Subject:
|
Re: How to start a fire.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 19:51:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
301 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > Almost if not completely verbatim...
> > I ran into an old friend the yesterday and really 'ruffled his feathers.' We got
> > on the subject of the Iraq war and he made the comment:
> > "Over 1000 Iraqi civilians were killed and we didn't even find anything."
> > I replied:
> > "So? Didn't you know life has no value?"
> > "What are you talking about?!"
> > "Well let's keep things in perspective shall we. More people than that are
> > murdered every day in the U.S."
> > "What?!"
> > "Sure we just use the euphemism 'Abortion' so people don't get all upset
> > about it"
> > "That is not the same thing."
> > "Why not? Innocent life is innocent life after all."
> > He stared dumbfounded for a moment then shook his head and said good bye.
>
> He's not much of a debater then, is he? If you're really interested in
> tackling this subject, I'm game.
> The first point of contention is that a blastocyst is not a person, and the
> elimination of a blastocyst is not the elimination of a person, innocent or
> otherwise.
> The second point of contention is that a sentient person is not the same as a
> non-sentient person. That is, a pre-brain-functional human is not equivalent to
> a brain-functional person. This is true even if the pre-brain-functional person
> currently holds the office of President of the US.
> The third point of contention is that an innocent person with years of
> experiences and memories is not the same as an innocent pre-person with zero
> experiences or memories.
> The fourth point of contention is that a fetus that does not have independent
> physiological viability is not the same as a person who has independent
> physiological viability.
>
> How's that for starters?
Probably a bad idea. By calling into question the definition of innocence, life,
experience, and sentience, you're allowing an "in" that's off-topic. Fetuses are
killed by civilian mothers and civilian doctors. The Iraqis in question were
killed by US government military. The government's military actions are what's
in question, not the actions of the citizenry who are merely 'allowed' by
government to commit "murder".
But, if you're looking to debate abortion, you're AOK. It's just by no means
unploughed ground:
(devil's advocate)
#1 - a bastocyst (or whatnot) may be considered by some to be a person. You'll
need to define "person" to the satisfaction of both you and your opponent to get
anywhere here. But the more likely rebuttal will be 'person potential'.
#2 - define 'sentient'. According to science, it's all just a system of chemical
reactions that make up brain functions, just as in any sort of biological
system. How complex does it need to be before it's considered 'sentient'? Or
what characteristics must it take on? Either way, you'd have to come to an
agreement before you could get anywhere.
#3 - experience != innoncence == kill-worthy? Should a baby who's about to be
born in 3 seconds be able to be slaughtered because it's got no experiences?
When do experiences exist? What defines memory? One might argue it's all
chemical reactions at some level.
#4 - Siamese twins, anyone? Or how about coma victims? Define dependant.
Anyway, good luck trying to argue abortion against a Pro-Lifer and succeed.
Moral issues are seldom (almost never) debatable to the point of solving
anything.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: How to start a fire.
|
| (...) True enough. I'm taking it as an abortion debate separate from the Iraq debate. (...) I don't accept "person potential" because, with the advent of cloning, most cells in your body have "person potential." It is not slippery slope reasoning to (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: How to start a fire.
|
| (...) He's not much of a debater then, is he? If you're really interested in tackling this subject, I'm game. The first point of contention is that a blastocyst is not a person, and the elimination of a blastocyst is not the elimination of a person, (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
