOL beach gonna take a lot more than those reasons to logically state that a human is more important than a plant
the world will still be here even if humans are not, humans dont make the world go round. You mention b/c we think we are more important than plants, well mentally handicapped ppl and elderly dont think with the same capacity of normal adult humans does that mean that they are less worthy of life? NO logically this doesnt make sense either. I think you overstate importance of a humans, humans are interchangeable and dispensable. If you use these things to justify that humans are more important then plants you can also use these things to justify why some humans are more important then other humans and come up with the same beliefs that the professor has.
LOL i dont think you could get all societies to agree on any one thing...this was meant as an example just b/c everyone agrees on things doesnt make them right logically.
The state of sparta practiced infantcide and everybody there thought that it was the right thing to do.
Hey it makes sense to me. :) I didn't say anything about mentally disabled people and the elderly being less worthy of life. That's a different subject. (I don't think the "elderly" think with any less capacity than any other normal person. They're actually much smarter in most instances.)
I'm overstating the importance of humans and human relationships? Are you married? Do you have parents? Siblings? Friends? Are all of those people disposable and interchangeable? My father was my best friend. When he died he left a gaping hole in my life. I couldn't imagine losing one of my children. Dispensable? Hardly. If you haven't experienced those kinds of close relationships then you are cheating yourself.
Dude infanticide practiced by Sparta just shows those people were freakin nuts. :) We can find all sorts of communities and segments of the population throughout history that engaged in abnormal, unethical, and/or immoral behavior. That doesn't change the character of that behavior at all.
-
Hey it makes sense to me. :) I didn't say anything about mentally disabled people and the elderly being less worthy of life. That's a different subject. (I don't think the "elderly" think with any less capacity than any other normal person. They're actually much smarter in most instances.)
I'm overstating the importance of humans and human relationships? Are you married? Do you have parents? Siblings? Friends? Are all of those people disposable and interchangeable? My father was my best friend. When he died he left a gaping hole in my life. I couldn't imagine losing one of my children. Dispensable? Hardly. If you haven't experienced those kinds of close relationships then you are cheating yourself.
Dude infanticide practiced by Sparta just shows those people were freakin nuts. :) We can find all sorts of communities and segments of the population throughout history that engaged in abnormal, unethical, and/or immoral behavior. That doesn't change the character of that behavior at all.
People's roles are interchangeable. The basic example is the romantic relationship or marriage; it goes on for a few years until the feelings die; there is a break up or divorce and eventually someone new reaprises the old roles. Children are different because they are your DNA, your investment in your future and it is a considerable amount of time to invest to get to the point where they are DNA productive as well; still one could copulate again and thus produce new DNA which would fullfill the former role of the dead DNA.
I wonder if you consider the Israelites nuts? They practiced infanticide against male babies.
-
Hey it makes sense to me. :) I didn't say anything about mentally disabled people and the elderly being less worthy of life. That's a different subject. (I don't think the "elderly" think with any less capacity than any other normal person. They're actually much smarter in most instances.)
I'm overstating the importance of humans and human relationships? Are you married? Do you have parents? Siblings? Friends? Are all of those people disposable and interchangeable? My father was my best friend. When he died he left a gaping hole in my life. I couldn't imagine losing one of my children. Dispensable? Hardly. If you haven't experienced those kinds of close relationships then you are cheating yourself.
Dude infanticide practiced by Sparta just shows those people were freakin nuts. :) We can find all sorts of communities and segments of the population throughout history that engaged in abnormal, unethical, and/or immoral behavior. That doesn't change the character of that behavior at all.
You dont have to you imply these things LOGICALLY when you say b/c we can think, whats the cut off of cognitive ability? It cant be just b/c we think b/c then you involve all animals which im sure you eat, which leads to the amount of cognitive ability that humans have, well some humans dont have the same amount of cognitive ability of others in many instances elderly operate at much less capacity of normal humans so where do you draw the line if you are using b/c we can think as a variable for humans being more important than plants. Thinking isnt a strictly human trait so if you cant kill a mentally handicapped human b/c he has the ability to think you logically cant kill a animal b/c it has the ability to think as well. If you want to differentiate between human and animal cognitive ability there must be a cut off line which some humans will undoubtedly fall below and some animals will surpass, so LOGICALLY you have to be ok with being able to kill the humans that fall below and not kill the animals that surpass your cut off line...You see the logical problem with using b/c we think as a definitive variable in this case, it could be used to justify infantcide b/c the child doesnt have the cognitive ability to pass the cut off line. ILLOGICAL to use b/c we think.
