Pro-Life and Anti-Regulation

[Metatwaddle]

Ghetto edit: When I said "yes and no, respectively", I meant "no and yes, respectively". And that's assuming that I correctly interpreted what you meant by "caging", i.e. putting the AI in an environment basically devoid of social or intellectual stimuli.

[Darth Wong]

Hmm.... Maybe because "natural" means tried and true for millions of years?

That means it has successfully achieved the goal of continuing to exist. It does not mean it is ethical. Your argument presumes that nature has successfully been ethical for millions of years, hence it should be assumed to be ethical in future. That is beyond preposterous; nature has succeeded in existing for millions of years, not in being ethical. Unless you think that the only requirement for ethics is to successfully exist: a rather low bar.

That is to say, certain biological processes and/or reactions have evolved through brute force trial and error, but what's left is what WORKS and what is useful.

That is what works for the purpose of continued existence. The continued existence of the human race is not in danger from abortion, hence any argument from evolutionary fitness is a red herring.

[bazymew]

I disagree. Humans are special, at least because of their intelligence.
(A point with which you do seem to agree from your subsequent statements)

No. Humans are very intelligent. But that intelligence is not in some manner metaphysically different from the intelligence of a dog, cat, lizard, or indeed a chicken. It is only a matter of degree.

I was merely writing from the viewpoint of degree. Humans may not have a different kind of intelligence than the rest of the animals, but they have it in the extreme.

One is incorrect in saying that animals do not possess human intelligence. The more correct thing to say is that humans possess a greater degree of animal intelligence.

Well humans are classified as animals, right?

A chicken is of extremely low intelligence compared to a full grown human.
A full grown chicken is dumber than a 2-year-old human. It can never get near to the intelligence level of a full grown human.
A fetus, however, by natural progression will reach high intelligence, therefore, it could at least be assigned more moral worth than a chicken.

Your conclusion is disconnected from both your premises. Thus you are committing a non-sequiteur.

I am uncertain as to how that would inherently be a logical fallacy.

Because it is a non-sequiteur.

Let me break this down.

Say there are two people. John and Stave. John exists currently, while Steve might, based upon the decision you make in the following scenarior. exist sometime in the future. He is a potential person.

Action A: You can alleviate the suffering of John. What this suffering is, it does not matter. As a result of this, Steve will not ever come into existence.
Action B: You can act to prolong John's suffering. As a result, Steve will eventually come into existence.

This illustrates an important point. The argument from potential operates on the implicit assumption that you are killing Steve, when in fact you are not. You are merely preventing Steve. As a result of this Steve does not suffer, no one who would otherwise have known Steve will miss him. The only way to justify the argument that we have moral obligations toward the non-existent is if we accept the premise that we should never take an actions which might prevent another person from coming into existence, which means we can never turn down sex (just to name one example). people who resist being raped under this set of premises are in fact doing something wrong. Clearly this is silly.

John does however exist, and provided we accept the axiom that we have moral obligations toward people who exist, it follows that we should act to prevent his suffering.

Yes, I see what you're saying. That kind of argument from potential is obviously crazy.
But, an argument of natural progression:

Anything that has the potential to turn into a highly intelligent being and is already set in motion to where the only thing to stop it would be some drastic change (The natural progression would be for it to grow into a highly intelligent being) is considered [for moral purposes] already grown.
In a normally functioning womb and under normal circumstances, the fetus is composed of the right materials, and in the right place, to turn into a full-grown human being eventually if nothing is drastically changed.
Therefore, aborting a fetus (except in a case of the mothers life being threatened from carrying it to term) is wrong.

I would be interested in anyone's arguments to refute that.

I don't believe this part to be invalid except for the exclusions. Besides that, the case of natural progression to intelligence seems to be intact so far.

See above

See above.

If it was established (which is not yet and may never be) that a fetus has the same rights as a born human, than surely you would not contest that the life of a fetus would be worth less than the psychological and sociological well being of another human?

First off, I am utilitarian, I dont believe in rights. But if it were the case that I did, there are rights-based arguments that presuppose full personhood on the part of the fetus, and make the argument that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is in effect enslaving her, and that it does not follow that Personhood---> Abortion is Wrong

So, basically, what you are saying is:
If
Person A will die if they do not enslave Person B.
Person B will be enslaved if they do not kill person A.
It is the fault of Person B that Person A lives.
It is not the fault of Person A that they need to enslave Person B to survive.
Then Person B should be allowed to kill Person A?

Also, what about the psychological stress endured by some women after they get an abortion? (guilt, depression, etc.) Should not that also be considered?

