The War on Women begins ....

[PKT_VOL]

As such, if aliens came along and were vastly superior to us in levels of intellect and consciousness, would that necessitate increased levels of rights, protections, and/or reverence of life?

It would imply such. We would be come the dogs (limited rights and duties), they would be the new humans.

If I infer correctly, you are working from or to the point that the embryo/fetus has a lesser value on the scale due to consciousness, so does that scale of value/worth/rights/reverence travel equally in the other direction?

Not necessarily, although some put forth that notion. Basically, personhood doesn't start until the age of 2 or so.

For me anyways, there is a viability component to it. It is all about viable consciousness.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It would imply such. We would be come the dogs (limited rights and duties), they would be the new humans.

My question was more interested in the bolded. Thanks for the insight. :hi:

With all respect, I'd seen your thoughts on age of personhood and viability before. I think this is the first I'd heard your thoughts on the bolded. Thx.

 

[PKT_VOL]

=Orange_Crush;13454458]1) As I've already mentioned, that's part of the debate. I freely admit that my opinion on this is religious in nature.

I'm just saying that such a concept is necessary for forced responsibility.

=Orange_Crush;13454458]2) What if? Are you asking what if she didn't know she was pregnant so had an abortion? Or if she used drugs? The former makes no sense, so I take it that wasn't the question. If the latter, it's existing law in many states, so it's something for her lawyer to argue.

No, she can't have an intentional abortion without knowing she's pregnant.

I don't care about any existing laws. You are talking out implementing news laws. If a woman doesn't know that she is pregnant, is still under forced responsibility? It doesn't necessarily have to be drugs or alcohol. It could be not eating healthy, excessive exercise, kickboxing, skiing, or some other normal activity that suddenly becomes risky when pregnant.

Under his idea of accepted responsibility, knowledge would have to be present I order to complete the idea of accepted responsibility. If not, how could one accept?

But for forced responsibility, would you hold those who are clueless about being pregnant responsible? It would seem that it would have to be that way. Yet, I'm not sure how one could justify that.

=Orange_Crush;13454458]3) What punishing a woman for having an abortion? Why would I be against that if I feel it should be against the law? If I feel it is murder, of course I feel she should be punished. I guess you and the rest of VN are free to form your own opinions?

It was an issue during the campaign and we had a thread about it here on VN. Pro-life organizations have held women to victims (in the same way the perceived child is) and the abortion doctors to be solely the villains. Similar sentiment was expressed here on VN.

=Orange_Crush;13454458]4) Interesting thought. How so? A woman could purposefully abort somehow and not be found guilty of abortion? Or she could naturally miscarry and be arrested? Are we coming from a place where we have absolutely NO faith in the legal system, or from a place where we think it can work through these issues?

We are coming from a place where there is a person at conception and the mother has forced responsibility. If the fertilized egg doesn't implant due to womb rejection, which is very common, we are talking about a crime of some sort. Or, if miscarriage isn't a crime, then self-induced miscarriage would be just another form of abortion. Or, a woman who knowingly becomes pregnant when she is high risk, has an unhealthy lifestyle, or uses adverse substances that end in a miscarriage.

 

[FLVOL_79]

There is such an easy way to not get chicks pregnant and it isn't abstinence...

 

[PKT_VOL]

My question was more interested in the bolded. Thanks for the insight. :hi:

With all respect, I'd seen your thoughts on age of personhood and viability before. I think this is the first I'd heard your thoughts on the bolded. Thx.

That also assumes they are benevolent.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't care about any existing laws. You are talking out implementing news laws. If a woman doesn't know that she is pregnant, is still under forced responsibility? It doesn't necessarily have to be drugs or alcohol. It could be not eating healthy, excessive exercise, kickboxing, skiing, or some other normal activity that suddenly becomes risky when pregnant.

Under his idea of accepted responsibility, knowledge would have to be present I order to complete the idea of accepted responsibility. If not, how could one accept?

But for forced responsibility, would you hold those who are clueless about being pregnant responsible? It would seem that it would have to be that way. Yet, I'm not sure how one could justify that.

Personally, I think you're making too fine a distinction between new laws and existing laws. There are existing laws on the books that deal with forced responsibility per pregnancy. As mentioned, all we're doing is moving the point where it exists back.

And I agree that knowledge must exist to hold the persoon responsible.

It was an issue during the campaign and we had a thread about it here on VN. Pro-life organizations have held women to victims (in the same way the perceived child is) and the abortion doctors to be solely the villains. Similar sentiment was expressed here on VN.

I understand. I don't usually go into many abortion threads on here, as they're usually just rehashes of all of our fairly closed minded beliefs slinking about as opportunities to insult one another. Rarely is a person's mind changed, or are new thoughts expressed.

