Bingowings said:
In the other thread I posted about my carrots and the remote probability that your child will have orange hair.
Well, I thought perhaps because you feigned sorrow for a pretended insult, that perhaps you were saying my apologies were insincere. I'm still unclear as to whether this was your intent or not.
Incidentally, neither of our families has red hair in a near relative, so chances are pretty low of getting a ruddy baby, I'm afraid.
In this thread
Bingowings said : I 'm pretty sure other people would be more diplomatic but me being me I think you are being a bit of a cunt here, hopefully not deliberately but I feel it needs to be said.
Yes it's a taboo word, yes it's saved for special occasions and Frink is his own man if he feels you have nothing to apologise for that his own concern and your apology regardless of his lack of requirement for one is noted.
But I do think you were being a bit of a cunt then so a retraction of my previous statement would serve only as a tidy deception.
I didn't expect or ask for an apology. I just think it was unnecessarily rude and did more to show what a jerk you were being than indicate that I was being such.
You want your child, so in its current form of course it is more than just cells to you. It is a bundle of hope for the future. I dare say are already speculating some aspects of that future. As someone who believes in a soul injected into each and every embryo you will also endow those cells with that value too.
Not everyone feels the same way and not everyone who feels the same way has the opportunities you will hopefully enjoy.
I believe in a spirit of sorts too. I see it in non-human animals I feel their suffering. I am powerless to prevent it but I am empowered to limit it as far as I am able by not eating the slaughtered or wearing them or hunting them or endorsing experiments on them.
If you had the ability to end the slaughter of animals, would you? If you had the opportunity to share your feelings and argue your reasoning, would you? Do you see anything wrong with being open and passionate about those feelings? Do you see anything wrong with trying to evoke change in the world around you because of those feelings? You are not powerless to stop it, though your fight is definitely up a steep hill, and I encourage you to match whatever your passion with equal action. If you want to end the slaughter of animals, pursue whatever course you feel is necessary to ensure it. Who knows? One day your actions may find greater fruition than you imagined.
And yes, I grant myself the same privilege.
You are similarly empowered.
If you disagree with something don't do it, retract from the society of those that do and hope to lead by example but expect nothing.
Here I am, pulling a Warbler quoting/point-counterpoint. Can someone get me a taco? ;) You have political issues that are clearly very important to you, such as gay marriage. Do you simply retract form the society of those that fight against it and simply lead by example? Or have you actually 1) petitioned Parliament to take action ; or 2) marched in opposition to anti-gay marriage policies; or 3) canvased others sharing your views publicly; or 4) shared your feelings openly with people you associate with, face to face or online? I know for a fact you've done at least one of these, and perhaps you have done more. That said, you have not led by example and expected nothing. You led vocally and expected action.
Progress is a retractable lure. In Russia and Iran even here in my own country hard earned freedoms and rights are being eroded or upended.
It's a complicated topic, I'm sure you appreciate that it's not as simple as saying "this thing is bad we must ban it and punish those who do it" there are people who believe that it is that simple.
My opinion on the subject is the mother is an undeniable human identity an embryo is a debatably human identity that becomes more definitely human as the pregnancy progresses and as the child grows.
A woman with a bunch of cells in her body she doesn't want there is not the same as an expectant mother with a nearly fully formed child ready to be born. Other options should be made more readily available but ultimately medical and legal interventions should reflect that spectrum of physical development because it is clinically measurable.
A soul is not clinically measurable. Expectations of future happiness are not clinically measurable. The woman's health and will is measurable. God's will is not measurable.
Laws and medical practise can only be based on what can be measured and proved not on assertion or feeling alone.
This is my favorite part of your argument. If you argued this way in the first place, I'd be far more interested in listening. To restate my original intent on the occasion that pissed you off so badly, I was struggling for a word, sympathy came to mind, I clicked "Post Reply" and thought no more on it. I knew even as I posted it that it was probably not the right word, but I expected my point to get across. Obviously such was not the case, and even looking back, I don't know why I expected anyone to understand me correctly because clearly "sympathy" was so clearly the wrong word. What I was getting at I still cannot find a single word to state. I felt like Frink's situation was a continuous emotional appeal argument that was being used to try and trump all my points, whether used validly or not. I think I was not being what you describe me as.
That said, we can measure and assert that a unique life exists at conception. It is a life that, unhindered, will continue in most cases to develop into what is, without a doubt in anyone's mind, a person. This is certainly not debatable. What is debatable is when a human becomes a person. One might argue that it is when it could potentially survive outside the mother's womb. But when technology improves, will it become a person sooner? Is it a person later in third world countries? Is it actually when it is born? But is there any substantial difference between a child moments before and after its umbilical cord has been severed? Some might say when it becomes self-aware. But children are not truly self-aware until long after birth. Heck, the human brain doesn't even fully develop until about 23. So when is a person a person? I say that when it is beyond a doubt a genetically complete and unique organism with the capacity to continue its development, it is a human, it is a person, its life is worth saving.
Let me give an analogy that I've thought long on. The argument that an unborn child is not yet a person, as advocated by Mary Anne Warren, is severely flawed in my mind. She suggests the following criteria define a person:
- consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain
- reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)
- self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)
- the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics
- the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both
Now let's hypothesize on an analogous train of thought. Think of a man. This man, due to the actions of a young male and female having fun with alcohol and a car, is injured and ends up comatose in a hospital bed. In our little scenario, we have the technology to make a 97% guarantee that this man will not only come out of his coma (in about nine months), but will in fact ultimately make a full recovery, though there is a good chance his memory will be impaired. But at the present we cannot detect any: a) consciousness; b) evidence of reasoning or significant brain activity; c) self-motivated activity; d) effort to communicate; d) enduring self-concepts. This man is, according to Ms. Warren, not a person. He is genetically human, but not a person. The young couple involved did not have insurance, but because they are at fault in this accident, are required to pay for this man's medical bills and treatment. However, simply euthanizing him is a cheaper option, and they won't be responsible for the physical therapy that would follow. You see, when they chose to drink and drive, as fun as it was, they simply weren't ready for the consequences/commitment that might follow such actions. Thank goodness this man was, at least for a time, a very large but ultimately nothing more than, a bunch of cells.
