PETA demonstrates the "bare" facts

[lilithu]

Lilithu -- Irrelevant nitpick -- Viruses don't replicate themselves. They're just fragments of nucleic acid consisting of a "print" code. Essentially they have no features that a computer virus doesn't have. Computer viruses, in fact, generally are a lot more "complex" inasmuch as they usually (and unfortunately) code for more than their own replication.

They don't possess the machinery needed to replicate themselves. But their "print code" contains the information necessary for them to co-opt the machinery of their host and thus replicate themselves. One virus becomes thousands. And the genetic code changes just enough so that the defenses that our immune systems create can't keep up with them. Our bodies may kill thousands but a few always get through in order to infect someone else and start the process all over again. The effectiveness that they achieve with such a minimum of resources is astounding. I hear that the goal of a good programmer is to achieve the desired goal with a minimum of code. Even the best computer virus is clunky compared with what mother nature has done.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Whether there is a mind there thinking "ouch!" I tend not to think so. That requires a little more processing power than they possessed. But if someone wants to say that their souls thought "ouch!", I could not argue with that.

I could. What is a 'soul', and how does it think things without the use of a brain?

You're right, science makes no moral judgements, but you as a human do. If you don't use sentience as a criterion, you have to choose something. And since we've already esablished that there is no clearcut line dividing man from animal - the scientific evidence indicates that any criterion that you choose will be arbitrary. That is my point.

And it's a terrific one! I couldn't agree more.

I have heard you espouse the virtues of rational, objective science over irrational, subjective religion.

You have also heard me say that science, with all its virtue, does not make moral judgements.

You've also said things that make me think that you're pro-life.

Thank you.

So I am asking, since it's not religion, on what basis do you decide that a 5 month human foetus is more important/valuable than an adult rat?

Try reading my post here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3489&page=2 and the subsequent posts on that thread. I think we agree more than you'll allow.

I am trying to get you to either be as completely rational as you say we all should be or admit that rationality/objectivity doesn't have all the answers to some of life's most important questions.

Before you attempt either, perhaps you should reread the following:

science does not make moral judgements

I wouldn't want you to go through all that effort only to find out I had already beaten you to it, after all.

I've already freely admitted that my criteria are not rational or entirely logically consistent. As I said in the previous post, I refrain from making a judgement on the value of the life. There is no rational way to decide that an 8 month old foetus is more "valuable" than a 2 month old.

Nor is there a rational way to decide that a foetus is more "valuable" than a baby. Nor a rational way to decide that a black man is as "valuable" as a white man. Again, I think we agree here. I would argue that the reason for this is because concepts like value, rights, good and bad are human concepts that have no objective bearing on reality. Science cannot discern what is objectively right or wrong anymore than science can discern what is objectively basketball. I.m.o. right, wrong, gods, and basketball are all products of our human psyches.

 

[lilithu]

Before you attempt either, perhaps you should reread the following: science does not make moral judgements

Science doesn't make moral judgements but people do. I wasn't questioning science; I was questioning your stated reliance on science and how it figures into your judgments about the matters at hand.

But thank you for the link. You're right, we do agree more than not. I am against late-term abortions, starting at 6 months. However, such abortions are extremely rare. The 2002 report from the Center for Disease Control estimates that 56% of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88% are performed within the first 12 weeks (first trimester). Only 1.4 percent of abortions occur after 20 weeks (five months). (If abortion becomes illegal the percentage of late-term abortions will undoubtedly go up as access becomes more difficult.)

The ban against "partial-birth" abortions was mostly a publicity ploy in order to inflame public sentiment against abortion in general. And my understanding is that Kerry voted against that bill because it did not allow for exceptions in cases where the mother's life was in danger. People are usually allowed to kill in self-defense. why not the mother?

