Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[Clarkmod]

At that time, there is no evidence of having developed the ability to reason beyond most adult animals

So we are back to 'reason'.
When does a baby become more able to 'reason' than, oh just to pick an animal at random, an adult mongoose? And that is not even suggesting chimps or whales. I know it is not at birth, how many months is it (never dealt with infants myself)?

[Clarkmod]

At that time, there is no evidence of having developed the ability to reason beyond most adult animals

So we are back to 'reason'.
When does a baby become more able to 'reason' than, oh just to pick an animal at random, an adult mongoose? And that is not even suggesting chimps or whales. I know it is not at birth, how many months is it (never dealt with infants myself)?

I suspect that humans would select language use as the primary indication that one is sentient. As humans use language more than most species, I think this a somewhat biased indicator, but there aren’t many indicators in anywhere near the right time frame. Language use justifies the argument that only humans are sentient, that you treat other animals as different from humans under law. WebMD has babies learning first words at 12 to 18 months, but you want to err on the side of caution, so most put the age of possibly being sentient in answering the abortion question as much younger.

Using language is the obvious distinction if you are going to have only humans as sentient. This distinction is desirable if you want it to be legal to eat meat and swat mosquitoes, which includes most cultures. I’d be open to other criteria that might imply an increased ability to reason, that includes only humans, and which manifest in the womb. Can’t think of any.

[Clarkmod]

So again, you would allow "post-natal abortion" until one year after birth.
BB, I agree with a lot of your positions, probably most. The only one I can think of offhand otherwise is abortion...your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
But I guess that makes me worse than a Nazi in your books.

[Clarkmod]

The Catholic position can be found in Gaudium et Spes... (Snip)

The Church apples the same thinking to execution, euthanasia and suicide. Murder is murder. The victim being ten weeks old or ten minutes old or ten years old doesn't make a difference.

A good logical response. You deserve applause for that at least. But...

The Gaudium et Spes and Evangelium Vitae reflect a consistent and often sincerely felt position. There is a vast difference between them and supporting criminality, prejudice and death by Covid. Still, they are religious documents. Do you want the government to enforce religious doctrines? Do you want to drop the ban against establishing official religion and join Iran in requiring the hijab? Could you conceive of enforcing through the government the old catholic tradition of not eating fish on Friday?

To me, you should not terminate sentients. Animals are not sentient. No fetus can react anywhere near as intelligently as mature mammals, thus a fetus is not sentient. No culture assigns the same penalties to killing non sentients and sentients, certainly no meat eating culture. To override the beliefs of most Americans in order to enforce a purely religious doctrine is very questionable.

Still, a member of the some religious sects will urgently seek a reason to oppose the practice of abortion. It is just that the government’s job is not to satisfy any given religious sect. A better argument would isolate itself from being a religious argument. The distinction seems to run along the difference between believing one should not kill sentients, and believing you should not kill something that might become sentient at a later time.

Most important government policies are based on religious ones. Murder, theft etc. And no, I do not propose any kind of state religion, but that does not prevent adopting religious ethics.

Children will become "sentient" is not killed. Animals never will be. Your argument doesn't work very well.

[Clarkmod]

I suspect that humans would select language use as the primary indication that one is sentient. As humans use language more than most species, I think this a somewhat biased indicator, but there aren’t many indicators in anywhere near the right time frame. Language use justifies the argument that only humans are sentient, that you treat other animals as different from humans under law. WebMD has babies learning first words at 12 to 18 months, but you want to err on the side of caution, so most put the age of possibly being sentient in answering the abortion question as much younger.

Using language is the obvious distinction if you are going to have only humans as sentient. This distinction is desirable if you want it to be legal to eat meat and swat mosquitoes, which includes most cultures. I’d be open to other criteria that might imply an increased ability to reason, that includes only humans, and which manifest in the womb. Can’t think of any.

So again, you would allow "post-natal abortion" until one year after birth.

BB, I agree with a lot of your positions, probably most. The only one I can think of offhand otherwise is abortion...your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

But I guess that makes me worse than a Nazi in your books.

Actually, I agree with the many that the line should be put near the end of the second trimester, possibly with extensions for the life of the mother. Using pure logic one might define a criteria and stick with it You have to have humans sentient, other animals not, and be scientifically measurable. Language use fits those criteria, seems to be the vaguely acceptable criteria of the moment, but suggests an age of 12 to 18 months. This is not palatable to many including me. Thus, I would go for a 2nd trimester age which is more palatable but is based on intuition and guesswork. This also gives the woman a chance to detect the pregnancy and take action.

I'd suggest the right to swing your abortion opinion around ends when a pregnant lady's opinion begins. I'm inclined to believe the father should support the woman's opinion, but would not try to enforce such. This is a tricky question which seems to be ending with no clearly defined answer. Based on uncertainty, do you have to right to act? Do you see 'freedom' and 'choice' being related words?

