Geneaux486

No, one human being never has the right to own another. One person cannot look at another and say "That is my property". A person claiming their right to food and education =/= owning someone as a financial slave. I advocated nothing even close to what you're claiming I did. What it tells you about me is irrelevant. We humans percieve rights based on our own common sense and reason. Being able to reason is not a prerequesite for having rights, living is. The capacity in which an entity can live determines what rights it has in a moral sense. Whether or not we acknowlege these rights (which is a matter of choice, both yours and mine) is a different matter altogether, and it is what you are arguing here. I changed nothing. A fetus is just another stage of a developing human being. It is a living, growing thing. A comparison resulting from a logical fallacy. Your comparison of going into a person's house and demanding food and clothing would only be comparable to a woman and her fetus were that person to say that because you couldn't take care of yourself, you should be killled. So you keep insisting, but it ain't getting any more true the more you say it. Rights are relevant to life. Social situations are one instance in which they are relevant. Rights are important indetermining what can or cannot be done to a living thing, what should or should not be allowed. If you truly do not believe that rights extend past humans that can reason, then your definition of rights is simply insufficient. A fetus is a developing human being, not a potential human being. It already exists, it is already growing. It's the same as a seed that has already been planted. The plant is developing, but it is still a plant. And it's a shame that the process has to be so painful. Again I say, we do not have the right to decide that killing the fetus is a viable solution to this problem, as it involves taking the life of a developing human being. If left unharmed, the fetus will continue to grow and develope. We do not have the right to deprive it of a chance we ourselves were given, as there is no discernable difference between the fetus and us when we were fetuses. We were certainly not more deserving of life than any other fetus. They support life at all stages and are therefore pro life. Your perspective does not change theirs. Your views on the issue are not theirs, and their views exist independently of yours. What you are doing is reinterpreting their motives, which is difficult because motives are impossible to prove. I think abortion is wrong, and oppose it to the extent that my voting rights will allow. Going by this same argument of yours, you are still violating a right to life by aborting a fetus. Again I will say, one possible outcome results in two lives being spared, while the other results in only one. You talk about the harm to the mother as if the process of getting an abortion is completely harmless. There are risks both physically and mentally. There is no way to go through life without risks and without struggles. It's part of being human.

Yet in many governments, animals do indeed have rights from a legal standpoint. It is illegal where I live, for instance, to torture an animal, or to shoot deer in a number that exceeds a set limit. From a moral standpoint, the rights of an animal extends to its capacity to feel. It is aware of its environment, and it can feel pain, therefore it should be protected from being caused undue pain. A rather short-cited view. Humans do not simply find uses for nature, we are dependent on it in nearly all forms for our very survival. Should the government legally preserve some forests? Yes. Why? Because cutting down too many trees eliminates carbon sinks, which harms the ozone layer. The fish gives nutrients to the anemone, and the anemone protects the fish. Each assists the other in doing something it is incapable of doing itself. This can be viewed as a type of peaceful trade.