Do you have evidence that this is a widespread phenomenon? And even if it was, does it make any sense to say

"I am going to prohibit you from making a choice about what you think is in your best interests, because there is a chance that you may regret it"

Come on, use your brain.

Brain? Oh, I think I have one around here somewhere...

Refer to my above post.

There is both psychological and (potentially serious) physical trauma associated with carrying a child to term, and an added harm of being forced to do so against your will (it is fairly well-enshrined in our legal and ethics systems that coercion itself is harmful). Many women suffer lifelong health consequences even from a seemingly healthy pregnancy. That is three forms of harm, as opposed to one form of potential harm which you cite for women voluntarily getting abortions.

I see your point. It appears that that is still a valid argument for a Pro-Choice view.

As for the argument that a fetus will "naturally develop" into something more intelligent, it will not actually do so without extensive effort from the mother. Left by itself, it would rapidly die. Now you could say that this effort is also "natural", but this leads to the question of why we are attempting to assign some moral value to our perception of nature's intent, or why nature itself is assumed to be ethical. The behaviour of most animal species would be considered highly unethical if humans acted that way; why is "natural" necessarily ethical?

Well, it seems that since the fetus would become an intelligent human without interference, to disrupt that might be equal to killing the intelligent human.
I suppose it could be equated with disrupting the timeline and preventing someone from ever existing: It has already happened; to prevent it would be to kill the person.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Holy crap! What happened? Can some kind and gentle mod please be so kind as to delete the previous butchered post?

All adult retarded humans are smarter than all chickens, I believe.
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

That is, in fact, not true. I have friends that work with the severely mentally retarded and chickens are in fact smarter than them.

That may be true, however chickens have not yet evolved that much. If a chicken did evolve into an extremely intelligent being(like a human), than it would be different.

Same argument applies. The fetus is not yet intelligent.

Also: I would appreciate it if you at least attempted to address my argument

To facilitate the finding of the truth of the matter, I am refuting parts of arguments that seem to be wrong, even if the argument is for my viewpoint. Playing the devils advocate, you might say.

And you are doing so abysmally poorly by rehashing things that I have already ripped apart in this thread

A fetus is not equivalent to a mushroom. A mushroom has no intelligence at all. (To my knowledge)

Neither does a fetus

Anyway, I am just trying to keep the arguments accurate, so we can all come to the right conclusion.

Save that I have already addressed every argument you are making. You are not indeed contributing anything to the discussion

[Darth Wong]

Well, it seems that since the fetus would become an intelligent human without interference, to disrupt that might be equal to killing the intelligent human.

Two problems with this argument:

1) It will not become an intelligent human without interference. In fact, a human female must be slaved to the fetus for nine months, giving the fetus priority over her own body's needs in order to further its development. Without that act, the fetus would die. You are still effectively appealing to nature, arguing that it has some kind of intrinsic ethical value.

2) You are saying that if A could eventually become B, then A=B. That does not follow. The fact is that A is not equal to B, and no matter how many times you repeat that A could eventually become B, that fact will not change.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I was merely writing from the viewpoint of degree. Humans may not have a different kind of intelligence than the rest of the animals, but they have it in the extreme.

But that does not entail specialness. And our degree of intelligence is not all it is cracked up to be. We just have a lot of a very specific type, abstract reasoning and social intelligence. Other organisms are way the fuck more intelligent than us when it comes to other things.

But, an argument of natural progression:

Is the same thing, you blithering moron. The only difference is how close the being is to coming into existence, when the refutation of the argument doesnt give two shits whether Steve is an abstraction, or actually on his way to existing. The argument is exactly the same. Steve does not yet exist, therefore Steve as an individual has no moral standing.

Anything that has the potential to turn into a highly intelligent being and is already set in motion to where the only thing to stop it would be some drastic change (The natural progression would be for it to grow into a highly intelligent being) is considered [for moral purposes] already grown.

You do not get to just state that as an axiom a priori.

I would be interested in anyone's arguments to refute that.

I just made it, in the prior post. All it is, is a restated version of the argument from potential. The ethical equivalent of intelligent design. It is just as vapid, and just as mind-bogglingly dishonest.

Person A will die if they do not enslave Person B.
Person B will be enslaved if they do not kill person A.
It is the fault of Person B that Person A lives.
It is not the fault of Person A that they need to enslave Person B to survive.
Then Person B should be allowed to kill Person A?

No. What I am saying is that it does not follow that just because a fetus IS a person, that it has the moral right to supercede the mothers own rights. It would be a logical fallacy called a non-sequiteur, which you seem to not be able to avoid committing, to hold that position.