We are coming from a place where there is a person at conception and the mother has forced responsibility. If the fertilized egg doesn't implant due to womb rejection, which is very common, we are talking about a crime of some sort. Or, if miscarriage isn't a crime, then self-induced miscarriage would be just another form of abortion. Or, a woman who knowingly becomes pregnant when she is high risk, has an unhealthy lifestyle, or uses adverse substances that end in a miscarriage.

I think this partially goes back to will and intent, which I know is hard on the court systems, but they deal with it every day. (No sarcasm intended.)

 

[Orange_Crush]

That also assumes they are benevolent.

Your definition and usage of "benevolence" being our wellbeing?

(I'm sure you know why I found your thoughts on this of interest?)

 

[PKT_VOL]

Personally, I think you're making too fine a distinction between new laws and existing laws. There are existing laws on the books that deal with forced responsibility per pregnancy. As mentioned, all we're doing is moving the point where it exists back.

And I agree that knowledge must exist to hold the persoon responsible.



I understand. I don't usually go into many abortion threads on here, as they're usually just rehashes of all of our fairly closed minded beliefs slinking about as opportunities to insult one another. Rarely is a person's mind changed, or are new thoughts expressed.



I think this partially goes back to will and intent, which I know is hard on the court systems, but they deal with it every day. (No sarcasm intended.)

So it's not that you want forced responsibility full stop but forced responsibility only with respect to conscious/willful actions.

Aside from premise of personhood at conception, I think the main problem is abundant loss of life post conception but prebirth without legal or moral recourse within the framework of conscious or deliberate act/will.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Your definition and usage of "benevolence" being our wellbeing?

(I'm sure you know why I found your thoughts on this of interest?)

Not necessarily our well-being but specially not harm towards us.

Yep.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So it's not that you want forced responsibility full stop but forced responsibility only with respect to conscious/willful actions.

Aside from premise of personhood at conception, I think the main problem is abundant loss of life post conception but prebirth without legal or moral recourse within the framework of conscious or deliberate act/will.

I'm not searching too deeply into my own thoughts right now, but I'd say that by and large most of my beliefs per liability are contingent on willful actions. In any event, when it comes to abortion, etc, yes, it comes down to deliberate acts.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'm not searching too deeply into my own thoughts right now, but I'd say that by and large most of my beliefs per liability are contingent on willful actions. In any event, when it comes to abortion, etc, yes, it comes down to deliberate acts.

Right, but as much loss of life you are trying to rectify, you are increasing such exponentially in an unintentional manner.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not necessarily our well-being but specially not harm towards us.

Yep.

I'm busy, as are you I'm sure, and I don't want to fork this too deeply. (If you're intereested in this line of conversation, we can start a new thread and get to it whenever.) But...

1) Wellbeing/no harm to us in general, or everyone/anyone specifically? i.e. something not so well-done to some people, but it turns out to be a necessity and/or benefit to the greater good.

2) If they truly are that much higher than you in intellect, how can you judge what their motives are, or whether their actions are benevolent? i.e. You take your dog to the vet. He hurts the dog to save its life. You took it there. The dog has no idea you just hurt it to save it. (You brought up us being the dogs.) Or: The dog has rabies and you shoot it in the head. All the dog (and other dogs) know is that you shot it in the head.

Again, the point... If they are truly so much more advanced, how can you judge their intentions and actions? You seemed to say they deserved our adoration, unless they aren't benevolent. But if they truly are so much higher in order so as to deserve our adoration, then can we really trust that we can judge their motives and actions?

Just a few stray thoughts...

 

[Orangedogsrule]

I pity you.

Pity? Whatever for? I like old country, some new country, southern rock, 60s, 70s,80s rock & roll classics, acid rock, heavy metal, old time 5 piece string band, classical symphonic orchestral music, choral, a few ballet (daughter danced several years) and so also a few opera, old time mountain music, broadway musicals, and movie scores.

Ahm soooo pitiful...goin to the garden an eat some worms.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'm busy, as are you I'm sure, and I don't want to fork this too deeply. (If you're intereested in this line of conversation, we can start a new thread and get to it whenever.) But...

1) Wellbeing/no harm to us in general, or everyone/anyone specifically? i.e. something not so well-done to some people, but it turns out to be a necessity and/or benefit to the greater good.

2) If they truly are that much higher than you in intellect, how can you judge what their motives are, or whether their actions are benevolent? i.e. You take your dog to the vet. He hurts the dog to save its life. You took it there. The dog has no idea you just hurt it to save it. (You brought up us being the dogs.) Or: The dog has rabies and you shoot it in the head. All the dog (and other dogs) know is that you shot it in the head.

