No. I am confused.
Does the beetle have "neural capabilities to host complex mind"?
What did you mean by... "Living things do not have rights de facto. Then a cockroach has rights. Capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights."?
It's not very complicated. Entities with complex enough minds to host self regarding consciousness have intrinsic rights. Early fetus, most simple animals do not have that capacity and hence do not have intrinsic rights. More developed fetus and born humans as well as some highly evolved animals do have that capacity and possess intrinsic rights.
What do you find difficult to understand here?
No. Only late term fetus and later which have neural capabilities to host complex mind have intrinsic rights ( as well as chimps, dolphins and some other highly evolved nonhuman animals).
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand my points?
No. I am confused.
Does the beetle have "neural capabilities to host complex mind"?
What did you mean by... "Living things do not have rights de facto. Then a cockroach has rights. Capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights."?
No living being is a holder of rights. Rights are ways in the end as how we treat each other and that can include how we treat non-human life.
If you claim, you can say that you have a right, then I can say you don't have a right. But that is not how they work. They work as rule of how to treat each other.
Rights are an idea that so many people do not understand. They think that rights come From God or that they are born with them. Rights just come from the Government. The writers of the Constitution understood this so they strove to limit the power of the Government by giving people rights in that document. What people do not understand is that the "Right to Free Speech" for example could be taken away if one could get enough states and Congress to draft a new Amendment that ended the First. It has been done before and could be done again. Hopefully never with that particular Amendment. If you want to see extreme cases of people that do not understand rights go to YouTube and watch some videos with the Police and sovereign citizens. It can satisfy a need to see some instant justice.
It's not very complicated. Entities with complex enough minds to host self regarding consciousness have intrinsic rights. Early fetus, most simple animals do not have that capacity and hence do not have intrinsic rights. More developed fetus and born humans as well as some highly evolved animals do have that capacity and possess intrinsic rights.
What do you find difficult to understand here?
What you said about rights, Living things not having rights, but that the capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights.
Only late term fetus and later which have neural capabilities to host complex mind have intrinsic rights ( as well as chimps, dolphins and some other highly evolved nonhuman animals).
So my point is, there are laws which does not give people the right to exert their opinions on living things... including criminals, fetuses, and insects. etc.
...
So my point is, there are laws which does not give people the right to exert their opinions on living things... including criminals, fetuses, and insects. etc.
What you said about rights, Living things not having rights, but that the capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights.
Only late term fetus and later which have neural capabilities to host complex mind have intrinsic rights ( as well as chimps, dolphins and some other highly evolved nonhuman animals).
So my point is, there are laws which does not give people the right to exert their opinions on living things... including criminals, fetuses, and insects. etc.
You have to read and understand the articles. The reason that we need to protect the "rights" of animals to live is because if they all die there will be a negative effect on other animals including people.
What you said about rights, Living things not having rights, but that the capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights.
Only late term fetus and later which have neural capabilities to host complex mind have intrinsic rights ( as well as chimps, dolphins and some other highly evolved nonhuman animals).
So my point is, there are laws which does not give people the right to exert their opinions on living things... including criminals, fetuses, and insects. etc.
You didn't even read through the article, did you?
The reason given for protecting insects wasn't that insects have the capacity for complex consciousness and deserving of rights, rather, ""We humans need insects," Schulze said. "They deserve protection from their own law. This not only to protect stag beetles and earth bumblebees, but above all ourselves."
You didn't even read through the article, did you?
The reason given for protecting insects wasn't that insects have the capacity for complex consciousness and deserving of rights, rather, ""We humans need insects," Schulze said. "They deserve protection from their own law. This not only to protect stag beetles and earth bumblebees, but above all ourselves."
You didn't take time to read through my post, did you. I never said "The reason given for protecting insects was that insects have the capacity for complex consciousness and are deserving of rights".
It's not very complicated. Entities with complex enough minds to host self regarding consciousness have intrinsic rights. Early fetus, most simple animals do not have that capacity and hence do not have intrinsic rights. More developed fetus and born humans as well as some highly evolved animals do have that capacity and possess intrinsic rights.
What do you find difficult to understand here?
Honestly, I find resorting to 'intrinsic rights' on this debate to be a bit weird. The concept behind 'intrinsic rights' is entirely arbitrary and anyone can claim anything to be an intrinsic right.
That's an opinion, and you and any scientists who wants to accept that opinion, are most certainly free to do so.
There are indeed pig-headed scientists, and I am not sure what would make you feel you are exempt from being such.