Analogy stolen from one named Thompson

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]

Does this person have the right to your bodily functions?

Well, it seems that since the fetus would become an intelligent human without interference, to disrupt that might be equal to killing the intelligent human.

I have already delt with this. All you have done is dressed the same tired argument in a cheap suit. Just like a creationist.

[Garlak]

"Moving on to abortion.. I'm for having that option. For the simple reason that I'd want to be able to exercise that option if I were a woman in such a situation. (I think the arguements against the option of abortion are a bit.. silly, or fallacious, but since I adequately answer them, I'll go with the simpler reason or empathy.)"

Whoops, my bad, sorry that was supposed to be "but since I *can't* adequately answer them, I'll go with the simpler reason of empathy. (Left unsaid is that I'll leave it to people who actually CAN [and are] answer that, to errr answer that.)" (Seriously, total screw up there...)


"You're new here, but if you stick around, you will find that teleological arguments will not be received sympathetically on SDN. It's not permissible to eat mushrooms and chickens because they are meant for us to eat, it's permissible to eat them because they are not self-aware and, in the case of the mushroom, cannot feel pain or suffer. There are actually some decent arguments that we should not eat chicken that is produced through factory farming methods, because the chickens suffer during their short lives. I ignore these arguments because chicken is delicious."

Hmmm, um.. *I* wasn't arguing that I believe that it is okay to eat mushrooms and chickens because they are MEANT to be eaten. I was trying to connect animals (no self-awareness; eat) to possible future "dumb" (not self-aware) computers, and distinguish them from AIs (self-aware..).


"The fact that something is useful or adaptive doesn't mean it is inherently good. What has evolved through natural selection is not what is most ethical. It doesn't mean most efficient (see also: the human eye vs. octopus eye). Hell, it doesn't even mean what's in the best interest of a species, or even an organism. If something has evolved, then it is in the best interest of a piece of DNA. This is not morally relevant."
I was trying to argue the other side; give a reason why if something is "natural" it would have importance placed upon it. I came up with the idea that "natural things are tried and true (or made by God), so we stick with what works..."


"You need to accept that killing a plant is seriously wrong, or give reasons to value intelligence that do not appeal to its evolutionary benefit."
... That wasn't quite what I meant. I'm not 100% sure of my original message, nor how to better phrase it.. Just.. I was trying to connect "developmental" and "natural" to ethical and moral, to get a better view of the pro-life POV.



I want to clear up something: It is not my personal opinion that ethics and morality are tied to evolutionary advantages. "The fact that something is useful or adaptive doesn't mean it is inherently good. What has evolved through natural selection is not what is most ethical. It doesn't mean most efficient (see also: the human eye vs. octopus eye). Hell, it doesn't even mean what's in the best interest of a species, or even an organism. If something has evolved, then it is in the best interest of a piece of DNA. This is not morally relevant."


"That means it has successfully achieved the goal of continuing to exist. It does not mean it is ethical. Your argument presumes that nature has successfully been ethical for millions of years, hence it should be assumed to be ethical in future. That is beyond preposterous; nature has succeeded in existing for millions of years, not in being ethical. Unless you think that the only requirement for ethics is to successfully exist: a rather low bar."

Was trying to come up with an explanation for why "natural" would be seen as better.. Got shot down.

"That is what works for the purpose of continued existence. The continued existence of the human race is not in danger from abortion, hence any argument from evolutionary fitness is a red herring."
Okay.




Trying to get back to my earlier talk about AIs.. Okay, one of the main arguements of the pro-life group is that you're "taking away potential life," and that there is a natural progression from fetus to self-aware being that shouldn't be interrupted, right?

Animals are okay to eat because they're not as intelligent as us. (Think I can safely fix this to be "animals are okay to eat because they're not, and never will be, sentient or self-aware." This is not my own arguement; just what I've read has come up in this thread.)


Well, I brought up artificial intelligence because... at some point in the future, we'll create sentient beings. SO... Since they're sentient, we'll treat them more like humans.. well, making allowances for, um, their needs and the situation, can't forsee it all. Anyway: we have intelligent electronic life. (I'm running off the assumption we'll create sentient life out of computers, so..)

There will still be NON-sentient computers. My question is; should these then be treated as animals, who'll never reach self-awareness? Or should they be treated more like a fetus, or a baby, or a child?

Bazymew and Akhlut have argued and made distinctions that a fetus should not be aborted because it will become a child, and it's potential makes it very valuable. (Um, I got it right, right? The correct people sticking to the related arguement?)
So, with that in mind, are you going to encourage us to make all computers sentient? I mean, wouldn't there be untapped potential that can develop into sentience? Would it THEN be wrong to *not* raise/upgrade them?