Again, the point... If they are truly so much more advanced, how can you judge their intentions and actions? You seemed to say they deserved our adoration, unless they aren't benevolent. But if they truly are so much higher in order so as to deserve our adoration, then can we really trust that we can judge their motives and actions?

Just a few stray thoughts...

Well, the solution is deceptively simple. The point of reference is you. Same as with objective truth/knowledge debates.

Could they be acting in long-term beneficial way towards us? Sure. Let's say that they do for the sake of the argument, action X. Now, let's add two conditionals.

First conditional, they have no way to communicate effectively to us. This would be most similar to a dog going to the vet. If it involves short-term pain, is it irrational to not let them continue to let them carryout action X? I don't think so. You have no reason to believe it is in your long-term benefit and there is no way for them to effectively communicate such. Much in the same way I don't blame my dog for acting the way she does at the vet. Now, having said that, my dog is much better at the vet than she once was. She has learned. That option would be open to humans as well.

Second conditional, they can communicate effectively to us. We understand what they are trying to accomplish with action X. For the sake of the argument, we approve of their intentions and expected long-term results. Do we trust them? Trust tends to be built on past actions. Does this dynamic change if we are able to resist effectively? I think it does.

Even within this construct, do we value long-term results and goals? If not, whether they communicate effectively becomes irrelevant. We would value our short-term goals and results over anything they were either trying to accomplish or sell us via action X.

Regardless of how you, another person, or my dog approaches the dilemma above, the point of view always stays the same (irrespective of time obviously). As someone who adheres to Marcus Aurelius's philosophy, never let the future disturb you, for if you have to meet it, you will meet it with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

In other words, we have the same problems in the present, just in different forms. In the other thread, the discussion is why should we trust the CIA/NSA/FBI etc. or John McAfee. Should I trust my wife, best friend, coworkers, neighbors, etc? Should I trust the food I ate, the medicine I took, or the device I am using to type this?

 

[vol_in_ar]

On one hand, why would it be our responsibility?

On another, I literally have three families in my church right now that would adopt it tomorrow (and we're a pretty small church). The only reason they haven't adopted yet is the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to adopt in America right now. Each is researching third world adoptions as I type.

Each family would pay the mother's hospital bills and sign the adoption papers in a minute.

do they currently foster parent any children

 

[Orange_Crush]

do they currently foster parent any children

One family does. The other two, no.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well, the solution is deceptively simple. The point of reference is you. Same as with objective truth/knowledge debates.

Could they be acting in long-term beneficial way towards us? Sure. Let's say that they do for the sake of the argument, action X. Now, let's add two conditionals.

First conditional, they have no way to communicate effectively to us. This would be most similar to a dog going to the vet. If it involves short-term pain, is it irrational to not let them continue to let them carryout action X? I don't think so. You have no reason to believe it is in your long-term benefit and there is no way for them to effectively communicate such. Much in the same way I don't blame my dog for acting the way she does at the vet. Now, having said that, my dog is much better at the vet than she once was. She has learned. That option would be open to humans as well.

Second conditional, they can communicate effectively to us. We understand what they are trying to accomplish with action X. For the sake of the argument, we approve of their intentions and expected long-term results. Do we trust them? Trust tends to be built on past actions. Does this dynamic change if we are able to resist effectively? I think it does.

Even within this construct, do we value long-term results and goals? If not, whether they communicate effectively becomes irrelevant. We would value our short-term goals and results over anything they were either trying to accomplish or sell us via action X.

Regardless of how you, another person, or my dog approaches the dilemma above, the point of view always stays the same (irrespective of time obviously). As someone who adheres to Marcus Aurelius's philosophy, never let the future disturb you, for if you have to meet it, you will meet it with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

In other words, we have the same problems in the present, just in different forms. In the other thread, the discussion is why should we trust the CIA/NSA/FBI etc. or John McAfee. Should I trust my wife, best friend, coworkers, neighbors, etc? Should I trust the food I ate, the medicine I took, or the device I am using to type this?

I follow you, but I think you've talked around the question without fully answering. The question was, in part, "If they are so far advanced of you in intellect, how can you be the judge of their actions? How can you trust yourself to judge?"

It seems to me, your entire answer relied on your own intellect.

Yes, they can communicate with you and commmunicate the problem and solution to the best of your ability to understand, but they can't give you the ability to think on their level, so there's no guarantee that you can even (fully) comprehend the problem they are seeking to resolve, the method's they're using to resolve... heck, even the reason the problem is a problem in the first place.

There's a very real possibility--perhaps even probability--that there will come a time that they will have to say "you just have to trust us". And, of course, you have to either trust or not. It's beyond your ability to reason through it.