You would not be able to prove that you aren't, but certainly, information can reveal the truth of that matter... and I think there is information of that sort.
Saying that "fetuses probably don’t feel pain", is an opinion, and not a fact.
Probably there is a God. So there.
I figured you were confused.
A cockroach has life. A criminal has life. Here, you said, QUOTE Living things do not have rights de facto. Then a cockroach has rights. Capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights. UNQUOTE
I said, A cockroach does have rights, according to the animal rights supporters.
Doesn't criminals and murderers have rights... or can you just out their lights as you wish?
No you can't. They too have ights according to the State.
The point I am making is you can't just snuff the lights out of any life, because you feel it has no rights.
It has rights, according to those who stand up in behalf of those rights.
Just as I can't decide to snuff the life out of a criminal (vigilante justice), where laws do not allow that, I cannot snuff the lights out of a cockroach just because... where laws exist to safeguard the rights of the cockroach.
The same goes for fetuses.
The reason cockroaches are killed, is because they are pests that carry diseases and cause harm. It's ridiculous to compare a fetus to a cockroach.
Let's consider the stag beetle or the bumblebee. They are protected by law. They do have rights. Do they have "complex consciousness"?
I am not sure I understood the central point. Which rights matters? The ones granted by the State? Does the fact someone consider cockroaches to have rights matters to you?
You didn't take time to read through my post, did you. I never said "The reason given for protecting insects was that insects have the capacity for complex consciousness and are deserving of rights".
"Yet animals are considered as having rights... to live." "So my point is, there are laws which does not give people the right to exert their opinions on living things... including criminals, fetuses, and insects. etc."
I am not sure I understood the central point. Which rights matters? The ones granted by the State? Does the fact someone consider cockroaches to have rights matters to you?
I'm simply arguing against arguments.
Don't forget, changing man-made rights will come and go. They do not matter to me, and I know I have no control over them, nor do I want to.
Perhaps you don't know my views on who controls this world, and who's rights I hold to.
Hopefully this helps. 1 John 5:19; Psalms 19:7
"Yet animals are considered as having rights... to live."
"So my point is, there are laws which does not give people the right to exert their opinions on living things... including criminals, fetuses, and insects. etc."
Correct, at least in some cases. They don't have actually rights. We just treat them in a certain way.
But you apparently claim that a fetus has a right to live, if that is what you are doing. It doesn't. Nor do you or I.
If you claim it is someone has an intrinsic right to life, we won't get anywhere, because that is not how it actually works.
Correct, at least in some cases. They don't have actually rights. We just treat them in a certain way.
But you apparently claim that a fetus has a right to live, if that is what you are doing. It doesn't. Nor do you or I.
If you claim it is someone has an intrinsic right to life, we won't get anywhere, because that is not how it actually works.
You said that you would have no problem disconnecting yourself because it was forced upon you.
To me that means that if you are consistent in such, you should also support disconnecting yourself from a fetus if that fetus was forced upon you.
If you disagree, I'ld like to know why.
I deliberately included the aspect of "forced upon" in order to make the point clear, that whether force or not, it is not a license to murder.
I think you should read the post again, and take the full post... without cherry picking, and you will see I made that point clear.
Should I pick it out for you?
Does the offspring die naturally? Is it dying from some circumstances... as is the case with the one with the kidney damage, or loss?
No.
So the fact that it was forced upon you makes no difference at all then?
Then why did you mention it explicitly?
...I don't want to be kept on life support. Those who remove me from that support, has not murdered, or killed me. I died naturally. The fetus does not die naturally. It is murdered... in a cruel way... for selfish reasons.
The one who popped the pill, or ripped that life to shreds, is responsible for the death, just like the driver that plowed into the individual.
My response is that no killing is involved.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Death of the fetus is a consequence of the termination of a pregnancy.
Just like death of the dude in the example is a consequence of the termination of letting him use your kidneys.
You are not consistent in your argument here.
Your argument is completely emotional and not rational at all.
Every "argument" you gave here, is based on a strawman of what abortion actually is.
And you have no once actually addressed the arguments in support of the right to abort. You avoid them like the plague.
For example, you have not responded to the fact that - just like kidney donation - pregnancy comes with permanent body changes. Some of them potentially very severe. It also includes many risk. Some of them life-threatening.
In the grand scheme of things, donating a kidney might even be LESS invasive then a pregnancy.
You don't want to acknowledge this.
When a woman is raped, the off spring is also not normal circumstances allowing to take their course.