Hopefully I made my questions and thoughts more clear. The first time it really missed the mark..

[Akhlut]

A fetus is not equivalent to a mushroom. A mushroom has no intelligence at all. (To my knowledge)

Neither does a fetus

That's a bit simplistic, to say the least. Fetuses do have sleep/awake cycles, respond to different stimuli in different manners (primarily, startle at loud noises, soothe at the mother's voice), and the like, indicating that while they certainly don't display even a children's level of intelligence, that they do have some measure of it. Further, we don't know how well they could learn things because of the difficulty in testing them and potentially questionable ethical issues of trying to train a human fetus to respond in certain manners. However, they certainly display perhaps fish level intelligence, meaning they probably could learn fish level responses to stimuli.

[Akhlut]

Ghetto edit: Depending on where one is in the developmental cycle, of course. Later on, the fetus gets much more intelligent. Earlier on, it is mostly just moving and going through sleep/wake cycles while startling at noises without necessarily being soothed by the mother's voice.

[Darth Wong]

Garlak, you need to enclose other peoples' text with the quote function, not quotation marks. It's much, much easier to follow that way. Like this:

Code: Select all

Your text
[quote]The other person's text[/quote]

Or:

Code: Select all

Your text
[quote="The other person's name"]The other person's text[/quote]

[General Zod]

That's a bit simplistic, to say the least. Fetuses do have sleep/awake cycles, respond to different stimuli in different manners (primarily, startle at loud noises, soothe at the mother's voice), and the like, indicating that while they certainly don't display even a children's level of intelligence, that they do have some measure of it. Further, we don't know how well they could learn things because of the difficulty in testing them and potentially questionable ethical issues of trying to train a human fetus to respond in certain manners. However, they certainly display perhaps fish level intelligence, meaning they probably could learn fish level responses to stimuli.

You're confusing autonomic responses with "intelligence", since "responding to stimuli" does not equal intelligence in the least.

[Darth Wong]

It's funny how people set such a low bar for fetal intelligence. Earthworms respond to stimuli as well.

[General Zod]

It's funny how people set such a low bar for fetal intelligence. Earthworms respond to stimuli as well.

Hell, microbes respond to stimuli. I suppose that makes the flu intelligent.

[bazymew]

I was merely writing from the viewpoint of degree. Humans may not have a different kind of intelligence than the rest of the animals, but they have it in the extreme.

But that does not entail specialness. And our degree of intelligence is not all it is cracked up to be. We just have a lot of a very specific type, abstract reasoning and social intelligence. Other organisms are way the fuck more intelligent than us when it comes to other things.

Like what?
(I know this may seem like a red herring...)

The kinds of intelligence humans have in excess are very important, though. They have, for example, the ability to reason out an ethical code.

But, an argument of natural progression:

Is the same thing, you blithering moron. The only difference is how close the being is to coming into existence, when the refutation of the argument doesnt give two shits whether Steve is an abstraction, or actually on his way to existing. The argument is exactly the same. Steve does not yet exist, therefore Steve as an individual has no moral standing.

Anything that has the potential to turn into a highly intelligent being and is already set in motion to where the only thing to stop it would be some drastic change (The natural progression would be for it to grow into a highly intelligent being) is considered [for moral purposes] already grown.

You do not get to just state that as an axiom a priori.

I realize that if it's not true, then the argument falls apart.

I would be interested in anyone's arguments to refute that.

I just made it, in the prior post. All it is, is a restated version of the argument from potential. The ethical equivalent of intelligent design. It is just as vapid, and just as mind-bogglingly dishonest.

It has an important difference. If this was true, it would not logically follow that to refuse sex would be wrong.

What do you mean by "The ethical equivalent of intelligent design"?

Person A will die if they do not enslave Person B.
Person B will be enslaved if they do not kill person A.
It is the fault of Person B that Person A lives.
It is not the fault of Person A that they need to enslave Person B to survive.
Then Person B should be allowed to kill Person A?

No. What I am saying is that it does not follow that just because a fetus IS a person, that it has the moral right to supercede the mothers own rights. It would be a logical fallacy called a non-sequiteur, which you seem to not be able to avoid committing, to hold that position.

Analogy stolen from one named Thompson

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]

Does this person have the right to your bodily functions?

Yes. If you can save the life of another highly intelligent being without endangering (much) your own life or endangering the life of any other highly intelligent being, then you have the moral obligation to do so. That being said, I do realize that it does not prove that abortion is wrong.