First I will post the definition of a right as defined by the dictionary, and I will work off of that: Now: I understood your point, and it is flawed. Treating a living person as a dead person is not the same as treating a fetus as though it's further along in developement. Even if they were similar, it's irrelevant, as I advocate simply treating a fetus as what it undeniably is: a developing human being who's natural life cycle will lead it to grow. Cells in your body will not grow into individual people, this is the point at which this particular analogy fails. Something that is alive deserves rights that extend to its capacity. A living fetus that will grow into an adult deserves rights that extend to its capacity to become a complete human being. Its humanity is not theoretical, it is simply what will happen. It is certainly not in opposition with individual rights. Furthermore, I could respond to your question here with the exact same question. What gives us the right to decide that a developing person does not deserve the same chance at life that the rest of us have gotten? Whether or not it is a burden is irrelevant when it is already alive. As I said, rights should extend to the capacity of the organism to which they are applied. A developing life derves its chance at development, but it would not, for example, deserve the right to vote. A government that claims to value human life will use its laws to protect all developing human life, which it claims to value. Would you apply this type of reasoning to a comatose person as well? Should a person who's footing the bill to keep that person alive be able to pull the plug if he already knows that the person will eventually come out of the coma? Going by the above logic, you would have to say "yes", and this is where we disagree. And I would agree with this if I believed that one person ever has the right to own another. I do not believe this. Clearly we disagree at our core perceptions of rights. The fetus does not own the woman, it is simply dependent on her. As human beings we have all been dependent on others for survival at some point or another. To argue that this invalidates our rights to life at any point after that life has begun is absurd. I don't care. I'm not trying to covince you of anything. My argument is not meant to persuade, but to inform. The fetus does not get to dictate anything, it merely happens that it does. It is not doing so of its own free will, but since it is a living organism with the capacity to grow into a fully functioning human being, it does not follow that this infringement invalidates its life. This is based on a perception of rights that is not factual. To be fair, neither is mine. Rights can extend to goods, services, and resources. A living person has the right to eat. A child has the right to recieve an education. This is not always the case from a legal standpoint, but from a moral standpoint, unless there is a discernable difference between two organisms, they deserve the same rights. To put it another way, if we recieve an education as children, then it follows that other children deserve an education as well. If we are able to eat, it follows that everyone else deserves to eat as well. There is no moral justification for denying these things, and this is why I believe rights, from a moral standpoint at the very least, extend to goods, services, and resources. To claim that they hate mankind relies on a perception of their motives that you are incapable of seeing. It would be more reasonable to say that their behavior is detrimental to mankind, but again, this is a matter of perspective. Protests will have limited results, and the murder of doctors who perform abortions is never justyfiable under any circumstance. However, the pro-life movement itself is just that, pro-life. In favor of life at all stages. And what about the mother? Does she have the right to every comfort and aid she can get to assist her with childbirth? Absolutely. I do not believe this extends to the destruction of another life. No one is condemning anyone to anything by opposing abortion in and of itself. Childbirth is a natural process that has to be undertaken in order for our species to continue to survive, no one is forcing a woman to have to give birth in this way, it's simply the way the body works. It would be morally wrong to forbid a woman from having a c-section or taking pain killers, but this is not part of the pro-life stance. At pregnancy there are two living organisms to take into consideration. The mother, who deserves all the assistance she needs, and the developing child, who deserves the same opportunity to grow and develope that we have all gotten.

I know many hunters who have killed deer. Let's say one of them cut off the deer's arms and legs and skinned it alive? Why should the governemtn *not* try to stop such cruelty? And animals interact with other animals in a way that benefits both. I'll get to that further down. I'm covering your side as well as mine. Yes, we use them for food, and as pets. Neither use justifies causing them undue harm. We rely on nature to survive, that never gives us the right abuse it, and so it is important for anyone in any position of power to protect nature from such abuse. Fish and anemones can have symbiotic relationships. The fish bring anemones nutrients while the anemones offer protection. The base instinct of both result in a peaceful trade. Just because they lack the same reason as us does not mean they are incapable of resourceful coexistance. We as humans helping each other, while respecting the rest of the animal kingdom is not anarchy.

The fact that we will one day die =/= a fetus will continue to develope. You're comparing the end of a person's life with the literal beginning of a person's life. They are far from the same. Planning comes *before* another life is a factor. The developing human already exists, ergo it has rights. I'm fully aware of what the developing life does or does not deserve. These are man's interpretation, and they are fallible. A government that claims to value human life must value human life at all stages. Fetal stage is just another stage. "Rights" or rather, what a person deserves, what events a person morally *does not deserve* to befall them, must extend to all stages of developement. But what is the woman pregnant with? A developing human being. Maybe that sounds callous to you, but I do not believe one person ever owns another, regardless of how depenent upon others they are. I will say again, rights always violate other rights in a world of limited resources. We all need the same things to surivive, and there is always a limit to those things. You seem to at least understand the reasoning of those who disagree with you, so why would the pro-life movement anger you?

You're speaking in a legal sense. Just because a government does or does not do something does not make it moral. There is no double standard unless you make one. You can stop a deer from eating your crop, but if you catch and torture it, that is wrong. You and I view rights in two separate lights. I belive all living things have at least some rights, while you focus on whether or not a living thing can contribute to its society. I fear we may be at an impass. Why do you think there are laws that dictate hunting limits? Animals use reason to survive as well, simply to a lesser degree. We need animals to not go extinct for a large number of reasons. It benefits us to protect them, and even if it didn't, rights of animals should extend to their capacities of awareness. The existence of learned behavior in animals contradicts this. Only if one type of animal is predatory towards another. There are plenty of species that do coexist without preying on one another. There are many examples of mutually beneficial relationships between different species.