No, I don't judge you as worse than the last crisis's Nazis at least. You don't seem to be killing, oppressing and stealing on the basis of race and prejudice. I see the vileness of this time's so called Nazis as much less, but still suggesting their forbearer's bad habits, and you don't seem worse by any means.

[Clarkmod]

I suspect that humans would select language use as the primary indication that one is sentient. As humans use language more than most species, I think this a somewhat biased indicator, but there aren’t many indicators in anywhere near the right time frame. Language use justifies the argument that only humans are sentient, that you treat other animals as different from humans under law. WebMD has babies learning first words at 12 to 18 months, but you want to err on the side of caution, so most put the age of possibly being sentient in answering the abortion question as much younger.

Using language is the obvious distinction if you are going to have only humans as sentient. This distinction is desirable if you want it to be legal to eat meat and swat mosquitoes, which includes most cultures. I’d be open to other criteria that might imply an increased ability to reason, that includes only humans, and which manifest in the womb. Can’t think of any.

So again, you would allow "post-natal abortion" until one year after birth.

BB, I agree with a lot of your positions, probably most. The only one I can think of offhand otherwise is abortion...your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

But I guess that makes me worse than a Nazi in your books.

Actually, I agree with the many that the line should be put near the end of the second trimester, possibly with extensions for the life of the mother. Using pure logic one might define a criteria and stick with it You have to have humans sentient, other animals not, and be scientifically measurable. Language use fits those criteria, seems to be the vaguely acceptable criteria of the moment, but suggests an age of 12 to 18 months. This is not palatable to many including me. Thus, I would go for a 2nd trimester age which is more palatable but is based on intuition and guesswork. This also gives the woman a chance to detect the pregnancy and take action.

I'd suggest the right to swing your abortion opinion around ends when a pregnant lady's opinion begins. I'm inclined to believe the father should support the woman's opinion, but would not try to enforce such. This is a tricky question which seems to be ending with no clearly defined answer. Based on uncertainty, do you have to right to act? Do you see 'freedom' and 'choice' being related words?

No, I don't judge you as worse than the last crisis's Nazis at least. You don't seem to be killing, oppressing and stealing on the basis of race and prejudice. I see the vileness of this time's so called Nazis as much less, but still suggesting their forbearer's bad habits, and you don't seem worse by any means.

Bob, you should been aborted.

[Clarkmod]

Most important government policies are based on religious ones. Murder, theft etc. And no, I do not propose any kind of state religion, but that does not prevent adopting religious ethics.

Children will become "sentient" is not killed. Animals never will be. Your argument doesn't work very well.

When you are discussing abortion as a secular law in a nation which separates church and state, you shouldn’t base your argument purely on religious documents. Proposing a religious argument for a secular law is perilously close to establishing an official state religion.

If you create an argument against killing something which is apt to become sentient, as opposed to something which is sentient, you could create an entirely logical and rational argument that would be meaningful with people who accepted your premise as true. Unfortunately, many would object to the premise. You would just be assuming your conclusion. Without an acceptance of the questionable premise, the argument falls apart.

[Clarkmod]

Bob, you should been aborted.

I prefer posts based on some semblance of logic and fact. When a poster goes to straight ad hominem and insult, I assume he is incapable of defending his desired opinion with logic and fact, or changing his position to one which can be defended. I do not necessarily respond, but ad hominem does tend to confirm my opinion that a lot of people can’t defend their beliefs.

[Clarkmod]

I'd suggest the right to swing your abortion opinion around ends when a pregnant lady's opinion begins. I'm inclined to believe the father should support the woman's opinion, but would not try to enforce such. This is a tricky question which seems to be ending with no clearly defined answer. Based on uncertainty, do you have to right to act? Do you see 'freedom' and 'choice' being related words?

I'd suggest that the right to swing your rape opinion ends when a rapist's opinion begins. I'm inclined to believe that the husband should support the rapist's opinion, but would not try to enforce such. This is a tricky question which seems to be ending with no clearly defined answer. Based on uncertainty, do you have the right to act? Do you see 'freedom' and 'choice' being related words?

[Clarkmod]

I'd suggest that the right to swing your rape opinion ends when a rapist's opinion begins. I'm inclined to believe that the husband should support the rapist's opinion, but would not try to enforce such. This is a tricky question which seems to be ending with no clearly defined answer. Based on uncertainty, do you have the right to act? Do you see 'freedom' and 'choice' being related words?

I'd say the rapist's opinion yields to rule of law. I'd say the rapist's opinion should yield to rule of law and would enforce it. I would yield to the woman's choice. Yes, in this and many questions, the ability to make your own choice is freedom, it being forced by the government is tyranny.

I answered the questions. Will you?