I have these relationships beach, no wife as of yet but hopefully down the road. But if somebody loses a spouse do they not get another one?, if they lose a friend do they not fill the void? If the human race was to be exterminated tomorrow would another species not flourish, as much as we like to think we are irreplaceable we arent.
I agree
-
You dont have to you imply these things LOGICALLY when you say b/c we can think, whats the cut off of cognitive ability? It cant be just b/c we think b/c then you involve all animals which im sure you eat, which leads to the amount of cognitive ability that humans have, well some humans dont have the same amount of cognitive ability of others in many instances elderly operate at much less capacity of normal humans so where do you draw the line if you are using b/c we can think as a variable for humans being more important than plants. Thinking isnt a strictly human trait so if you cant kill a mentally handicapped human b/c he has the ability to think you logically cant kill a animal b/c it has the ability to think as well. If you want to differentiate between human in animal cognitive ability there must be a cut off line which some humans will undoubtedly fall below and some animals will surpass, so LOGICALLY you have to be ok with being able to kill the humans that fall below and not kill the animals that surpass your cut off line...You see the logical problem with using b/c we think as a definitive variable in this case, it could be used to justify infantcide b/c the child doesnt have the cognitive ability to pass the cut off line. ILLOGICAL to use b/c we think.
I have these relationships beach, no wife as of yet but hopefully down the road. But if somebody loses a spouse do they not get another one?, if they lose a friend do they not fill the void? If the human race was to be exterminated tomorrow would another species not flourish, as much as we like to think we are irreplaceable we arent.
I agree
There is nothing special about human beings. We have arrived here rather by a fluke of fate. The universe would not mourn our loss.
-
was a reference to an earlier post not important...LOL you keep finding these details your missing the forest for the trees beach.
This is my point you wouldnt force your wife to get an abortion b/c it goes against your views but you would vote to make it so that a person who doesnt hold your beliefs is forced to give birth to a baby they dont want even though its against theirs?
What you call details are actually incorrect assumptions that form the foundation of your questions.
And not to get all technical on you :), but I can't force my wife to get any kind of medical procedure. It's her decision. I would give her my input, but at the end of the day, it's her decision.
You don't know what my abortion views are, because I've never discussed them. I'm not even sure what they are. I believe life begins at conception. I believe abortion kills a baby. What should the law or politics do about that? I really don't know. So, to say that I would vote a certain way on your hypothetical abortion law is simply not accurate.
-
What you call details are actually incorrect assumptions that form the foundation of your questions.
And not to get all technical on you :), but I can't force my wife to get any kind of medical procedure. It's her decision. I would give her my input, but at the end of the day, it's her decision.
You don't know what my abortion views are, because I've never discussed them. I'm not even sure what they are. I believe life begins at conception. I believe abortion kills a baby. What should the law or politics do about that? I really don't know. So, to say that I would vote a certain way on your hypothetical abortion law is simply not accurate.
Why do you believe that life begins at conception?
-
Why do you believe that life begins at conception?
Frankenbabies?
-
Frankenbabies?
LOL what? are those the same thing as test tube babies?
-
People's roles are interchangeable. The basic example is the romantic relationship or marriage; it goes on for a few years until the feelings die; there is a break up or divorce and eventually someone new reaprises the old roles. Children are different because they are your DNA, your investment in your future and it is a considerable amount of time to invest to get to the point where they are DNA productive as well; still one could copulate again and thus produce new DNA which would fullfill the former role of the dead DNA.
I wonder if you consider the Israelites nuts? They practiced infanticide against male babies.
It is true that you can form new relationships, but they often come at great cost. I think people who have lost loved ones will tell you that it takes a long time to heal wounds. That was part of my point.
Children are different because you have relationships with them from birth. They're not an investment in my future. They have nothing to do with increasing my bottom line. They actually cost me a great deal of money. I invest in their future. My close ties to them have to do with the fact that I knew them before they were born, taught them how to eat, walk, talk, etc. and have shared countless memories. You can't simply discard those relationships. People who think those kinds of relationships are interchangeable probably haven't experienced those relationships.
-
LOL what? are those the same thing as test tube babies?
I guess. I mean, if we're both taking about inanimate tissue that suddenly comes to life. :P
POOF!!! Fear the Frankenbabies!!!
-
I guess. I mean, if we're both taking about inanimate tissue that suddenly comes to life. :P
POOF!!! Fear the Frankenbabies!!!
LOL makes me think of frankenberry
-
LOL makes me think of frankenberry
YAY BOWL OF SUGAR!