It's being killed. That's punishment. Punished meaning the government took action against a wrong doing is a different perspective, not a fact. Yes. Especially in the case of a developing fetus, which you know will develope into a full grown person, yes, it does have rights. Still dependent on a guardian. The time to prevent an unwanted child is before conception, not after (non-consensual sex being an exception). Almost every right is infringing on another. As I said, we all have rights in a world with limited resources. Every time we receive something, we're depriving someone else of that same thing. Because in most cases, only one of the two options results in both entities living. The developing child is already in existence, it's already growing, and will eventually become full grown. Rights can and will infringe on other rights, and it does not follow that this invalidates anyone's life.

The plants being living things point you made is a good one. Plants are the source of most of what we need to survive, whether we eat them directly, or eat animals that have eaten plants. It's an unavoidable food chain until we learn to conduct photosynthesis ourselves. I get sunburned easily so I haven't really tried much.

I don't think they were deleted. One of your posts has a tag from a moderator saying "Multiple post merge".

I don't agree with your view that rights only extend to rational beings in a social context. Your argument seems to treat rights as though they are a static, singular thing, when in fact rights can be dynamic, with varying degrees. I believe rights should extend to the capacity a living thing has, or will have as it developes. For instance, something that is capable of feeling pain should be protected from being caused unnecessary pain, especially if it cannot protect itself. Therefore it follows that in the situation of abused animals, the government should intervene.

Evolution is the most logical conclusion we can draw based on the evidence that we can observe. Indeed, evolution in various stages is still observable even today. Even if it isn't 100% proven, the methods in which it was concieved and studied are still relevant to science classes. Faith requires a belief in something that cannot directly be observed, otherwise it would not be faith. Jesus himself said something along those lines. I believe in God, which evolution does not conflict with at the most basic levels. Basically my stance is, teach the science in the science class. Matters of faith need to be taught and explained in a completely different way. That's my opinion at least.

The infant isn't taking resources from the mother because it *wants* to, so why should it be punished? Furthermore, even though one is dependent on the other, there are still two living things to take into consideration here. Your argument that a fetus is technically infringing on the mother is true enough from a certain point of view, but it does not follow that this invalidates the fetus' right to live, as it has no control over its actions. You say the government doesn't have the right to tell a woman how to use her body and resources, do you then also apply this to the situations that arise after a child is born? After all, it's still infringing upon the personal freedoms and resources of at least one parent if not given up for adoption. Also, you say that rights cannot infringe on other rights, but this is contrary to day-to-day life. Rights infringe on other rights all the time, and yet the majority of the time this does not invalidate them. It's something that will always happen as long as there is more than one person with unlimited wants and needs in a world of limited resources.

Exactly. They've been through ordeals just as bad in other videos and they always just sort of... get past it. I like Mike's theory about borrowed time.

I don't really see it as any more of a cliffhanger than Morning Patrol was. The durability of their body armor was established when Dave got hit by the car, and Mike's complaining during the credits shows that the monsters chawing away at said armor was nothing more than an annoyance. I figure they'll eat through that pod thing he was in long before they penetrate it and he'll just shoot them and leave with Dave.

Loved the episode. It was pretty much the kind of content I'd have expected.

...Um, what does Fox News have to do with anything?

I'd sooner give them the benefit of the doubt. They wouldn't just not post a video that will bring them a lot of hits, right? There's probably some kind of technical difficulty or something.

This was an extremely rare occurence used in the most dire of circumstances. It wasn't so much done when parents couldn't take care of their children as it was when there weren't enough resources to keep everyone in a community on their feet.

What I mean is they're probably held up by trying to upload both parts at once while still keeping up with their other releases.

I'm sure they'll upload it as soon as possible.

Machinima.com is familar with the size of Ross Scott's fanbase, I'm not sure it's a matter of The Tunnel being low on their list of priorities. 26 minutes would make for a pretty hefty video, and it's split into two parts at that. Maybe they're having difficulties getting it up? edit: The double entendre was not intentional.

I am pro-life. Even at conception what you've got is a developing human life that, if left untouched, will grow and develope and eventually be born, then live his or her life. There's no telling what that life might become, but I do not believe we have the right to decide when it is preferrable for a developing one to be extinguished.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=702 ^Possibly the most interesting online series I've come across to date.

That's a good point now that you mention it, looking at games like Halo Reach, it can be impressive what the 360 can render without dropping its frame rate. Perhaps it is simply a programming issue.

Yah-huh!