Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: Keapon Laffin (not_at_aol.com)
Date: 02/24/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:00:03 GMT

"Parse Tree" <account@domain.extension> wrote in message
news:MgyId.1238569$O24.185555@news.easynews.com...
> Aunty Kreist wrote:
>> "Parse Tree" <account@domain.extension> wrote in message
>> news:_n2Id.1135097$2W1.89382@news.easynews.com...
>>
>>>I don't think they're even useful for organ harvesting.
>>
>>
>> I just get a kick out the the hypocritical behavior that many pro-lifers
>> exhibit. They try to deny a woman's right to an abortion; yet do not so
>> much
>> as lift a finger to help the needy kids that are brought into the world
>> by
>> their own agenda.
>
> They don't taste very good, either. I remember I ate a crack baby once.
> let me tell you, I now know why they're called crack babies.

Did you go through withdrawls?

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Aunty Kreist wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just curious, John. Exactly how many crack babies have adopted? How
>>
>> about
>>
>>>>dumped babies? HIV? Any at all? Anything?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1280v0lhgmj40p29lm73tb0da05qtu2sap@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:08:41 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>>>>><salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>John Fields wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:34:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>>>>>>><salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John Fields wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:40:41 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
>>>>>>>>><Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>But, you raise a good point...when does a fetus become a human
>>>>>>>>>>life?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>>>That's been argued to death, already, but in my view it's when the
>>>>>>>>>new strand of DNA is assembled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But since such a condition is not conscious, that opinion is not
>>>>>>>>scientifically justifiable. Its just a well that's what I believe
>>>>>>>>for no good reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>The point is not whether it's conscious or not,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Absolutely it is. That's *all* that matters. Its what *determines*
>>>>>>whether "life" should be respected for its *own* sake. For example, a
>>>>>>carrot may be considered "life", but to respect it for itself is daft.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>I disagree. A carrot, using its life to grow and make itself food for
>>>>>us should be respected. Treasured, actually. It even provides some of
>>>>>the very air we breathe. Not in the same way one sentient human would
>>>>>respect another, of course, but in its own way.
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>(although it could be
>>>>>>>argued that our conception of "consciousness" isn't completely
>>>>>>>accurate)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree definition on consciousness is difficult, but what ever it is,
>>>>>>that's the axiom I use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>it's that it's alive and has a goal, that goal being to
>>>>>>>become what we call conscious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Non conscious goals, in this context, are irrelevant by my book.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>But quite relevant in mine. Without that unconscious goal, we would
>>>>>not be sitting here having this discussion.
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Explain why a carrot, with is "alive", should be respected. Until you
>>>>>>can do this, you don't have an argument to respect a similar status
>>>>>>"life".
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>See earlier explanation.
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sure I agree, that deciding just when an object is first conscious
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>almost impossible, but it aint when an egg is just fertilised. Its
>>>>>>>>certainly after a few months minimum though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>If you don't know when, you can't say not when.\
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yep you can. Its not a line, there is a *region* where we can say
>>>>>>absolutely that it is not conscious from before one line and conscious
>>>>>
>>>>>>from another line after it. Only the region in-between the time is
>>
>> there
>>
>>>>>>uncertainty. I gave a conservative figure of two months. The figure I
>>>>>>got this from was Carl Sagan noting that it is at least 3 months
>>>>>>before
>>>>>>there is enough neural connections to form a brain as we know it.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>Yes, and that phrase, "as we know it", is what enables the
>>>>>dehumanization of a fetus and the cheapening of life.
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>So, drawing the line at say, 2 months, means that we just let some non
>>>>>>conscious blobs of chemicals be accorded the status of conscious
>>>>>>blobs.
>>>>>>So what. The error is on the side of the pro-lifers. I can live with
>>>>>>that:-)
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>So if it's two months old it's OK to kill it, but if it's three months
>>>>>old It's not? As John Woodgate said, this is a question of drawing
>>>>>lines, and mine is drawn with affording the fetus protection from the
>>>>>instant of conception. Period.
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The concept of using "alive" as the decider is fundamentally flawed,
>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>>missed by most. What truly matters is whether or not the object has
>>
>> ever
>>
>>>>>>been conscious.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>That's your _opinion_, Kevin, and no matter how you try to make it
>>>>>sound like fact, it remains an opinion.
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Consciousness should be the deciding issue on moral issues"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>IMO!
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>Gibberish... IMO.
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>---
>>>>>>>For me, there _is_ no dividing line. If it's alive it won't die by
>>>>>>>_my_ hand; YMMV
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You must have some religious bent.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>I just believe that a life which I didn't give isn't mine to take.
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>There is simply no good reason, imo, that an arbitrary definition of
>>>>>>"life" be used for such a decision.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>The definition isn't arbitrary, a life begins when the new strand of
>>>>>DNA is assembled.
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If you were never conscious, you would never have known anything.
>>>>>>Consciousness is key, not life.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>Consciousness is a _consequence_ of life.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you were never alive you could not have become conscious, so life
>>>>>is the precursor to consciousness; the key.
>>>>>---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Its this simple. Morals only depend on consciousness. No consciousness
>>>>>>no morals.
>>>>>
>>>>>---
>>>>>It's even simpler than that: No life, no consciousness.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>John Fields
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>