-
You dont have to you imply these things LOGICALLY when you say b/c we can think, whats the cut off of cognitive ability? It cant be just b/c we think b/c then you involve all animals which im sure you eat, which leads to the amount of cognitive ability that humans have, well some humans dont have the same amount of cognitive ability of others in many instances elderly operate at much less capacity of normal humans so where do you draw the line if you are using b/c we can think as a variable for humans being more important than plants. Thinking isnt a strictly human trait so if you cant kill a mentally handicapped human b/c he has the ability to think you logically cant kill a animal b/c it has the ability to think as well. If you want to differentiate between human and animal cognitive ability there must be a cut off line which some humans will undoubtedly fall below and some animals will surpass, so LOGICALLY you have to be ok with being able to kill the humans that fall below and not kill the animals that surpass your cut off line...You see the logical problem with using b/c we think as a definitive variable in this case, it could be used to justify infantcide b/c the child doesnt have the cognitive ability to pass the cut off line. ILLOGICAL to use b/c we think.
I have these relationships beach, no wife as of yet but hopefully down the road. But if somebody loses a spouse do they not get another one?, if they lose a friend do they not fill the void? If the human race was to be exterminated tomorrow would another species not flourish, as much as we like to think we are irreplaceable we arent.
I agree
So we are talking about animals instead of plants now? I'm a vegetarian. lol. :) But I don't have a problem with using animals as food, for science, as pets, etc.
We don't murder mentally disabled because they have a right to life. That's what our Constitution says. I forget which amendment says this, but we cannot deprive them or anyone of life without due process. That's really all the support I need regarding the disabled and infants.
Sure you can find a new spouse, adopt new kids, make new friends. What I'm saying is the relationships are not interchangeable like pulling a plant out of the ground and replacing it with a new one. There is sadness, grieving, depression, etc. involved when you lose a loved one and/or friend (however you lose them). It comes at great cost.
-
Why do you believe that life begins at conception?
Because I've read about how life begins and shared the pregnancy experience with my wife. I've seen life develop in the womb.
It's the logical starting point for me.
When do you believe life begins and why?
-
So we are talking about animals instead of plants now? I'm a vegetarian. lol. :) But I don't have a problem with using animals as food, for science, as pets, etc.
We don't murder mentally disabled because they have a right to life. That's what our Constitution says. I forget which amendment says this, but we cannot deprive them or anyone of life without due process. That's really all the support I need regarding the disabled and infants.
You are going back in forth, you said that humans are more important than a plant and therefor its ok to step on an acorn but not kill an infant b/c we cam think. If this is the case then following your logic you must also be against killing animals b/c they can think, correct? Apparently you are ok with killing animals so that means that there is another qualyfing aspect that makes it ok to kill animals but not humans. The only thing that this could be would be the amount of cognitive ability that humans have in respect to animals correct? If you use cognitive ability what is the cut off you use to say that below this line its ok to kill and above this line its not ok to kill? Will you be ok with killing those mentally handicapped and elderly that dont pass your line?
So its right b/c the constitution says so? If the constitution said kill them you would support it? Again you need to think about the logic behind it.
-
It is true that you can form new relationships, but they often come at great cost. I think people who have lost loved ones will tell you that it takes a long time to heal wounds. That was part of my point.
Children are different because you have relationships with them from birth. They're not an investment in my future. They have nothing to do with increasing my bottom line. They actually cost me a great deal of money. I invest in their future. My close ties to them have to do with the fact that I knew them before they were born, taught them how to eat, walk, talk, etc. and have shared countless memories. You can't simply discard those relationships. People who think those kinds of relationships are interchangeable probably haven't experienced those relationships.
Surely you are brighter than this. Your DNA is housed in your children, thus they are the investment in the future. By providing for them you are ensuring that they grow up and are in a position to copulate and produce DNA themselves, thus furthering your genetic line. If you lost your children now you could copulate with a female again to produce a new line of DNA.
-
Because I've read about how life begins and shared the pregnancy experience with my wife. I've seen life develop in the womb.
It's the logical starting point for me.
When do you believe life begins and why?
what things that you have read that arent religious in nature say that life begins at conception.
How is that logical, please explain
I assume you are against the morning after pill then right?
I dont really know when life begins, I believe life begins at conception but think this way b/c of my religious views and know that they are not based in logic and are arbitrary.
Legally death is when electric activity stops in the brain so i guess if you wanted to pick a good legal starting point then that would be a good place to start.
