Originally posted by whiteroseAs I already said, intelligence is measured by the abilities of your brain. If you want to use some other definition of intelligence, you will have to explain what it is before you ask me whether organisms possessing it have rights.
[b]What constitutes intelligence is a very separate question from how it is facilitated in a particular instance. With humans it involves a biological nervous system, sure. With other species/life-forms it simply needn't.
As I already said, intelligence is measured by the abilities of your brain. If you want to use some other definition of intellige ...[text shortened]... two year old having the right to vote, when they clearly are not ready for the responsibility.[/b]
Intelligence isn't measured by attaching electrodes to the brain or by scanning it. The actual anatomical structure of the brain has no relevance to the question of intelligence. Intelligence is measured by what the organism/entity is capable of doing (e.g. language, reasoning, creativity etc.) -- regardless of how it is facilitated physically (or otherwise).
The citizens of society decide for themselves on when things like the right and responsibility of voting should be granted.
So it is society/State that gives individuals rights. You don't believe human beings have intrinsic/inalienable rights, then?
1 edit
Originally posted by whiteroseA man controls the world and makes the rules, so women should just obey. Why else would women not be allowed any positions of power?
[b]Exactly how is the Christian use of masculine language for God used as an excuse for women being second class citizens?
A man controls the world and makes the rules, so women should just obey. Why else would women not be allowed any positions of power?
The Crusades were wars (in a sense), but defending your territory and civilisation agains ion of a parasite and that pregnancy is dangerous. I fail to see how this is misogynistic.[/b]
A man doesn't control the world (or did you miss the bit where I specified that God is, in reality, neither male nor female?)
If you're talking about the ordained Church hierarchy, it's not "positions of power" -- it's a teaching and service organisation.
I don't really care how you want to define war.
You should -- you brought it up.
Both the crusades and the inquisition involved catholics killing lots of people in the name of the church. How is it not hypocrisy, then, to condemn abortion?
Just because someone does something in the name of the Church doesn't mean the Church is responsible; any more than the Government of the United States is responsible if I blow up the British Parliament "in its name".
Besides, just because the Church has endorsed some questionable policies in the past doesn't mean it has to do so in the future.
An organism with undifferentiated cells does not equal an organism with differentiated cells.
"Does not equal"? Is that a biological term?
You certainly have the right to choose to stop having sex if you want to, it's your body. The same thing applies to pregnancy and abortion.
Nope -- those involve another person's body as well.
How so? I am simply pointing out the fact that a fetus fits the definition of a parasite and that pregnancy is dangerous. I fail to see how this is misogynistic.
For one thing, a fetus doesn't fit the definition of a parasite (your veterinarians' handbook notwithstanding). For another thing, the fact that you view with horror something that most women worldwide see as one of their most precious gifts says something about your view of women in general.
Originally posted by NemesioBecause one is a matter of official policy, the other isn't (if anything, it involves people acting against the interests and official teachings of the organisation they are part of).
LH,
I understand what you are saying. You are saying that a facet of Amnesty International funds an
institution which you find immoral and repugnant. And, while they do a lot of good that other groups
cannot do and while the restrictions on them are pretty severe, they still fund what you consider evil.
I get this.
Can you then understand why Amer ...[text shortened]... er
than turning them over to the police for prosecution, and continues to deny this?
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerThey don't. She can choose to let social services take care of the child.
She isn't actually doing anything to the child's body -- it's not like she's stabbing it with a knife or anything.
Why does the Government have the right to force her body to take care of (directly or indirectly) the child's?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI am argueing that the church's position on abortion is hypocritical, for reasons I have stated. You responded with a dismissal, rather than a counter arguement, which makes me inclined to believe that you don't have one.
You haven't actually made an argument (look up what the word means). You've stated your opinion -- I've responded with mine.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIntelligence isn't measured by attaching electrodes to the brain or by scanning it. The actual anatomical structure of the brain has no relevance to the question of intelligence. Intelligence is measured by what the organism/entity is capable of doing (e.g. language, reasoning, creativity etc.) -- regardless of how it is facilitated physically (or otherwise).
[b]As I already said, intelligence is measured by the abilities of your brain. If you want to use some other definition of intelligence, you will have to explain what it is before you ask me whether organisms possessing it have rights.
Intelligence isn't measured by attaching electrodes to the brain or by scanning it. The actual anatomical stru ...[text shortened]... es individuals rights. You don't believe human beings have intrinsic/inalienable rights, then?[/b]
Language, reasoning, creativity, etc. are all abilities of your brain. You have yet to give me any definition of intelligence that compromises anything more than the abilities of the nervous system.
So it is society/State that gives individuals rights. You don't believe human beings have intrinsic/inalienable rights, then?
Ultimately it must be society that gives individual rights as the concept of "rights" only exists within a social context.
Originally posted by lucifershammerDoes you government support abortion? If so, do you not support it? I think the real issue here is one of alternatives. If there are other charities that do as much good and less bad then it is a good idea to support them instead. However I think at least one poster implied that Amnesty International can do some things that other charities cant.
If my government supports genocide, I simply stop supporting it. It can do with me what it wishes.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerA man doesn't control the world (or did you miss the bit where I specified that God is, in reality, neither male nor female?)
