Originally posted by bbarrWhat are the basic biological structures that such a view would hold to be essential for the capacity for suffering?
A person could have the capacity for suffering, rudimentary rationality and rudimentary self-consciousness without having a fully autonomous will. Not all human beings have these properties. Normal human infants and the vast majority of the mentally disabled human beings, as well as many types of non-human animals do have these properties.
Also, newborn infants will have neither rudimentary rationality nor rudimentary self-consciousness. So we're still left with the question of whether they have a right to life (or any rights at all).
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf you want to know the answer to your first question, then research the neurophysiology of pain. The structures are clearly not present in the first trimester of pregnancy and clearly present at birth.
What are the basic biological structures that such a view would hold to be essential for the capacity for suffering?
Also, newborn infants will have neither rudimentary rationality nor rudimentary self-consciousness. So we're still left with the question of whether they have a right to life (or any rights at all).
Yes, normal functioning newborn infants do have the capacity for rudimentary rationality and well as the capacity for rudimentary self-consciousness.
Originally posted by zeeblebotSorry.
does GST mean General Services Tax?
what does PST mean?
GST was introduced by the liberal government,(Brian Mulroney) it's a goods and services tax on certain items. Well pretty much all items.
PST is provincial sales tax which exists in every province except for Alberta. Up to 11% tax on every purchase you buy.
New Brunswick has introduced the HST, harmonized sales tax which blends both taxes into one tax of 15%.
So far I'm still pretty happy with our conservative government 😀
Originally posted by bbarrLucifershammer:
If you want to know the answer to your first question, then research the neurophysiology of pain. The structures are clearly not present in the first trimester of pregnancy and clearly present at birth.
Yes, normal functioning newborn infants do have the capacity for rudimentary rationality and well as the capacity for rudimentary self-consciousness.
I struggled following Bbarr's careful presentation of this material (which he has done
repeatedly).
The issue is 'capacity' not the 'ability to express the capacity.'
Capacity is not equivalent to 'potential' as I recall -- that is, a first-trimester fetus as the
potential to develop the capacity. But potential is not sufficient for rights conferral. Capacity
is.
These are just recollections of mine. If I have mistated them, Bbarr will adjust them with
my apologies in advance.
Maybe they help you, maybe they confuse you. You're welcome or sorry as the case may be.
Nemesio
Originally posted by RagnorakI have posted an entirely positive real life scenario for you, which you continually choose to ignore: Sweden.
I have posted an entirely positive real life scenario for you, which you continually choose to ignore: Sweden.
As for the cat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the cat's owners are too poor to pay for the vet, what options exactly does the cat have, apart from living on in pain without treatment? Or having its neck wrung by its owners? Should civilis ...[text shortened]... tax, so that the less fortunate of your society could have access to medical care as well?
D
...and I've told you a billion times, don't exaggerate. Do you know what the word 'entire' means. If one person was unhappy with the Swedish system then it would no longer be 'entire'. I would say that those people that put extra time and effort into their diet, exercise and health are not 'entirely positive' about having to pay for fat lazy peoples ailments. Hardly seems fair does it, paying for other peoples bad choices.
Go back to your original post...you were blathering on about EQUAL health and education. I'm sorry I have to ask this....do you know what 'equal' means. The Swedish system is not 'equal', they have a high minimum, people are still free (even though that freedom has been reduced by a rapacious tax system) to pursue better health care. If everyone has equal healthcare it means they cannot pursue better than the state enforced average. Hopefully you'll remember our little exchange before you do it again.
With the cat I was comparing the relatively free market system of vets (luckily it's as cheap as it is thanks to competition or there'd be a few more cats with wrung necks eh) with the state die while you wait system.
But if you want to compare cats to humans (lefties have a low opinion of their fellow man, can't be trusted to assess their own values, you see) I will compare humans and cars. What do you think would happen if there was 'free' (aka: make someone else pay) health care for cars? A lot of people would not take care to maintain their vehicle properly, their vehicles health has no value.
Mercy killing...haha...you be funny guy.
"non-compulsory tax" is an oxy moron, not a bad example, well done.
It will come as no surprise to you that I am an advocate of user pays. because the alternatives to user pays just ain't right:
You use it but don't pay for it.
You have to pay for it but you don't get to use it.
Originally posted by WajomaDo you feel a society is safer with less groups cohesion, or do you think that group cohesion makes it more dangerous?
[b]I have posted an entirely positive real life scenario for you, which you continually choose to ignore: Sweden.
...and I've told you a billion times, don't exaggerate. Do you know what the word 'entire' means. If one person was unhappy with the Swedish system then it would no longer be 'entire'. I would say that those people that put extra ti ...[text shortened]... ight:
You use it but don't pay for it.
You have to pay for it but you don't get to use it.[/b]
Originally posted by wibI took the word 'beliefs' in your post to strongly imply beliefs of a religious nature. Your post was in response to a christian, and you ended it with:
I never claimed only the religious are imposing their beliefs or legislation on others. You stated that, not me.
"But don't impose your religious beliefs into another American citizen's private life."
Originally posted by wib
And I expect people to be decent Americans and not meddle in the private lives of other tax paying, law abiding citizens. But perhaps I expect too much?
Who is a law-abiding citizen? If abortion were made illegal tomorrow, then those who have them would no longer fall under the protection of your statement. If citizens are 'law-abiding', they've already consented to government meddling in their private lives.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Having ridden in said cars with "I Vote Pro-Life" stickers, I can assure you that the occupants care about more issues than just the one, although the one is important to them. (The abortion issue isn't very important to me - I view it as a rather lousy form of birth control.)
BDP, I can only conclude that single-issue voters - for example, people who only care about banning abortion, or people who only care about keeping no restrictions on abortion, or people who only vote to keep guns legal or ban them altogether - are wingnut whackjob less-than-intelligent people who make a very strong case that not everyone is smart enoug ...[text shortened]... hey were misled about the motives for that war? Seems to me that pro-war = pro-death, I dunno.)
I really don't understand why abortion is such a heated subject. Personally I'm against it and would never consider it an option in life. But that's my opinion. If someone else decides that this is ok for them who am I to impose my opinions. Realistically there are far too many children who are beaten, molested and starving to death every day. Do we need more truly unwanted children suffering? While I belive it to be cruel and wrong I don't believe I have the right to enforce this belief on anyone else. I have yet to see any of these abortion protesters open their homes to care for and raise anywhere from 20-100 unwanted children. Wouldn't those efforts be put to better use by caring for the children who are already here and dying from neglect? Not putting time and money into enforcing beliefs onto other people who are in obviously tragic situations.
Originally posted by bbarrI understand you think a fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy does not have the right to live.
If you want to know the answer to your first question, then research the neurophysiology of pain. The structures are clearly not present in the first trimester of pregnancy and clearly present at birth.
Yes, normal functioning newborn infants do have the capacity for rudimentary rationality and well as the capacity for rudimentary self-consciousness.
Why not?