-
You are going back in forth, you said that humans are more important than a plant and therefor its ok to step on an acorn but not kill an infant b/c we cam think. If this is the case then following your logic you must also be against killing animals b/c they can think, correct? Apparently you are ok with killing animals so that means that there is another qualyfing aspect that makes it ok to kill animals but not humans. The only thing that this could be would be the amount of cognitive ability that humans have in respect to animals correct? If you use cognitive ability what is the cut off you use to say that below this line its ok to kill and above this line its not ok to kill? Will you be ok with killing those mentally handicapped and elderly that dont pass your line?
So its right b/c the constitution says so? If the constitution said kill them you would support it? Again you need to think about the logic behind it.
What am I going back and forth on? You are the one who brought the stepping on an acorn example. I didn't think that example was very good, and still don't. I simply answered your questions. This is your issue (plants versus people) not mine. I don't think there is any comparison at all.
You asked me for a distinction between people and plants. I gave you my rationale. You disagree with my rationale.
Now you brought up animals. Not me. And you are trying to contort some relationship between plants, animals, and humans. It doesn't work Tony.
Yes, it's right because the Constitution says so and because that part of the Constitution is supported by common sense and logic. Are you really disputing that people don't have a basic right to live?
-
Surely you are brighter than this. Your DNA is housed in your children, thus they are the investment in the future. By providing for them you are ensuring that they grow up and are in a position to copulate and produce DNA themselves, thus furthering your genetic line. If you lost your children now you could copulate with a female again to produce a new line of DNA.
Wrong. I invest in their future so they can have the best possible chance at having a good life. My investment in their future has zero to do with furthering my genetic line. Nonsense.
I don't share your warped view of life. You don't just go "copulate" with another female and create new "DNA." What's wrong with you man?
-
You asked me for a distinction between people and plants. I gave you my rationale. You disagree with my rationale.
Now you brought up animals. Not me. And you are trying to contort some relationship between plants, animals, and humans. It doesn't work Tony.
Yes, it's right because the Constitution says so and because that part of the Constitution is supported by common sense and logic. Are you really disputing that people don't have a basic right to live?
Your rationale makes no logical sense, how do you not see this?
If you use b/c we can think then you cannot logically kill animals which you already said was ok do you not see the problem with your logic?
Im not saying ppl dont have the basic right to life all im saying is you judge this guy on your views but LOGICALLY and ETHICALLY his stance can be defended.
-
what things that you have read that arent religious in nature say that life begins at conception.
How is that logical, please explain
I assume you are against the morning after pill then right?
I dont really know when life begins, I believe life begins at conception but think this way b/c of my religious views and know that they are not based in logic and are arbitrary.
Legally death is when electric activity stops in the brain so i guess if you wanted to pick a good legal starting point then that would be a good place to start.
My view that life begins at conception has nothing to do with my religious views. Again, why do you keep bringing up religion?
Why do you assume I'm against the morning after pill?
A person is created when the sperm and egg unite. That's when sex is determined. That's when the baby starts developing. I'm not sure what else to tell you. I could see an argument for saying life begins when the heart starts beating, but that happens a few weeks after conception anyway. I learned this stuff in biology class many moons ago. I read this again when I was going through child birth classes with my wife.
I don't think there is anything I read (religious or secular) that told me life begins at conception. It's a conclusion I reached on my own for all of the reasons I've given.
-
Your rationale makes no logical sense, how do you not see this?
If you use b/c we can think then you cannot logically kill animals which you already said was ok do you not see the problem with your logic?
Im not saying ppl dont have the basic right to life all im saying is you judge this guy on your views but LOGICALLY and ETHICALLY his stance can be defended.
How do I not see what? Are you talking about my disagreement with your view that stepping on an acorn is no different than killing a baby? I can't help you with that one. It really doesn't make any sense, logical or otherwise.
I never said because "we can think then you cannot logically kill animals." Where are you getting that from?
To get back on topic, there is no logical or ethical defense for his belief that we should murder disabled babies. It's absolutely indefensible. It's barbaric. It defies common sense. It defies the law. It defies basic human decency. It's also irresponsible for Princeton to put a man with those views in his position.
Could you imagine amending the Constitution to say that the government has the right to murder disabled babies? It's ridiculous.
-
My view that life begins at conception has nothing to do with my religious views. Again, why do you keep bringing up religion?
Why do you assume I'm against the morning after pill?
A person is created when the sperm and egg unite. That's when sex is determined. That's when the baby starts developing. I'm not sure what else to tell you. I could see an argument for saying life begins when the heart starts beating, but that happens a few weeks after conception anyway. I learned this stuff in biology class many moons ago. I read this again when I was going through child birth classes with my wife.
I don't think there is anything I read (religious or secular) that told me life begins at conception. It's a conclusion I reached on my own for all of the reasons I've given.
