Moral status: robots, foetuses, and healthy patients

[LuckyR]

Fretting over the details of one being's rights (while making no mention of the second being) in a two being situation, is somewhere between ignorant and disingenuous.

Are there 'beings' who have 'different rights' than others?

Absolutely. Minors vs adults are an obvious example.

[henry quirk]

There are many different ways to see and interpret.

Not really.

For you.

For everyone.

[Age]

Fretting over the details of one being's rights (while making no mention of the second being) in a two being situation, is somewhere between ignorant and disingenuous.

Are there 'beings' who have 'different rights' than others?

Absolutely. Minors vs adults are an obvious example.

So, what are these, claimed, 'different rights', here, exactly?

And, if you do not provide any, then why not?

[Age]

Not really.

For you.

For everyone.

What do you mean by, 'not really', exactly?

Just the fact that "lacewing" says and claims that there are 'many different ways to see and interpret', and, you saying and claiming, 'not really', is just another prime example of how there are 'different ways that you human beings actually see and interpret', and thus is proof that you human beings can and do see and interpret things in 'different ways'. For example you 'henry quirk" have a very 'closed way' of seeing and interpreting some things, while others will have a far more 'open way' of seeing and interpreting the exact same thing/s. There are also 'other ways' of seeing and interpreting things. Therefore, there are 'many ways' of seeing and interpreting. However, and of course, what one 'sees' and/or 'interprets' as being 'many', another may well 'see' and/or 'interpret' differently, obviously.

[Age]

So, Henry, it appears that you are saying there are EXCEPTIONS to whether someone has a right to defend their own life, yes?

We do not have the right to defend our own life against a natural biological process that produces a mammalian offspring from an embryo.

All of our years of investment in our own lives are inconsequential and forfeit to a biological process, yes?

The mammalian offspring takes precedence, right? That is counter to your claim that everyone has a right to defend their own life.

the baby isn't a threat, it's not gonna kill me.

Not only can the process kill you, it can destroy the life of someone who doesn't have the desire or means to raise and support another being. The offspring may not have such a great life, as a result, either. Do you really think we need more unwanted beings injected into the system?

Why is it so difficult for you to consider/understand that NATURE needs checks and balances? Humans (like all of nature) have been doing this for a long time in various ways. Must people infest the Earth to the detriment of all else? Religion seems to have no bounds in its ignorant quest for authority/control over everyone. How do we defend ourselves from THAT?

Why do so many of 'your views' revolve around your absolute hatred of 'religion'? While 'you', "yourself", are 'trying to' further 'your own religion', here?

Have you, still, not yet recognized and noticed your absolute hypocrisy, here?

[Age]

We do not have the right to defend our own life against a natural biological process that produces a mammalian offspring from an embryo.

No, you don't have the right to kill a person you invited into the world by way of your choices and actions just becuz that person inconveniences you.

Obviously, 'this one' has clearly 'missed the point', once more.

When a 'mammalian offspring', or what you call 'a person', is taking the life, liberty, or property of 'another', then the 'other', well according to your beliefs and claims, here, does have a so-called 'right' to kill that 'mammalian offspring person'.

Obviously, 'you' can not have it 'both ways', here, "henry quirk". your attempts to, pretend, 'miss the obvious actual point' that was being made is not helping 'you' in any way, here.

All of our years of investment in our own lives are inconsequential and forfeit to a biological process, yes?

If you don't want babies: don't make them.

That is counter to your claim that everyone has a right to defend their own life.

Nope.

Yep.

Beng pregnant, most of the time, for most women, is not life-threatening and, when it is, obviously the woman has a difficult choice to make: Do I preserve my life or take the risk on losing it to preserve my child's? Either choice is moral.

Wow, 'this' was a 'very quick turn around'.