Nor is there a rational way to decide that a foetus is more "valuable" than a baby. Nor a rational way to decide that a black man is as "valuable" as a white man. Again, I think we agree here. I would argue that the reason for this is because concepts like value, rights, good and bad are human concepts that have no objective bearing on reality. Science cannot discern what is objectively right or wrong anymore than science can discern what is objectively basketball. I.m.o. right, wrong, gods, and basketball are all products of our human psyches.

Thank you. In other words, the questions that are most imortant to us as human beings are not answered by science. Something else is required. Whatever that something else is is a matter of personal choice.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

We are straying from the topic. I'll start a new thread to respond to your post.

 

[rivet]

Do all animals have rights? Or just domestic ones? Or cute and fuzzy ones? Or ones that talk in cartoons?

If my dog or cat catches another animal and is playing/torturing/killing it ... should my pet be charged with animal cruelty.

"Nature is cruel .... but I can be crueler" - Ren from Ren & Stimpy

 

[Fat Old Sun]

I have had two encounters with PETA.

February 28, 1992 - Anthony Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

Members of ALF burglarized and bombed the offices of Dr. Richard Aulerich and Dr. Karen Chou. Two students were in the building when the bomb exploded. Fortunately, they escaped. Everything in the offices that was not stolen was destroyed, including all of the research. Two decades of research on using dna and computer models to replace live animal testing were gone. Several members of PETA who were on campus knew about it and were out celebrating while the building was still smoldering.

Rodney Coronado, who was convicted of the burglary and arson, sent a package containing documents stolen from the torched laboratory to the home of PETA member Maria Blanton, to be forwarded to PETA president Ingrid Newkirk. This goes a long way toward explaining why PETA made the press release and paid for Mr. Coronado's legal defense.

In 1996, a friend of mine was having a problem with the local Animal Control. The overzealous director took his ferret because she claimed that it bit an elderly man. That's right, I said she, not the actual gentelman who she claimed was bitten. He refused to make any statement to that effect. That is another story though.

Animal Control was going to cut off his furry little head and test him for rabies, even though ferrets don't get rabies. PETA volunteered to break in to the facility and release him. They said they would only do it if the ferret was released in the wild "where he rightfully belongs."

You would think that an organization that claims to exist only for the love and protection of animals, would know a few rudimentary facts about said animals. Ferrets are, and always have been, completely dependent on humans. They were bred to be that way thousands of years ago. A ferret released in the wild would be dead within three days. They only know three things... eat, sleep, and play. Would you drop a two year old off in the woods to fend for itself? :banghead3

I don't make generalizations like this very often, but they are morons. They are publicity hounds. They love to see themselves and hear themselves through the media. They think that it makes them more significant than the rest of us peons. Dropping your drawers and holding a sign does not make you a better person, and burning down a building while people are inside certainly doesn't. They are using a legitimate issue to let their personality disorders run rampant.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Maybe someone should expose them! ooops! Too late, looks like they did it themselves!

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

The brain begins developing relatively early in pregnancy, and continues to develop long after the child has been born. I think it's important to remember the "no magic barrier" argument from earlier. At any rate, supposing one adopted your criterion of a 'working' brain, what would this mean for those in comas, the elderly, and the mentally handicapped?

*edit: And, just so we're still on topic ...would this mean all animals with 'working brains' are equal to humans? *

People in comas, elderly people, and mentally handicapped still have brain activity...which, by the by, shows up in about 40 days in a fetus...just to clarify what I meant. Not at all sure I agree with myself, mind you (I don't really think science by iteself should ever determine morals), it's just a thought.

And, just to be on topic, no, I don't think animals are equal to humans, brains or no. I'm going to have to say I value a human life more than, say, a goldfish. It being my species and all, y'know. Possibly goldfish value goldfish more than humans, which is fine by me.

Oh, side note: viruses aren't considered alive, since they don't have any sort of metabolisms. Just DNA and some protein. Kinda funny, I guess managed to evolve themselves out of life. Get small enough to avoid detection, but too small to do anything more than replicate. Still, seems to work.