Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: texasdave The unborn have their own unique DNA so they are individuals.

Yet lack autonomy, so they're no more individual than a rock or a vegetable.

Quote by: texasdave The unborn are human beings. They aren't dogs or cats.

By this logic, a sample of cheek cells should have rights to be protected.

[texasdave]

Yes, they lack autonomy. It's called innocence. And cheek cells are cheek cells and will always be such. They will never be anything more. Unborn children will someday be grown adults. That is, if some selfish person doesn't come along and chop them to pieces and suck the pieces out of the womb. Want to see some pictures of this gruesome act?

[Jubloz]

Quote by: texasdave That is, if some selfish person doesn't come along and chop them to pieces and suck the pieces out of the womb. Want to see some pictures of this gruesome act?

No, I don't. For the same reason that I don't want to see shit in a toilet bowl, the corpse of an elderly man, period blood, vomit, or two people having sex, all of which are natural. Visually, I don't find it appealing, and maybe that's because my culture has trained me to feel that way. I won't deny, I find a swirl of fecal matter and vomit disgusting, but that doesn't mean that pooping or throwing up is wrong.

[Passivist]

Unborn children will someday be grown adults. That is, if some selfish person doesn't come along and chop them to pieces and suck the pieces out of the womb

Or unless they will die of child birth, or perhaps, of a miscarriage.

Is a clump of cells intrinsically valuable or only because of potential, future merits?

Want to see some pictures of this gruesome act?

You care to see how those inferior animals are carelessly slaughtered?

[Jubloz]

Quote by: texasdave Yes, they lack autonomy. It's called innocence. And cheek cells are cheek cells and will always be such.

I dunno, a cheek cell seems pretty innocent to me. So does a rock (unless, of course, it's thrown at you). Also, are you saying that not being self aware is the same as innocence? Maybe lobotomizing yourself is a good thing, then?

[texasdave]

Passivist,
I have seen animals slaughtered as I have personally done it. I hunt and I field dress and butcher everything I kill. So, post away, it won't bother me. And by the way, animals are not innocent. That is a human attribute that you cannot apply to animals because they do not have free will. Unless you agree some animals are "guilty"?

[Jubloz]

Quote by: texasdave Passivist, I have seen animals slaughtered as I have personally done it. I hunt and I field dress and butcher everything I kill. So, post away, it won't bother me. And by the way, animals are not innocent. That is a human attribute that you cannot apply to animals because they do not have free will. Unless you agree some animals are "guilty"?

No, because I think your concept of "guilt" is stupid. Can you explain why humans are innocent and animals are not without simply saying, "'cause God told me so"?

[texasdave]

I never said humans are innocent in the literal sense. They can be innocent of a particular act but humans are all guilty to some degree. I mean, have you ever told a lie? Sure, we all have. Animals operate on instinct, not free will. Humans have the capacity to be self-sacrificing with unsolicited acts of mercy or compassion. We also have the capacity for evil. Animals are neutral. They are not poor or rich. Neither are they innocent or guilty. They just exist. I oppose animal cruelty but animals are a renewable resource like trees and crops. We can admire them, use them, eat them, work them, etc. So long as they are treated humanely.

[Jubloz]

See, you're contradicting yourself, Dave. You just brought up how animals operate on instinct, yet lack free will, therefor they are simply neutral and can be treated as such. A fetus lacks free will, so how does that differ?

Also, while you're at it, prove that animals lack free will.

[texasdave]

The woman carrying the unborn acts on free will. The unborn are human beings. It is wrong for a human being to kill an unborn human being as an act of free will. Knowing that it is human and defenseless makes it murder. Humans are not a resource to be used. Morally, humans are on a different plane because we can execise free will. Just because the unborn cannot at the moment does not nullify their value as a human being. It may be a different state that they are in but it does not change what they are.

[texasdave]

O.K. I'll prove that animals lack free will. Watch an injured animal and see if other animals of other species come to its aid. If not, they lack the free will to choose compassion.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: texasdave O.K. I'll prove that animals lack free will. Watch an injured animal and see if other animals of other species come to its aid. If not, they lack the free will to choose compassion.

That proves nothing. Perhaps they had the free will to choose indifference.

Some humans wouldn't come to the aid of other injured humans. Does that mean they don't have free will?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: texasdave The woman carrying the unborn acts on free will. The unborn are human beings. It is wrong for a human being to kill an unborn human being as an act of free will. Knowing that it is human and defenseless makes it murder. Humans are not a resource to be used. Morally, humans are on a different plane because we can execise free will. Just because the unborn cannot at the moment does not nullify their value as a human being. It may be a different state that they are in but it does not change what they are.

A fetus is not a human. A fetus is a part of the woman's body, until it is born.

[texasdave]

SOME humans won't, NO animals will. Because they cannot. Prove they do have free will.
And the fact that SOME humans won't is proof of our free will. Since some chose to do so and some chose not to. Animals never will. So, no evidence of free will.

[texasdave]

A fetus is human. It has its own DNA ( human DNA) separate from its mother. It also has its own body systems. It just draws energy in the form of nutrients and oxygen from the mother. The mother's parts have only the mother's DNA.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: texasdave SOME humans won't, NO animals will. Because they cannot. Prove they do have free will. And the fact that SOME humans won't is proof of our free will. Since some chose to do so and some chose not to. Animals never will. So, no evidence of free will.

That doesn't mean animals have no free will.

Also, I demand you provide evidence that no animals will come to the aid of another when injured.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: texasdave O.K. I'll prove that animals lack free will. Watch an injured animal and see if other animals of other species come to its aid. If not, they lack the free will to choose compassion.

Animals of other [i]species[/I? Why other species? Fine, you're still wrong. Both dolphins and elephants, as well as some other animals, have been recorded protecting animals of another species, including (but not exclusive to) humans. So, will you admit animals have free will then?

[texasdave]

Prove animals have free will.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: texasdave Humans are not a resource to be used.

texasdave This statement only works for religious and humanistic groups. The human creature is no different from an animal and thus should be available to society to sustain life and endeavour to develop understanding. Humans have been used as resource for centuries, mainly they are in armies and they are sacrificed so others may enjoy a life of peace, this is saddening.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: texasdave Prove animals have free will.

texasdave, if you search these forums you'll find that your concept of "free will" is debatable! {It is not a topic for this thread so please limit your reply}