Well, it seems that since the fetus would become an intelligent human without interference, to disrupt that might be equal to killing the intelligent human.

I have already delt with this. All you have done is dressed the same tired argument in a cheap suit. Just like a creationist.

As I said, it is a slightly different.

What creationist? Are you referring to one in particular?

Well, it seems that since the fetus would become an intelligent human without interference, to disrupt that might be equal to killing the intelligent human.

Two problems with this argument:

1) It will not become an intelligent human without interference. In fact, a human female must be slaved to the fetus for nine months, giving the fetus priority over her own body's needs in order to further its development. Without that act, the fetus would die.

How is that interference? To interfere in the process would be to kill the fetus. For the mother to continue her normal life except to take more sustenance (which she would do because her body would tell her she is hungry or thirsty) would not be interference with the normal process.

You are still effectively appealing to nature, arguing that it has some kind of intrinsic ethical value.

Well, not really nature. Just that if someone is in the process of being made, to interfere with that would be to prevent them from living. If they had a right to exist, it would be wrong to prevent them from existing.
The question is: Can someone who does not exist yet have the right to exist?

2) You are saying that if A could eventually become B, then A=B. That does not follow. The fact is that A is not equal to B, and no matter how many times you repeat that A could eventually become B, that fact will not change.

[/quote]


The argument is that interference in the process of A becoming B would be to deny B the right to exist when A will turn into B if you don't interfere.

Does anyone who doesn't exist yet have the right to exist? No, I don't see how.
I don't see that the premise for the argument is justified.



I consider the argument duly refuted.
That argument was starting to remind me of a certain directive of a government on a science fiction TV show...

[bazymew]

It's funny how people set such a low bar for fetal intelligence. Earthworms respond to stimuli as well.

Hell, microbes respond to stimuli. I suppose that makes the flu intelligent.

Oh, my. I can just see the picket lines "SAVE THE FLU!"

[Samuel]

That would be Father Nurgle, who loves ALL his children. Fortunately, PETA is not that crazy.

However...
http://images.craveonline.com/article_i ... crobes.jpg

On the topic at hand,

The kinds of intelligence humans have in excess are very important, though. They have, for example, the ability to reason out an ethical code.

That is covered under abstract thinking.

What creationist? Are you referring to one in particular?

All of them. He seems to be accusing you of not seeing the point, committing logical fallacies wantonly and making incoherent arguments. He is right.

How is that interference? To interfere in the process would be to kill the fetus. For the mother to continue her normal life except to take more sustenance (which she would do because her body would tell her she is hungry or thirsty) would not be interference with the normal process.

You are appealing to what is natural again.

Well, not really nature. Just that if someone is in the process of being made, to interfere with that would be to prevent them from living. If they had a right to exist, it would be wrong to prevent them from existing.
The question is: Can someone who does not exist yet have the right to exist?

No. That was an easy question.

[Isolder74]

As far as I understand the real issue here seems to be a debate at trying to decide at what point an unborn child is considered human and therefore has rights.

The main problem I see is that no one here or in the outside world can agree on where to draw that line.

Come to think of it we can't even seem to agree on what the term viable means.

As far as I can see the debate is going nowhere and does not seem to be anytime soon.

[Samuel]

As far as I understand the real issue here seems to be a debate at trying to decide at what point an unborn child is considered human and therefore has rights.

The main problem I see is that no one here or in the outside world can agree on where to draw that line.

Come to think of it we can't even seem to agree on what the term viable means.

As far as I can see the debate is going nowhere and does not seem to be anytime soon.

I'd flame you, but I don't really have the skill at it. Any way, your point was addressed in Darth Wong's first post on this thread.

Of course he was human. He was human 10 seconds after conceiving. But he didn't have any real brain activity yet. Earthworms move and react to stimuli too.

We also aren't concerned about viability either. A tumor is viable. The HeLa engine keeps on running after all. We are concerned about sapience.

The reason this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere is that you are ignoring the opposing side. When you ignore you opponents and your arguments don't have them immediately surrender, you tend to get that feeling.

[Isolder74]

I never said anything about what side I am on. I was nearly observing how this has gotten absolutely nowhere.

[Samuel]

I never said anything about what side I am on. I was nearly observing how this has gotten absolutely nowhere.

Think up a suitably sarcastic and barbed retort to your statement- I cannot be bothered by such frivolities.

The current blocking point appears to be the pro-lifers not relieving that the potential for existence is no justification. It cannot be resolved unless the pro-life side gives a rationale or admits that it is not a reason.