But, 'these things' do happen when one, finally, does recognize and see 'the contradictions' in 'their beliefs and claims'. Although what usually happens 'now' is that ones like 'this one' will never acknowledge, let alone admit, the inconsistencies and/nor contradictions, in their previously 'held onto beliefs and claims'.

it can destroy the life of someone who doesn't have the desire or means to raise and support another being.

Then, again: Don't. Make. Babies.

Either one can kill another dead if 'the other' is taking the life, liberty, or property of 'the one', or 'they' can not.

So, which one is 'it', "henry quirk"?

If 'it' is the former, then killing fetuses, when they are taking life, liberty, and/or property is perfectly acceptable and even 'morally right', to you.

But, if 'it' is the latter, then why do you believe, absolutely, and claim that you can kill human beings dead for just taking a molding piece of bread or a toothpick, for example, while you believe that 'those things' are so-called 'yours'?

The offspring may not have such a great life, as a result, either.

One more time: don't make babies.

So, the 'only way' out of 'your contradictions', here, is to, 'now', tell human beings, themselves, 'Do not make babies'.

Can't wait to get into the whole rape thing...

No wonder 'you' 'run away', and 'hide', when 'I' come, here, and question and challenge 'you'.

[Age]

intent of malice.

Ending a person's life becuz they inconvenience you is pretty damn malicious.

'This', coming from 'the one' who 'tries its' hardest to 'justify' that it can shoot and kill human beings dead for just taking 'this one's' toothpick and/or moldy piece of bread. Which, obviously, to most 'Right thinking' human beings is nothing more than just 'the inconvenience', itself, of 'this one'.

Although 'you' were previously blatantly obviously contradicting "yourself", throughout our discussions, and being very hypocritical, hopefully more and more people are recognizing and seeing just how blatantly obvious you are contradicting "yourself", here, now.

[Lacewing]

There are many different ways to see and interpret.

Not really.

For you.

For everyone.

According to you because you know how it is for everyone?

[seeds]

...through her own "choices and actions" a woman "invites" a man into "her world" via marriage but didn't realize until months later that he was prone to fits of violent rage...not by choice, but brought on by a brain tumor (or some other physiological anomaly).

So, the question is, does the woman, who just so happens to be wearing a legal sidearm at the time, have the right to defend herself and "off" this other human as he comes at her with a knife after declaring he was going to kill her?

Yes, full stop.

Do you, or do you not make exceptions for rape?

I do.

Again, just playing devil's advocate here:

If you agree that the woman has the right to defend herself by "offing" the husband with the physiological issue (the brain tumor) that's somehow driving him into a fit of rage that's going to result in the loss of her life if she doesn't end his life first,...

...then doesn't the woman have the same right to end the life of the fetus within her womb if indeed the doctors were 100% certain that some physiological anomaly involving that fetus will, again, result in the loss of her own life?
_______

[henry quirk]

According to you because you know how it is for everyone?

Becuz, everyone knows right from wrong.

Everyone, every where, any when, intuitively understands it's wrong to murder, enslave, rape, steal, and defraud.

Not everyone has a deep reasoned explanation for why this is (most folks don't), but -- gut level -- we, all of us know right from wrong.

Even the murderer, slaver, rapist, thief, and con man know. Not a one of them would agree to change places with their victims, not a one thinks it's right they should be abused as they abuse.

Look at the mental and moral gymnastics we have to go thru to enact our atrocities: from genocide to abortion, from slavery to rape, from blue collar fraud to armed robbery, we have to render, to our own satisfaction, our targets as sumthin' other than or less than human, or other than or less than ourselves.

...oh, it's just a clump of cells...he's just a chump...she's just a twat with legs...they're subhuman...kikes, chinks, n*ggers...

Some of us even include ourselves in that diminishment (hello determinists! hello materialists!)

So, yeah, everyone knows, Lace.

[henry quirk]

doesn't the woman have the same right to end the life of the fetus within her womb if indeed the doctors were 100% certain that some physiological anomaly involving that fetus will, again, result in the loss of her own life?

