๐ณ๐ฑ
@AtlasFreeman So as someone who would never be a hypocrite I presume you are adamantly against both the death penalty and abortion?
Because our legal system is such a mess, I mostly agree. No death penalty.
Philosophically, I believe every human has a right to life, #liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If one human tries to impede on one of those natural rights, there are consequences. The consequence of intentionally and maliciously taking another's life is justification for the death penalty.
So you see, there is no hypocrisy, as an unborn child cannot murder..
@AtlasFreeman Not my legal system, yourself. I got myself a house in the netherlands and got the fuck out of dodge.
Not sure of the relevance of if an unborn child can murder or not though. Your original post pointed out hypocrisy in opposing a death penalty and supporting abortion. Obviously the inverse of that is equally hypocritical.
@freemo @AtlasFreeman It may or may not be hypocritical.
Taking the life of an innocent and taking the life of the guilty aren't moral equivalents.
I think both have to be thought through. Obviously taking the life of a "criminal " as in the meme isn't right, there's lots of crimes and the meme's big fault, I think, is that it implies there's people out there saying all criminals should have their lives aborted. No one says that that I've heard.
When it comes to mass murderer or serial killer, there's other opinions,and if we value human life and human rights, should we treat the innocent differently than one who goes around repeatedly taking away people's rights and lives by murdering them. Those are the only death row considerations I'm aware of.
But if someone supports taking the life of only those guilty of the most serious crime, of repeatedly murdering others, yet they think we should protect the lives of the innocent, I don't see hypocrisy there.
@SecondJon
Neither is taking the life of something that , depending on when, may not even have a brain.
the very fact that the two aren't equivalent on any level points out why your original post was poorly thought out.
Either way your logic seems selective and failed.
@freemo @AtlasFreeman gotcha. I think the parallel is that they're both definitively, scientifically, unique human lives.
I think humans are more than brains, so I've never thought about being able to take a life of a person who may not have a brain. But babies do have brains before birth, they don't pick them up in the birth canql on the way to be born....or all C Section kids would be in real trouble.
But the brain isn't fully developed. That's true. But it's not fully developed for decades.
The first 3 years of human life are huge in brain development, so your argument that the state of one's physical brain determines one's moral worth and whether killing that human is wrong would apply to small children as well.
Of course the prefrontal cortex isn't fully there until late 20s for females or about 30 for men, so it may apply to many more.
I suppose that seeing human life as valuable is very different than feeling that one gets to pick who lives and dies based on physical factors.
I've discussed a lot of people's ideas on what they'd pick as those factors, and they've always seemed logically and morally problematic. And primarily an attempt to get some argument behind their already existing opinions.
Others in the past have decided that human life wasn't worth preserving based on other physical or genetic factors, like being black, being Jewish, having downs, being female. Arguments that say "all human life is worth protecting except for this dehumanized category even if they've done nothing wrong" seem to strike me a certain unpleasant way.
@SecondJon No in the first few months there is literally no brain, no neurons of any kind. You cant even say it isnt fully developed. It literally is non existent.
It literally is little different than sperm in the first few months.
You are welcome to whatever religious beleifs you want, but thats not how we create law, nor should it be. In the end we make murder illegal because it means someone who wants to live can not, or someone will suffer.
I think a very obvious line where it i is and should be legal is int he early period before there is any sort of brain.
@freemo @AtlasFreeman I don't think we outlaw most because it causes human suffering. There's plenty of ways to kill people without causing them to experience suffering.
I don't think I've referenced and religious belief here at all, so we can move past that.
I said all human life is ought to be protected, which is scientifically defined by DNA. I think you're saying only life that we decide on their behalf wants to live and will also experience suffering is worth protecting, which is a standard, but I think a more subjective and less scientific one.
Neither is inherently hypocritical though.
@freemo @AtlasFreeman I think the weakness of the standard is that the closest we can actually get is:
If WE THINK /DECIDE THAT someone wants to die and they wouldn't suffer by doing so, then we would be ok killing them.
The human mind is so complex, a person often doesn't really know what that person really wants. To assume that I can truly understand what someone else wants may be impossible. That's fine when it's a choice of what's for dinner. It's not as fine if I'm going to kill them.
A lot of us have thought at some point or other, "I'd rather die" - my seven year old said that to me the other day...would rather die than wear the only pants available that day because he doesn't live denim. I don't think I would have been okay to painlessly kill him because he wanted to die. I'm glad that all of us who have thought this way even as adults weren't killed because that's what we thought we wanted at the time.
It's further complicated because we can't always communicate even even what we think we want. Someone asleep, in a coma, preverbal, or with any number of medical or psychological conditions will have a hard time declaring that they don't want to be killed. I don't think that babies 5 minutes before or 5 minutes after birth are communicating that they'd like to be killed - I think we agree on that one.
I think you may have an argument for legalizing suicide - I don't find it a convincing argument for taking the life of another.
The other argument, that human brains are worth saving, is probably worth a different toot...but it'll have to wait, about to start a conference call.
@SecondJon
Thats not what I said. I said "because it means someone who wants to live can not, or someone will suffer." Notice I specify two different reasons we make it illegal. ONE is suffering, the other is because someone wants to to live and we violate that free will.
If someone wanted to die, AND they wouldnt suffer by doing so, then we would be ok killing them. BOTH factors are relevant. Neither factor applies to a fetus without a brain.
@AtlasFreeman