Abortion

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: complich8
I disagree. The fundamental purpose of law is to protect human social structures. Human rights are an afterthought. There are not many laws that permit things, but a LOT of laws that restrict them.

I was under the impression that people had certain things restricted in order to protect the rights of others. In that sense, the purpose of law is to protect human rights, as the restrictive laws are in place only to prevent infringement on the rights of other citizens.

Again, if you accept the universal right to life, then any criminal corrections systems are inherently unjust. This premise HAS to be discarded (or at least severely damaged) to rationalize the mere existence of such formal norm enforcement mechanisms.

How is it that any form of a criminal correction system violates the right to life? Perhaps I misunderstood, but I assume this is what you were saying. Aren't many systems that deal with criminal correction there to preserve the individual's right to life, and at the same time, to keep other citizens safe or to "reform" the criminal so that he or she can become a better member of society? I realize that this might not always be the case, but the ideal (for those not supporting the death penalty, at least) is to protect the rights of everyone - including the criminal.

[complich8]

You make a good point ... from the perspective of society itself. "Protecting the rights of the criminal" sounds nice, doesn't it? But in fact, you're still denying him the right to both the core belief that he differed from society on enough to get thrown in jail (maybe he doesn't agree with the idea of private property, and so believes that stealing is not wrong), and the right to free will (because prisoners pretty much don't have that, they're subject exclusively to the will of the people in charge of them).

I'll argue that will is the essence of humanity. Without it, a man is nothing but an animal. Further, imposing social norms is a denial of that will. Patrick Henry said pretty dramatically, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!". The founding premises of this country basically put freedom as a higher value than life itself.

So, if you view society's impositions as the denial of liberty, and imprisonment as the chains of slavery to society's values, then can you not find that for a criminal convicted of holding ideals incongruent with society's, being forced into the choice of either dying in prison or being bound to society's will is fundamentally a denial of the essence of life?

This is all a matter of perspective. From soceity's view, it's humane to try to drag people kicking and screaming back into the arms of society, for their own good. From the perspective of the person being dragged, it's a horrible thing, maybe even a fate worse than death, being forced to conform, forced to serve values you don't believe in.

[Darknodin]

Originally posted by: complich8


I'll argue that will is the essence of humanity. Without it, a man is nothing but an animal.

what do you mean by "will"? if you mean the ability to decide for yourself what you want. Many animals have that. defining humans against animals objectively is impossible for us. Personally, I go with "everything that looks sufficiently like X person is a human" (this is completely subjective but it works).

now back to the will thing. if you think that the apparition of will defines the person, well even after birth, then the baby would be in a grey zone. What I mean by that is that whereas the baby can decide and communicate that it wants food or wants quiet or whatever, this is completelely impulse driven. Whereas an adult can decide not to eat something even if he is hungry (like fasting or skipping a meal because you are studying or are thinking of eating something better at a later point in time) a baby can't do that. also, a baby will not joke. it can lie, but it will do so for a reason, to get something, not for a joke.

this is why I think the debate of whether fertilized eggs are human or not is futile in a way.

[complich8]

The problem with the "everything that looks sufficiently like" idea is twofold: first, people can fall outside the bounds of "sufficiently like". People with deformities, or people who have hereditary traits that fall outside the bounds (such as the family in mexico that has a body hair condition that basically covers them all with thicker hair than any other humans have). Further, an embryo doesn't look much like a human, does it?

Will isn't just saying "I want". Will is essentially the ability to implement physical things using conscious mental processes. A good example of this would be if I decide to build a shed. I consciously decide this, I deliberately plan it (where it's going to be, how big it's going to be), and I use my deliberate, conscious plan to somehow bring about a physical object corresponding to it (in other words, I build a shed).

This conscious process of implementing ideas in the physical world is will, and is something that things that aren't human don't possess as far as we know (ie: animals can build things, but don't consciously plan them -- that is, mere instinct is not will).

You're correct though, in that will may not be a very good criterion for evaluating humanity in the context of abortion, because of another question: Do infants have will? Or is it something that's developed over time?

[Darknodin]

Originally posted by: complich8
The problem with the "everything that looks sufficiently like" idea is twofold: first, people can fall outside the bounds of "sufficiently like". People with deformities, or people who have hereditary traits that fall outside the bounds (such as the family in mexico that has a body hair condition that basically covers them all with thicker hair than any other humans have). Further, an embryo doesn't look much like a human, does it?

Looking suffiently like is completely subjective. If I see something and I feel it is human, then it is... this is my criterion.

Will isn't just saying "I want". Will is essentially the ability to implement physical things using conscious mental processes. A good example of this would be if I decide to build a shed. I consciously decide this, I deliberately plan it (where it's going to be, how big it's going to be), and I use my deliberate, conscious plan to somehow bring about a physical object corresponding to it (in other words, I build a shed).

This conscious process of implementing ideas in the physical world is will, and is something that things that aren't human don't possess as far as we know (ie: animals can build things, but don't consciously plan them -- that is, mere instinct is not will).

not true...animals can plan. Chimps do build tools, and there is this one gorilla that was chatting on the internet (which requires to think of something, and then find the way to express it, and go through that)

You're correct though, in that will may not be a very good criterion for evaluating humanity in the context of abortion, because of another question: Do infants have will? Or is it something that's developed over time?

Yea, and I am certain that everyone here believes that a 2 months old (born) baby IS human

[KitKat]

Originally posted by: Darknodin
not true...animals can plan. Chimps do build tools, and there is this one gorilla that was chatting on the internet (which requires to think of something, and then find the way to express it, and go through that)

Can you provide a reference for this please? I'd like to see the study.