Of course, there is no possible rationale that is logically consistent, so it is possible they will break off rather than continue.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Like what?
(I know this may seem like a red herring...)

The kinds of intelligence humans have in excess are very important, though. They have, for example, the ability to reason out an ethical code.

Which is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not we are somehow metaphysically special. It is like a duck claiming to be special and thus superior to other birds because it has webbed feet.

I realize that if it's not true, then the argument falls apart.

You missed the point entirely you fucking moron. That is not an axiom you just get to state. It is the conclusion of an argument that itself has to be defended so you dont get to use it as a premise. As it is you are committing a non-sequiteur. Stop it before I get creative with image-craft.

It has an important difference. If this was true, it would not logically follow that to refuse sex would be wrong.

Yes it would. Because sex is a link in the chain of a "natural progression" toward a being coming into existence. The only difference is one of probability.

And even if that were untrue, it still does not have an effect on my criticisms on this argument via my critique of the argument of potential because the hypothetical Steve does not exist yet to have moral standing.

What do you mean by "The ethical equivalent of intelligent design"?

Because you fucking dolt, all you did was dress up an argument from potential in a cheap suit, give it a different name, and try to foist the same tired bullshit I have refuted in prior posts and indeed entire threads on us all over again

Yes. If you can save the life of another highly intelligent being without endangering (much) your own life or endangering the life of any other highly intelligent being, then you have the moral obligation to do so.

So it is OK to strap someone down to a table and forcibly remove their kidney's and part of their liver in order to increase the number of people who can get organ transplants?

What about slavery? What if, by getting rid of slavery we caused children to die? Should we continue keeping people enslaved?

As I said, it is a slightly different.

But not different in a way that matters for the purposes of the argument.

What creationist? Are you referring to one in particular?

see above. and you might want to see a doctor, the density of your skull is so high I am shocked the extra mass has not caused you some amount of neck and lower back pain.

How is that interference? To interfere in the process would be to kill the fetus. For the mother to continue her normal life except to take more sustenance (which she would do because her body would tell her she is hungry or thirsty) would not be interference with the normal process.

Do you hear that sound? That is the sound of his point slamming into your skull and impacting an extremely dense material with a hollow center.

His point, that you are too stupid to comprehend, is that killing a being that will become an intelligent person is not the same as killing the intelligent person.

The intelligent person has thoughts, feelings, memories, and expectations and hopes that are taken away from them, and their families and loved ones harmed if they are killed. A fetus has none of these things. They have no hopes, dreams, or thoughts, and no-one who cares or will be harmed by their death. Therefore the two actions are different.

Can someone who does not exist yet have the right to exist?

No. And from a functional standpoint, it is damn good this is true, because otherwise we would be obligated to maximize population growth, and if the folly of that is not obvious to you, you have even less intelligence than I give you credit for which would be a damn shame.

[Rye]

All adult retarded humans are smarter than all chickens, I believe.
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

You are wrong. There are people who are so horribly broken they can't recognise anyone around them and have no physical autonomy at all, they can't relate themselves to anything around them.

That may be true, however chickens have not yet evolved that much. If a chicken did evolve into an extremely intelligent being(like a human), than it would be different.

Duh, that is the whole point.

A fetus is not equivalent to a mushroom. A mushroom has no intelligence at all. (To my knowledge)

You have to remember that abortion refers to embryoes too, as does your general argument. And early on a foetal brain doesn't do anything more complex than the chemical systems present in fungus.

I was not saying this as a good argument against abortion, rather I was saying this to as a counter to the claim that the psychological and sociological stress of carrying a child to term would be a reason for abortion. In other words I was trying to say that either way it's bad, so you can't say that because carrying the child to term causes bad effects, it's better to get an abortion.

If there's more bad effects from bringing it to term, it is better to get an abortion.

[Darth Wong]

1) It will not become an intelligent human without interference. In fact, a human female must be slaved to the fetus for nine months, giving the fetus priority over her own body's needs in order to further its development. Without that act, the fetus would die.

How is that interference?

You have system A: the fetus. You have system B: the mother's body. System B interacts strongly with system A, causing numerous changes. That is "interference" by any objective definition. You don't think it's "interference" because you are hung up on the naturalistic fallacy and you think it doesn't count if it occurs "naturally".

To interfere in the process would be to kill the fetus. For the mother to continue her normal life except to take more sustenance (which she would do because her body would tell her she is hungry or thirsty) would not be interference with the normal process.

As I said, you don't understand what "interference" means. You think it means "interference with a natural process", which in turn assumes some ethical value to naturalism. If system B interferes with system A, it only means that B is altering A through active efforts, which is absolutely, undoubtedly true for a mother's body and gestating fetus.