Without the man forcing himself on that woman, there would have never been a fetus.
Normal circumstances thus would be that the fetus never existed.
For some reason, you think forcing someone to donate a kidney is not okay.
But raping someone and then forcing her to go through the risky and invasive process of pregnancy, is.
And you have no rational argument for it.
It's all emotional and religiously inspired.
You care not for the suffering of these women.
Take Ukraine... Russian soldiers have been going on gang-raping sprees there. Hundreds of 16 to 20 year olds have received abortions by now, because they all became pregnant after the extremely traumatic experience of war and an invading army who killed their parents and then raped them.
You would want to extend their suffering indefinitely by forcing them to carry those pregnancies to term.
Do you really think that that is the right thing to do?
Well, I don't think it is the right thing to do, but I don't think I can make a strong rational case for it as per my understanding of rational.
What about you?
You said that you would have no problem disconnecting yourself because it was forced upon you.
To me that means that if you are consistent in such, you should also support disconnecting yourself from a fetus if that fetus was forced upon you.
I did not say this.
You are using words to fit your agenda.
Whether forced or not... is what I said... I have the absolute right to refuse.
Didn't you get that? Do you get it now?
I said I am not responsible for the person's death. They die as a consequence of their circumstances.
Didn't you get that? Do you get it now?
That is different to one who is responsible for the death of their offspring... regardless of whether the offspring is present, due to their own actions, or the actions of someone else.
That is irrelevant to the fact that they are responsible for taking the life of the offspring, like the driver is for mowing down the pedestrian.
Didn't you get that? Do you get it now?
Why don't you understand the answer, and what does it mean to you, if you think a life is just a blob of cells that can be thrown in the trash?
I think any woman that believes that, should consider getting what cats get when persons don't want them getting offspring.
Ladies. Are you tired of sharing your womb? Then tie it off, and you can have all the sex you want without worrying about having blood on your hands.
If carrying a baby is such a terrible thing - like losing a kidney, and having to depend on just one, don't you think that is the better choice?
If "permanent body changes" is a concern, tie it off. Problem solved.
I am glad we don't have all women thinking like you are Tag. Oh, but wait. That just might be the solution to all our problems. Less people means more land space, which means more food and housing, and maybe more money, we can use. Hmmm.
Rape is no excuse for taking the life.
Now, since you are focussing all your energy on the offspring 'being forced upon', does that mean you are okay with the ones who were not raped not having the right to take the life of the offspring?
I'm sure you don't think so. So then your questions here are irrelevant to anything I am saying, because rape is not the only way a woman gets pregnant, and there are only a significant few, who get pregnant from rape, compared to those who become pregnant through promiscuous sex.
Why don't I focus on the reason for the kidney loss. Oh. He smoked his kidneys to death, so...
No. Focusing on one factor does not change the focus of the issue.
It only serves as a strawman, set up to support the loaded question.
Yes. I think that, "I'm always right, and you are dishonest." feeling is the key player here.
What can I say though, to put you at rest? Let me try this...
Some women who are raped, when they see
Some don't even have to see, but just knowing that a life began - whether it's in its earliest stage, or late, the fact that even when we are outside the womb, there is an ongoing process... it's called growing. They realize that's what's happening from the first trimester. ...their conscience screams at them, that they cannot take the life. To them, it's a life.
The person with the kidney loss, is a life too, and someone may say, 'You know. I can make this sacrifice, and give a kidney." That is their conscience. It might be a dear friend, or a total stranger.
There are some person, who are so move by images of children suffering, that they give up thir life - that is, they don't live for themselves, and they devote time, energy, and money, to save some. They cannot save all, but they help whom they can.
However, there is a difference between not helping someone, and killing someone.
If my illustration did not help you, see that, and really you don't see it - the difference, I think you don't want to, because Tag always wins, even when he loses.
I am not responsible for the death of someone who was hit by a car, and died on my pavement, because I did not go out and try to give him CPR, but instead called Emergency.
If I drove the car that plowed into him, then, yes, I am responsible for his death.
That's my view.
There is no way else to say this, to be clearer.
Oh. The people who argue that the fetus is not alive, know why they argue that, because if you can establish that as a reality, you clear your conscience and your accountability for taking a life.
I know you guys say you don't believe in God, and so you have no need to feel accountable to any higher being, so you free yourself, right?
I believe you are not free of accountability. I believe in the saying, 'You reap what you sow'. I believe there is true justice, which will be served.
I know a lot of people don't care about life and death, but that's okay.