Most ppl who believe life begins at conception believe this way b/c of religious influence.
I have no problem with you believing that life begins at conception as long as you know its not based any more in logic than other views of when life begins.
You dont see any arguement for life beginning when electrical activity starts in the brain b/c thats when death technically is determined?
-
How do I not see what? Are you talking about my disagreement with your view that stepping on an acorn is no different than killing a baby? I can't help you with that one. It really doesn't make any sense, logical or otherwise.
I never said because "we can think then you cannot logically kill animals." Where are you getting that from?
To get back on topic, there is no logical or ethical defense for his belief that we should murder disabled babies. It's absolutely indefensible. It's barbaric. It defies common sense. It defies the law. It defies basic human decency. It's also irresponsible for Princeton to put a man with those views in his position.
Could you imagine amending the Constitution to say that the government has the right to murder disabled babies? It's ridiculous.
OMG beach I asked why you thought a human life was more important then a plants life in the instance that its ok for you to go rip out a plant but not kill a human. You said b/c we have the ability to think, however you think its ok to kill animals despite their ability to think. You dont see the problem in logic with this?
You are using false logic to put human life on a pedestal, this pedestal causes you to view this man in an infavorable light although from the standpoint of a person who has no view of right or wrong other than to do whats best for the society his view can be defended. Elderly and infants contribute little if anything to society therefor from his standpoint it is defensable.
-
Most ppl who believe life begins at conception believe this way b/c of religious influence.
I have no problem with you believing that life begins at conception as long as you know its not based any more in logic than other views of when life begins.
You dont see any arguement for life beginning when electrical activity starts in the brain b/c thats when death technically is determined?
You make a lot of assumptions dude. What religious influence are you talking about? The Bible? I'm unaware of anything in the Bible that talks about life beginning at conception. But I don't consider this a religious issue anyway . . . even though you keep bringing it up. :) You seem to be saying that people who do base conclusions on religious influence are illogical. I don't agree with that (if that is your point).
Yes I can see an argument for saying life begins when electrical activity starts in the brain.
-
OMG beach I asked why you thought a human life was more important then a plants life in the instance that its ok for you to go rip out a plant but not kill a human. You said b/c we have the ability to think, however you think its ok to kill animals despite their ability to think. You dont see the problem in logic with this?
You are using false logic to put human life on a pedestal, this pedestal causes you to view this man in an infavorable light although from the point of view of a person who has no view of right or wrong other than to do whats best for the society his view can be defended. Elderly and infants contribute little if anything to society therefor from a standpoint that has no right or wrongs it is defensable.
Ah . . . no. That's not what I said. Here is what I said:
Humans think, feel, and make the world go round. Plants are dispensable and completely interchangeable. I can walk outside right now and pull a plant out of the ground with little or no repercussion. I can also replace it with another plant tomorrow. If I were to walk outside and shoot a random person, it's possible hundreds of people could be adversely affected. No comparison Tony.
It is true that you can form new relationships, but they often come at great cost. I think people who have lost loved ones will tell you that it takes a long time to heal wounds. That was part of my point.
So now we're talking about animals again? lol . . . I can't believe I spent so much time distinguishing plants from humans. lol . . . :)
I'm about to sign off, but I understand why you are defending this guy; it's because you agree with him and apparently share the same mindset. How else could you make a statement like this: "Elderly and infants contribute little if anything to society." Not only is your statement false, but it's irrelevant. Contribution to society is in no way related to the basic right to life, or the basic right not to be murdered.
-
Ah . . . no. That's not what I said. Here is what I said:
So now we're talking about animals again? lol . . . I can't believe I spent so much time distinguishing plants from humans. lol . . . :)
I'm about to sign off, but I understand why you are defending this guy; it's because you agree with him and apparently share the same mindset. How else could you make a statement like this: "Elderly and infants contribute little if anything to society." Not only is your statement false, but it's irrelevant. Contribution to society is in no way related to the basic right to life, or the basic right not to be murdered.
I dont feel this way, im with you in your stance that its not ok for elderly and infants to be killed but against you in saying this guy is wrong. He isnt its just another way of thinking, and you logically cant say he is wrong.
OMG i really dont see how you dont follow the logical progression humans have a right to life b/c they think, feel, i wont even mention the third one...so do animals but they dont have right to life? You see your using this logic to apply to humans but not to other subjects with the same qualities this makes it illogical. You would have to qualify it more to seperate humans from animals...i recommend you go pick up an ethics text book from a local college and read it b/c your logic is seriously flawed and you dont even see it.
-
maybe i should have asked what makes human life so special that it is wrong to kill another human being? this is what i was trying to get at