[Darknodin]

Doing a VERY quick search on google

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/apes/chimp/
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/constr.html

and this is the gorilla : http://www.koko.org/

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: Darknodin
and this is the gorilla : http://www.koko.org/

I'm glad you referenced that. Now I can make fun of her "chat" without making a topic for it...

Here is part of the transcript from the attempted chat. Koko uses sign language and Penny is her trainer:

PENNY: Hey, Cutie.
Penny swivels Koko's chair around so they face each other.
PENNY: Let me explain what we're doing.
KOKO: Fine.
PENNY: We're going to be on the phone with a lot of people who are going to ask us questions...
KOKO: Nipple. (Koko sometimes uses 'nipple' as a 'sounds like' for 'people.')
PENNY: ...about you and about me. . . Lots of people.
KOKO: That red pink. (Indicating Penny's shirt.)
PENNY: That red pink. Yes, right!
PENNY: OK. That's the kind of things they are going to ask.
KOKO: Good.
PENNY: Questions about colors or how you're feeling. OK?
KOKO: That red. (Indicating her own hair.)
PENNY: Honey, this is black.
KOKO: XXX XXX. (XXX looks like 'sun'.)

The entire transcript is as laughable as that segment. It becomes pretty obvious that Koko isn't capable of expressing anything other than instinctive desires. Either that, or something completely random, like "Koko-love eat ... sip." Any remotely complex ideas that Koko seems to communicate seem to be just inferred on the part of her trainer.
Edit: The whole transcript of the chat can be found here. It has nothing to do with this topic, but read it anyway. It's comedy gold.

[KitKat]

Academic papers or well-known institutions with publications are generally best to use when referencing something. Don't trust the information you find on the internet unless it comes from a reliable source.

As for the transcript and the information about Koko, I'm sure that's quite reliable. Thanks for the reference! However, I agree with Xan that Koko doesn't display any traits of what I would characterize as human language. It seems that her human trainer is doing quite a bit of interpreting of ambiguous replies. Don't get me wrong, animals communicate (in fact, I talk to my cats all the time, and they talk to me and I pretend I know what they're saying) but human communication has a number of unique characteristics. I'm gonna do this off the top of my head, so I apologize if this post is rough.

First, our language is infinite. New words enter our lexicon on a daily basis. We are constantly naming new things and processes, and changing the meanings of our words. Theoretically, we also have the ability to create an infinite sentence. Something like "The cat that belonged to my brother who was sitting in the living room that was decorated with a white carpet that we bought in Hawaii where ...." Basically, because there are infinite possibilities for the sentences you could make, you could speak for your whole life and never say the same sentence twice. Secondly, human language displays an internal structure, what we refer to as grammar. If any of you have read any of Chomsky's writings, he's done quite a bit of research on this and he has a theory of 'Universal Grammar' as something that is hardwired into our brains. Even languages of so-called 'primitive' people are among the most structurally complex on this planet. Many aboriginal languages encode data such as animacy, shape, colour, and size of objects directly into their grammar systems. Thirdly, our communication isn't limited to basic needs an emotions. We can talk about art, economics, philosophy, etc. I could go on and on. But I won't. Because I have to get back to my homework. But yeah. I love talking about language [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Darknodin]

Yea... I know I didn't post from very reliable sources since i simply took the first links from Google. What I was saying though I remember it from a serious source (i think it was a documentary called "decouvertes" in montreal).

at any rate, our language sets us appart from all land mammals for different reasons which you stated. however as much as it is impossible to prove a negative, cetacean language seems pretty advanced itself.

also, I guess you could say something like : a human is a land mammal that can speak; but that leaves some people out no? even replacing speak by communicate, you still have some people which are obviously human, which are left out.

[hiddenpookie]

I belive in abortion if the baby is going to be born unwanted.

[masamuneehs]

It looks like the new, Bush stacked, Supreme Court might get the chance to address the abortion issue sooner than we thought.

South Dakota, land of... What the fuck do they have in South Dakota? Well, apparently a lot of Christian conservatives The state legislature in South Dakota officially approved a bill that is essentially a challenge against the Roe v. Wade ruling. The bill passed 23- 12 (with tons refraining from voting...) And an amendment to that bill was approved 50-18 (I find the fact that the people who didnt vote on the bill in the first place still voted to tailor it later is fucking bullshit)

Enter Mike Rounds.
Governor Rounds. He vetoed an anti-abortion bill two years ago. This time though, he says he will approve the bill if it can save lives. Uh-oh. I wonder what he voted would have voted in the poll in this thread?

I have yet to find an exact wording of the proposed bill, but I find this quote about it interesting:
The bill would make it illegal to perform/get an abortion in the state of South Dakota unless it was to save the pregnant mothers life. Rape, incest, too bad.

The bill would ban almost all abortions in South Dakota and would be the most stringent anti-abortion measure adopted by a state. It would be unconstitutional under current U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

This means that if the bill is signed it will HAVE to be challenged in a court. And then well see where the new Supreme Court sits on this matter.

Source: http://www.argusleader.com/app...25/NEWS/602250333/1001
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11542260/

[Honoko]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11569379/site/newsweek/

Also check out that link. It's saying that the timing isn't good for the pro-lifers in this one. Supreme Court, despite Bush's influence, will most likely still have a 5 to 4 majority in favor of Roe-- especially since affirmation of this case happened as recently as 1992.