[b]A man controls the world and makes the rules, so women should just obey. Why else would women not be allowed any positions of power?
A man doesn't control the world (or did you miss the bit where I specified that God is, in reality, neither male nor female?)
If you're talking about the ordained Church hierarchy, it's not "positions of pow f their most precious gifts says something about your view of women in general.[/b]
"We consider God male" Ya, I guess I missed that part.
If you're talking about the ordained Church hierarchy, it's not "positions of power" -- it's a teaching and service organisation.
Officials in the catholic church have no power over their followers?
So i guess we shouldn't care if the pope doesn't want to fund amnesty, since he has no power anyway.
You should -- you brought it up.
I brought up the church's endorsement of killing people to illustrate its hypocrisy.
Just because someone does something in the name of the Church doesn't mean the Church is responsible; any more than the Government of the United States is responsible if I blow up the British Parliament "in its name".
I do believe both of my examples were fully endorsed by the church.
Besides, just because the Church has endorsed some questionable policies in the past doesn't mean it has to do so in the future.
They can endorse whatever policies they want. That doesn't make it any less hypocritical.
"Does not equal"? Is that a biological term?
They are not the same thing. What don't you understand?
Nope -- those involve another person's body as well.
nope -- still just yours (until the foetus has a viable body of its own of course, and then I agree)
For one thing, a fetus doesn't fit the definition of a parasite (your veterinarians' handbook notwithstanding). For another thing, the fact that you view with horror something that most women worldwide see as one of their most precious gifts says something about your view of women in general.
No, it doen't fit your definition of a parasite. I see no reason why my definition should not stand.
When did I ever say I view pregnancy with horror? I hope to have lots of children someday, and I see no reason why this is incompatible with my understanding of the risks involved in pregnancy.
Originally posted by whiteroseThe comment I "dismissed" had to do with your comments regarding the Church's alleged misogyny (not your argument on abortion).
I am argueing that the church's position on abortion is hypocritical, for reasons I have stated. You responded with a dismissal, rather than a counter arguement, which makes me inclined to believe that you don't have one.
1 edit
Originally posted by whiteroseLanguage, reasoning, creativity, etc. are all abilities of your brain. You have yet to give me any definition of intelligence that compromises anything more than the abilities of the nervous system.
[b]Intelligence isn't measured by attaching electrodes to the brain or by scanning it. The actual anatomical structure of the brain has no relevance to the question of intelligence. Intelligence is measured by what the organism/entity is capable of doing (e.g. language, reasoning, creativity etc.) -- regardless of how it is facilitated physically (or other ...[text shortened]... t gives individual rights as the concept of "rights" only exists within a social context.[/b]
They are abilities of the brain in human beings. Nothing about language, reasoning, creativity etc. says that these can exist only in human-like brains.
Ultimately it must be society that gives individual rights as the concept of "rights" only exists within a social context.
If society can give individuals rights, then surely it can take it away?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Indian Government does not facilitate abortion (except for medical reasons) -- so I have little problem there. The British Government does, however.
Does you government support abortion? If so, do you not support it? I think the real issue here is one of alternatives. If there are other charities that do as much good and less bad then it is a good idea to support them instead. However I think at least one poster implied that Amnesty International can do some things that other charities cant.
Originally posted by whiteroseYa, I guess I missed that part.
[b]A man doesn't control the world (or did you miss the bit where I specified that God is, in reality, neither male nor female?)
"We consider God male" Ya, I guess I missed that part.
If you're talking about the ordained Church hierarchy, it's not "positions of power" -- it's a teaching and service organisation.
Officials in the catholi ...[text shortened]... is incompatible with my understanding of the risks involved in pregnancy.[/b]
Read the two sentences before it.
Officials in the catholic church have no power over their followers?
So i guess we shouldn't care if the pope doesn't want to fund amnesty, since he has no power anyway.
He doesn't have the power to make Catholics do anything (fund or stop funding Amnesty). He can, however, teach them it's wrong to do so given Amnesty's position-reversal on abortion.
I brought up the church's endorsement of killing people to illustrate its hypocrisy.
You brought up 'war', specifically.
Do you believe it is hypocritical for a government to punish murderers if its soldiers kill enemy soldiers who are seeking to invade the country?
I do believe both of my examples were fully endorsed by the church.
History is not as black and white as you think - research both those examples.
They are not the same thing. What don't you understand?
I don't understand why you claim a multicellular organism with undifferentiated cells is not an organism.
nope -- still just yours (until the foetus has a viable body of its own of course, and then I agree)
Whether the fetus's body is viable or not it is still a body and that body is not that of the woman.
No, it doen't fit [b]your definition of a parasite.[/b]
It doesn't fit any biologist's definition of 'parasite'. I'm willing to bet that, if asked, the compilers of your vet's dictionary would refute any notion that they meant gestating offspring were parasites in the technical sense.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHas he taught the British populace that it is wrong to support their government on the same grounds?
He doesn't have the power to make Catholics do anything (fund or stop funding Amnesty). He can, however, teach them it's wrong to do so given Amnesty's position-reversal on abortion.