Anyway... Again... No biggy. I was just surprised to hear you say that if we came into contact with a life form that suprasses us in "type", they would deserve our deference and adoration--that we would be the "dog" to their "owner".

Seems out of place from some of our previous discussions.

:hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

I follow you, but I think you've talked around the question without fully answering. The question was, in part, "If they are so far advanced of you in intellect, how can you be the judge of their actions? How can you trust yourself to judge?"

It seems to me, your entire answer relied on your own intellect.

Yes, they can communicate with you and commmunicate the problem and solution to the best of your ability to understand, but they can't give you the ability to think on their level, so there's no guarantee that you can even (fully) comprehend the problem they are seeking to resolve, the method's they're using to resolve... heck, even the reason the problem is a problem in the first place.

There's a very real possibility--perhaps even probability--that there will come a time that they will have to say "you just have to trust us". And, of course, you have to either trust or not. It's beyond your ability to reason through it.

Anyway... Again... No biggy. I was just surprised to hear you say that if we came into contact with a life form that suprasses us in "type", they would deserve our deference and adoration--that we would be the "dog" to their "owner".

Seems out of place from some of our previous discussions.

:hi:

That is the answer. Obviously experience too, but that's besides the point. What other answer is there? Which conversations?

 

[Orange_Crush]

That is the answer. Obviously experience too, but that's besides the point. What other answer is there?

Exactly. I guess we're in agreement?

You and I may not be the best to judge, so it will come down to trust or lack of trust.

Which conversations?

Oh, just some conversations about Yahweh, things that are important to Him, thing's He's supposedly done, and how much of an evil POS one has to be to still worship Him, knowing these things.

Again. No big deal. I understand and empathise with your perspective. I'm not bringing it up in an accusatory manner, nor trying to reopen the discussions. Just found the conversation interesting. :hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

Exactly. I guess we're in agreement?

You and I may not be the best to judge, so it will come down to trust or lack of trust.

Like I posted, its not *that* simple. There are a lot of smaller questions and values that go into whether or not one trusts. In other words, yes we either have to trust or not trust, but a lot goes into that simple dilemma.

Oh, just some conversations about Yahweh, things that are important to Him, thing's He's supposedly done, and how much of an evil POS one has to be to still worship Him, knowing these things.

Again. No big deal. I understand and empathise with your perspective. I'm not bringing it up in an accusatory manner, nor trying to reopen the discussions. Just found the conversation interesting. :hi:

Which is where I thought the parallels where many posts back. Basically treating the AI and aliens as deities. There is much to be said for that.

In simple example I posted, there were a lot questions and considerations that go into a singular simple action X. Hell, I kept it fairly simple. It could easily become more complex.

If you start talking religion, it is even more complex. Now, you have a ton of claims and epistemological , ontological, cosmological, moral, etc. issues which exponentially increase the complexity.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Like I posted, its not *that* simple. There are a lot of smaller questions and values that go into whether or not one trusts. In other words, yes we either have to trust or not trust, but a lot goes into that simple dilemma.



Which is where I thought the parallels where many posts back. Basically treating the AI and aliens as deities. There is much to be said for that.

In simple example I posted, there were a lot questions and considerations that go into a singular simple action X. Hell, I kept it fairly simple. It could easily become more complex.

If you start talking religion, it is even more complex. Now, you have a ton of claims and epistemological , ontological, cosmological, moral, etc. issues which exponentially increase the complexity.

I'm not in any way disagreeing.

 

[Burger]

Am I the only one who doesn't think all lives aren't sacred or valuable. With over population, the value of a life drops. When there is a mass surplus of people on the planet, their worthiness drops. Zinc, a metal used everyday, is priced lowly because there is a massive abundance of it. The all lives are sacred and equal thing is fuzzy and warm, but it isn't true biologically. The life of Albert Einstein is worth more than almost every life is on this board.

The reason why crime went down in the early 90's was due to Roe v. Wade. Abortion took out many of the unwanted kids from the incompetent mother. It's an unfortunate reality, but it is reality. If abortion is illegalized, crime would go back up to 70's levels within 20 years.

 

[Orange_Crush]

...

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Who said it suddenly becomes more valuable? You would be killing either the mother or the child. Believing abortion is wrong doesn't change the other concept that letting a woman die is wrong. Those two concepts would be in conflict.

I am talking about an abortion that is done to save mom's life. I am not talking about killing her to save the child. There is a difference.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

On one hand, why would it be our responsibility?

On another, I literally have three families in my church right now that would adopt it tomorrow (and we're a pretty small church). The only reason they haven't adopted yet is the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to adopt in America right now. Each is researching third world adoptions as I type.

Each family would pay the mother's hospital bills and sign the adoption papers in a minute.

winner. Once again, the lawyers **** it up.