patrick.net

  new post
register or log in

patrick.net's 40 proposals »

10,738 registered users, 3 online now: ddshutlz, ForcedTQ, YesYNot

When does human life begin?

By Blurtman (31/31 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 5, 10:06am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   2 links   15,720 views   93 comments   watch (1)   share   quote  

1.) At conception

2.) When the fetus can survive outside the womb

3.) When the fetus can post on blogs

« First     « Previous     Comments 54-93 of 93     Last »

54   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 6, 9:52pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Call it Crazy says

and this guy below is still at it as an adult...

Well, your daughter only takes it up the ass.

55   Ironman (132/140 = 94% civil)   2015 Aug 6, 9:57pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

Call it Crazy says

and this guy below is still at it as an adult...

Well, your daughter only takes it up the ass.

No, my daughter thinks YOU'RE an ass!!!!

56   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 12:27am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Your daughter thinks of my ass all the time. Like mother like daughter.

57   socal2 (8/8 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 9:05am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

And we can debate the ethics of that, but only if everyone involved in the discussion is willing to admit that the "soul" is bullshit and no magic makes a fertilized egg a person. Once we stop talking about bullshit mythological beliefs from the Bronze Age, we can have an adult conversation on where to draw the line on abortions and why. As long as religion dominates moral and ethical debates, that conversation is impossible.

Deflecting again. Who is talking about religion or souls on this thread?

Thought that Libs were big into "SCIENCE"? Anyone can look at an 8 week fetus (let along a 20 week fetus) and realize its a growing human being.

Why do Libs go ape-shit at banning abortions at 20 weeks? Are they that scientifically ignorant? Are they so indoctrinated to think it is nothing but a "gob of goo" and don't want to face the horror and barbarity that they support?

FFS - we have tougher laws on animal cruelty than we do protecting babies a few weeks from being born. That is a sign of a very sick and ethically confused society.

I firmly believe that 100 years from now, we will look back at abortion supporters with the same horror and disdain and slave-holders. Lots of slave-holders used science to justify their inhumanity.

58   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 9:16am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

socal2 says

Deflecting again. Who is talking about religion or souls on this thread?

It's hardly deflection when people say stupid things like "life begins at conception" as code for "there's a magical soul that is infused into cells at conception". You are deflecting from the issue. That abortion should be legal for the first trimester when there is no brain and should gradually become more illegal as the second trimester unfolds.

socal2 says

Thought that Libs were big into "SCIENCE"? Anyone can look at an 8 week fetus (let along a 20 week fetus) and realize its a growing human being.

A fertilized egg is a "growing human being". Who cares? As I've stated five million times, whether or not the egg or zygote meets your arbitrary, and yes it's arbitrary, definition of human being is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not it's a person. The non-sentient cells of Henrietta Lacks can be called a human being from any biological perspective, but they don't constitute a person. A brain-dead living human body can be considered a human being, but it's not a person. A chimpanzee is NOT a human being, yet it is a person.

And you're criteria is stupid. One does not judge personhood based on how a being looks. If a new born baby had a mutation and it looked nothing like a human being, but had a fully functional mind, would you say it was not a person?

socal2 says

Why do Libs go ape-shit at banning abortions at 20 weeks?

They don't. You just don't know what the fuck a liberal is and no matter how many times I explain it to you, you won't get it because reality contradicts your dogma.

I'm the most liberal person on PatNet, possibly on this planet. I do not object to restrictions on abortions at 20 weeks. Neither does Roe v. Wade.

Why don't you conservatives go ape-shit when coal power planets force abortions on women through miscarriages caused by pollution? Is the "free market" more important than the lives of babies to you? Of course, you won't have the balls to answer this question.

socal2 says

FFS - we have tougher laws on animal cruelty than we do protecting babies a few weeks from being born.

That's complete bullshit. Have you seen factory farms?

socal2 says

I firmly believe that 100 years from now, we will look back at abortion supporters with the same horror and disdain and slave-holders.

So you lump all "abortion supporters" in one group. People who believe in the use of the morning after pill are no different than those who want abortion at 8 months to be legal. You are a fucking retard.

59   socal2 (8/8 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 10:02am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

It's hardly deflection when people say stupid things like "life begins at conception" as code for "there's a magical soul that is infused into cells at conception". You are deflecting from the issue. That abortion should be legal for the first trimester when there is no brain and should gradually become more illegal as the second trimester unfolds.

