Monday, August 08, 2005

For the Last Time!

If you do not understand or get these concepts after this post, I shall make no more attempts to discuss this further. There is nothing more for me to say than what I have already said about the issue. “A fetus, also has the POTENTIAL to become a FULL THINKING HUMAN.” Going by this logic: A sperm has the potential to fertilize the egg, which then together have the potential to conceive a clump of cells, which then has the potential to become an embryo, which then has the potential to grow into a fetus, which then has the potential be born and become an infant baby, which then has the potential to grow up to become a FULL THINKING HUMAN BEING! Hence, the sperm and the egg has the potential to become a FULL THINKING HUMAN BEING! Hence, masturbation (deliberate or involuntary) is both criminal and immoral because you have KILLED OFF the potential to have a LIVING THINKING HUMAN BEING! Hence, monthly periods are an EVIL and should be avoided as much as possible so as to not waste the POTENTIALS of those cells to become LIVING THINKING HUMAN BEINGS! Awesome! “Funny, but I have not heard of fingerbortionists or laws to protect the rights to cut off your finger. No. Because a finger is in fact an extension of a body.” Precisely my point! If there is NO LAWS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF YOUR FINGER, then why should there be any laws to protect the “Rights” of a fetus? They are both in the very same way an EXTENTSION of the host, having existence purely due to the virtue of the host, fully subsumed in the host. The finger is NOT its whole being, but a part of the whole being – which is the whole person. A fetus is NOT a whole being but a part of the mother, existing as an extension of herself, inside of herself. Parts of the body do not have Rights. Only individual, independently existing, separate units of Human beings have Rights. “…I get hungry. Let's say that aside from vegetables, fruits, and legumes, there's a deer around readily available for me to kill and eat. Gotta eat, right? But if this deer is only different from me in that it's got a tail, or antlers or fur, then how can I justify killing it for food? Am I going to deem animals that have antlers, or something else, to be without the right to life? No. That is arbitrary and absurd. It should have the same rights as I have since it is only another animal, and a member of the same kingom, Animalia.” Are you trying to say that animals eating each other in the jungles of this world are committing immoral acts every time they kill another? That is absurd! First off, it is the way ecological balance of nature is maintained – by animals and plants eating or being eaten by another. Secondly, there can be no concept of Rights applicable to animals because of reasons I have explained. so many times already. Here is the fact: Humans are just ANOTHER SPECIES OF ANIMALS. Thus, as animals, we also engage in the great scheme of natural balance by maintaining our survival and reproductive capacities by killing other animals – just like a lion eats a deer, so we humans can eat a deer. So how do I justify killing it for food? I DON’T NEED TO JUSTIFY IT!? THERE IS NO REASON TO! Why do you think there needs to BE ANY REASON for that? As I said, Rights are NOT applicable to animalist instinctual natures. You said, “[Animals] should have the same rights as I have since it is only another animal, and a member of the same kingom, Animalia.” I don’t see how you can apply the concept of Rights to animals. The REASON Humans DO NOT and CANNOT eat EACH OTHER like other animals do, is because in regards to the Human species, and the human species ONLY, there arises the CONCEPT of RIGHTS. Rights are applicable ONLY to volitional beings that act deliberately in environments that make it possible to act with choice, among competing values that can be identified as either being consistent or enhancing to their ultimate value of life or detrimental to it. “I have to right to kill this deer, and eat it, because I have the need to eat, and from this need comes my valuing of this type of food…” Going by this logic then, I have a right to kill my mom because I have a need to have her insurance money, and from this need comes my valuing of this type of murderous action… absurd! “And why do animals not have rights? Briefly, because they are not thinking beings. They do not choose to act, and therefore are not moral beings." Going by this logic, an infant also cannot have rights “because they are not thinking beings. They cannot choose to act, and therefore are not moral beings”. And so is a retarded person, or an older person suffering from a degenerative brain disease. I don’t understand how and why you separate the biological and physiological features of the Human species from your arguments about the “mental” capacities that differentiate us as a species from other animals. How can you get the “mental” without the physical hard-wiring? IT IS PURELY IN THE PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL REALM that ALL OUR CONCEPT OF RIGHTS DEPEND UPON. Without the basic and necessary mechanisms of our physiological hard-wiring in the brain, one CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO SPEAK OF ANY “MENTAL” CAPACITIES and therefore of any concept of morals or rights. There is no duality of the mind and the body. A Human is a HUMAN simply BECAUSE of the PURELY biological/physiological. This hard-wiring of our brains in the MOST IMPORTANT difference that separates us from other living beings. Thus, there is NOTHING like a “PARTLY HUMAN Infant” or a “NOT YET” Human infant! The fullest meaning of the word “Human” is only captured by a clear recognition of the PHYSIOLOGICAL characteristics – which IMPLIES also all your mental faculties and capacities… because without the former you CANNOT get the latter. Thus, an infant is FULLY HUMAN. Only human beings can have Rights. Thus, infants have Rights. “A baby human, is, biologically or anthropologically speaking, a human, of course. However, like I stated before, that is NOT enough to grant it rights or to differentiate it from any other animal.” Why NOT?!?!? A baby is Human but not “human enough” to have Rights?? What’s your logic?

4 Comments:

Blogger Semperviva said...

i say it IS human

and by that fact

has ALL rights due to a human being

8/08/2005 01:38:00 PM  
Blogger innommable said...

What you are arguing against is not my argument, but pieces of my argument taken out of context.

And to just an ordinary girl, yeah, a baby is human according to biological or anthropological nomenclature. I've never argued against that.

8/08/2005 04:47:00 PM  
Blogger Ergo Sum said...

"yeah, a baby is human according to biological or anthropological nomenclature."

There is no other "nomenclature" that can add any more significance or TRUTH to the fact that an infant is FULLY HUMAN primarily due to the phsyiological/biological characteristics belong to the Human species.

8/08/2005 05:29:00 PM  
Blogger innommable said...

clearly there is, Ergo

8/09/2005 11:39:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home