Yes.

Being pregnant, most of the time, for most women, is not life-threatening and, when it is, obviously the woman has a difficult choice to make: Do I preserve my life or take the risk on losing it to preserve my child's? Either choice is moral.

[Age]

According to you because you know how it is for everyone?

Becuz, everyone knows right from wrong.

This may well be True. But then how do you explain why you 'know' it is 'right' to kill children, who are starving, when they just go to steal a moldy piece of bread from you in order to try to stay alive, while the vast majority of other human beings know that you killing those children is 'wrong'?

Not that you will even try to explain.

Everyone, every where, any when, intuitively understands it's wrong to murder, enslave, rape, steal, and defraud.

Except when one is stealing. Then, well according to "henry quirk" anyway, it is perfectly acceptable, and even expected, that you then kill those ones absolutely 'dead'.

Not everyone has a deep reasoned explanation for why this is (most folks don't), but -- gut level -- we, all of us know right from wrong.

So, again, if 'this' is 'true', then why what you 'know' is very, very, very different from what others know, here?

Even the murderer, slaver, rapist, thief, and con man know. Not a one of them would agree to change places with their victims, not a one thinks it's right they should be abused as they abuse.

But, some people loved being 'abused', and even seeking it out while wanting to be 'abused' more.

you 'try' and 'try' and 'try' to speak for 'others' "henry quirk", but you keep failing, and failing.

I suggest you listen more and presume less.

Look at the mental and moral gymnastics we have to go thru to enact our atrocities: from genocide to abortion, from slavery to rape, from blue collar fraud to armed robbery, we have to render, to our own satisfaction, our targets as sumthin' other than or less than human, or other than or less than ourselves.

Also, 'look at' "henry quirk's" obvious mental and moral gymnastics, contradictions, and hypocrisies, here.

Any one is allowed to kill some dead for taking life, liberty, or property, but no one is allowed to kill others dead for taking life, liberty, or property.

But, how "henry quirk" 'tries' so hard to over come this very obvious blatant contradiction is by claiming that when one is taking from "itself", then this is when it is always allowed to kill others dead, but if life, liberty, or property is being taken from others, then they are not always allowed to kill.

...oh, it's just a clump of cells...he's just a chump...she's just a twat with legs...they're subhuman...kikes, chinks, n*ggers...

Some of us even include ourselves in that diminishment (hello determinists! hello materialists!)

So, yeah, everyone knows, Lace.

Once again, what 'we' can clearly see, here, is just how deranged and deluded people can become when they are so closed and/or so misinformed.

[Age]

doesn't the woman have the same right to end the life of the fetus within her womb if indeed the doctors were 100% certain that some physiological anomaly involving that fetus will, again, result in the loss of her own life?

Yes.

So, "henry quirk" 'now' believes and claims that it is morally wrong to kill a fetus, but, it is morally right to kill a fetus.

The already constant blatant contradictions and hypocrisies by 'this one', here, become even more blatantly obvious.

[Lacewing]

According to you because you know how it is for everyone?

Becuz, everyone knows right from wrong.

Everyone, every where, any when, intuitively understands it's wrong to murder, enslave, rape, steal, and defraud.

Maybe everyone doesn't frame it in the way you do.

Naturally, there are more ways to see and assess our reality than what your viewpoint and judgements are.

[henry quirk]

*Maybe everyone doesn't frame it in the way you do.

**Naturally, there are more ways to see and assess our reality than what your viewpoint and judgements are.

*Oh, I know as fact there are different perspectives with different frames (I'm talkin' to one right now), but that's irrelevant. The base intuition, the down-in-the-bones knowledge, my life is mine; it's wrong I should be used, abused, commodified, treated a resource, is the same for everyone.

**Yes, the old we all have our own truth notion.

Okay. Gimme a justification for slavery, for rape, for theft, for murder, for fraud. Show me how these are just different ways of seeing and assessing reality.