You are still effectively appealing to nature, arguing that it has some kind of intrinsic ethical value.

Well, not really nature. Just that if someone is in the process of being made, to interfere with that would be to prevent them from living. If they had a right to exist, it would be wrong to prevent them from existing.

Actually, it IS about nature; the problem is that you are employing the naturalistic fallacy without consciously recognizing that you are doing it.

Does anyone who doesn't exist yet have the right to exist? No, I don't see how.
I don't see that the premise for the argument is justified.

I consider the argument duly refuted.
That argument was starting to remind me of a certain directive of a government on a science fiction TV show...

Fair enough, but as I said above, you need to realize that your definition of "interference" assumes that the "correct" state is the natural process and that any deviation from this is "interference", even if the natural process involves interference itself. This is why I said you are employing a naturalistic fallacy.

[InnerBrat]

To interfere in the process would be to kill the fetus. For the mother to continue her normal life except to take more sustenance (which she would do because her body would tell her she is hungry or thirsty) would not be interference with the normal process.

I take the noise my brain made on reading this as fitting punishment for me wandering in here so unwittingly.

Pregnancy does not work like that, Bazymew. It's not a case of eating and drinking a lot while waiting for a baby to appear, though I do so wish it were. It's an invasive, damaging, parasitic process that has a significant effect on health, comfort and lifestyle. This is one of the reasons some people think they should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to go through it or not.

[bazymew]

The kinds of intelligence humans have in excess are very important, though. They have, for example, the ability to reason out an ethical code.

Which is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not we are somehow metaphysically special. It is like a duck claiming to be special and thus superior to other birds because it has webbed feet.

It is superior in some ways because it has webbed feet. But that in itself does not give it higher moral standing than other birds.
Humans are special because they have morals. If someone rejected all morals, would it be wrong to kill them? I think not.

I realize that if it's not true, then the argument falls apart.

You missed the point entirely you fucking moron. That is not an axiom you just get to state. It is the conclusion of an argument that itself has to be defended so you dont get to use it as a premise. As it is you are committing a non-sequiteur. Stop it before I get creative with image-craft.

I think the term you are looking for is circular reasoning, but my premise was not the same as the conclusion of the argument, although it was incorrect.

It has an important difference. If this was true, it would not logically follow that to refuse sex would be wrong.

Yes it would. Because sex is a link in the chain of a "natural progression" toward a being coming into existence. The only difference is one of probability.

It is? I would not consider it natural progression, because humans are not governed by instinct.

And even if that were untrue, it still does not have an effect on my criticisms on this argument via my critique of the argument of potential because the hypothetical Steve does not exist yet to have moral standing.

That is correct that he would have no moral standing.

What do you mean by "The ethical equivalent of intelligent design"?

Because you fucking dolt, all you did was dress up an argument from potential in a cheap suit, give it a different name, and try to foist the same tired bullshit I have refuted in prior posts and indeed entire threads on us all over again

I am unsure of whether to confirm or deny this, as metaphors are very ambiguous.

Yes. If you can save the life of another highly intelligent being without endangering (much) your own life or endangering the life of any other highly intelligent being, then you have the moral obligation to do so.

So it is OK to strap someone down to a table and forcibly remove their kidney's and part of their liver in order to increase the number of people who can get organ transplants?

I wouldn't exactly say that. What I would say is that if there was a specific person who needed an organ transplant, then it would be okay to force someone to give up their organ -if it did not endanger them at all- to save their life.
Just to clarify, i should have said:
If you can save the life of an innocent person without endangering your own life or endangering the life of any other innocent person, then you have the moral obligation to do so.

Also, the danger should be imminent, in the same way that self defense is justified. If the danger to someone's life is not imminent, then it would not be good to save one's own life or save someone else's life by hurting someone, because you could be wrong about the danger. By the time it would have been imminent, the problem could be corrected some other way that you could not foresee.

What about slavery? What if, by getting rid of slavery we caused children to die?

Well, it would depend on the specific instance. If, by freeing someone from slavery it was necessary to kill an innocent person, it would be wrong.

Should we continue keeping people enslaved?

Actually, slavery is not wrong. What is wrong is involuntary slavery. To keep someone enslaved against their will would be wrong.
But killing an innocent person is more wrong than enslaving an innocent person.

As I said, it is a slightly different.

But not different in a way that matters for the purposes of the argument.

Actually, as I said before it was different in a way that mattered for some of your attempts to refute it. It proved wrong in the end though.

What creationist? Are you referring to one in particular?

see above. and you might want to see a doctor, the density of your skull is so high I am shocked the extra mass has not caused you some amount of neck and lower back pain.

See above to the intelligent design comment?

How is that interference? To interfere in the process would be to kill the fetus. For the mother to continue her normal life except to take more sustenance (which she would do because her body would tell her she is hungry or thirsty) would not be interference with the normal process.

Do you hear that sound? That is the sound of his point slamming into your skull and impacting an extremely dense material with a hollow center.

His point, that you are too stupid to comprehend, is that killing a being that will become an intelligent person is not the same as killing the intelligent person.

The intelligent person has thoughts, feelings, memories, and expectations and hopes that are taken away from them, and their families and loved ones harmed if they are killed. A fetus has none of these things. They have no hopes, dreams, or thoughts, and no-one who cares or will be harmed by their death. Therefore the two actions are different.

That is mostly true. There could be possible harm from an abortion, although it is outweighed in many cases by the harm from carrying a baby to term.

Can someone who does not exist yet have the right to exist?

No. And from a functional standpoint, it is damn good this is true, because otherwise we would be obligated to maximize population growth, and if the folly of that is not obvious to you, you have even less intelligence than I give you credit for which would be a damn shame.

Well, actually, not necessarily so. That would be true if everyone who did not exist yet had a right to exist.
It seems to inherently be a logical fallacy in assigning any value to that which is does not exist.

All adult retarded humans are smarter than all chickens, I believe.
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

You are wrong. There are people who are so horribly broken they can't recognise anyone around them and have no physical autonomy at all, they can't relate themselves to anything around them.

Would you consider it okay to kill them?

That may be true, however chickens have not yet evolved that much. If a chicken did evolve into an extremely intelligent being(like a human), than it would be different.

Duh, that is the whole point.

There is a distinction between an organism and a species.

A fetus is not equivalent to a mushroom. A mushroom has no intelligence at all. (To my knowledge)

You have to remember that abortion refers to embryoes too, as does your general argument. And early on a foetal brain doesn't do anything more complex than the chemical systems present in fungus.

Really? I understood that the processes of the embryo were very complex for something of it's size.

I was not saying this as a good argument against abortion, rather I was saying this to as a counter to the claim that the psychological and sociological stress of carrying a child to term would be a reason for abortion. In other words I was trying to say that either way it's bad, so you can't say that because carrying the child to term causes bad effects, it's better to get an abortion.

If there's more bad effects from bringing it to term, it is better to get an abortion.

I agree.

1) It will not become an intelligent human without interference. In fact, a human female must be slaved to the fetus for nine months, giving the fetus priority over her own body's needs in order to further its development. Without that act, the fetus would die.

How is that interference?

You have system A: the fetus. You have system B: the mother's body. System B interacts strongly with system A, causing numerous changes. That is "interference" by any objective definition. You don't think it's "interference" because you are hung up on the naturalistic fallacy and you think it doesn't count if it occurs "naturally".

To interfere in the process would be to kill the fetus. For the mother to continue her normal life except to take more sustenance (which she would do because her body would tell her she is hungry or thirsty) would not be interference with the normal process.

As I said, you don't understand what "interference" means. You think it means "interference with a natural process", which in turn assumes some ethical value to naturalism. If system B interferes with system A, it only means that B is altering A through active efforts, which is absolutely, undoubtedly true for a mother's body and gestating fetus.

You are still effectively appealing to nature, arguing that it has some kind of intrinsic ethical value.

Well, not really nature. Just that if someone is in the process of being made, to interfere with that would be to prevent them from living. If they had a right to exist, it would be wrong to prevent them from existing.

Actually, it IS about nature; the problem is that you are employing the naturalistic fallacy without consciously recognizing that you are doing it.

Does anyone who doesn't exist yet have the right to exist? No, I don't see how.
I don't see that the premise for the argument is justified.

I consider the argument duly refuted.
That argument was starting to remind me of a certain directive of a government on a science fiction TV show...

Fair enough, but as I said above, you need to realize that your definition of "interference" assumes that the "correct" state is the natural process and that any deviation from this is "interference", even if the natural process involves interference itself. This is why I said you are employing a naturalistic fallacy.

Of course it is not necessarily wrong to interfere in a natural process, but something that is in the nature of an organism cannot by definition be interference with the natural process of the organism. Since it is in the nature of women's bodies to carry children, it would not be interference in their natural processes to do so. Why isn't it considered interference in the natural process for a child to go through adolescence? It changes many things in a child's biochemistry and such. It would simply be interference with the unnatural process, which would be the problem with the pregnancy.