Life does begin at conception. It is just a matter if our society and laws thinks that "life" is worth human protections. Many pro-abortion supporters think that life only deserves protections if the mother "chooses". If a Mars rover found a single cell bacteria specimen, the headlines would be "life discovered on Mars".

Dan8267 says

A fertilized egg is a "growing human being". Who cares? As I've stated five million times, whether or not the egg or zygote meets your arbitrary, and yes it's arbitrary, definition of human being is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not it's a person.

Make up your mind. I assume you think it is a "growing human being" sometime after 12 weeks based on your comment above about banning abortions in the 2nd Trimester.
Dan8267 says

And you're criteria is stupid. One does not judge personhood based on how a being looks.

Most abortion supporters are so biologically ignorant to think it is nothing but a gob of goo or a tumor. But If they were actually educated on what they are destroying (a fully formed baby with limbs, brain, beating heart and organs), they may have 2nd thoughts.
Dan8267 says

They don't. You just don't know what the fuck a liberal is and no matter how many times I explain it to you, you won't get it because reality contradicts your dogma.

So fucking tired of your "you don't know what a liberal is" shtick.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of the Democrat party (which is filled with Liberals, Progressives or what ever you call yourselves these days) is 100% in lockstep with unrestricted abortion.

60   HydroCabron   2015 Aug 7, 10:13am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

socal2 says

I firmly believe that 100 years from now, we will look back at abortion supporters with the same horror and disdain and slave-holders. Lots of slave-holders used science to justify their inhumanity.

This is a weird analogy, given that most modern conservatives admire slaveholders.

61   Blurtman (31/31 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 10:13am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

It's hardly deflection when people say stupid things like "life begins at conception" as code for "there's a magical soul that is infused into cells at conception"

Red herring. The two are not necessarily synonymous.

Dan8267 says

The non-sentient cells of Henrietta Lacks can be called a human being from any biological perspective, but they don't constitute a person.

Nonsense. In your world, perhaps this is true, but this may come as a shock - you are wrong. You are equating a cancer cell line with a human life. That is absurd however you look at it. Sometimes when analogies fail it is because the underlying position is flawed.

62   HydroCabron   2015 Aug 7, 10:21am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Every abortion is a good thing.

A childhood as an unwanted child creates a terrible life, and drags down the rest of society.

I would be perfectly satisfied if all of Planned Parenthood's government funding was used to perform abortions, and encourage more women to get them. Sadly, none of the money goes to that purpose.

63   Macropodia (31/33 = 93% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 10:24am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Throw away everything else.
This is the tipping point between a libbie and the rest of mankind.
Unless it can be taxed, fed from the various social safety nipples, and chained to government dependency, it ain't alive.

Dan8267 says

A fertilized egg is a "growing human being". Who cares?

64   Macropodia (31/33 = 93% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 10:30am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

And 100 years from now libbies will say that year2000 libbies are todays conservatives...and they wonder why they inherit so much guilt...

socal2 says

I firmly believe that 100 years from now, we will look back at abortion supporters with the same horror and disdain and slave-holders.

65   WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch (40/40 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 10:46am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

"Morality! Morality! End inhumanity!" said the ancient institution.

66   Macropodia (31/33 = 93% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 10:51am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

how many libbies does it take to steer a fetus??

thunderlips11 says

67   WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch (40/40 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 10:52am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

By the way:

To achieve this end, the Inquisitors employed several means of torture to aid their victims in confessing their hidden allegiance to the Pentateuch or the Koran. One of the most popular techniques was something called called tortura del agua (water torture), which consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning. (The current American term for this torture technique is "waterboarding," and it is being employed against alleged enemy combatants at the direction of the President and the Department of Justice.)

http://jamesray.hubpages.com/hub/Killing-in-the-Name-of-God

The Casa de la Inquisitión was like Club Gitmo!

I'll get morality judgements from those organizations without a history of using the Judas Chair.

68   Macropodia (31/33 = 93% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 10:53am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Never burn your T-bone again with the new Libbie Temperature Probes!!!

thunderlips11 says

69   Macropodia (31/33 = 93% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 10:56am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Abortion is not easy to eliminate as it is deeply rooted in ancient libbie rituals...

thunderlips11 says

70   WaPoIsHitler Lipsovitch (40/40 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 11:07am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

SoftShell says

how many libbies does it take to steer a fetus??

That's a helluva large fetus. Mother must have been 20' tall.

71   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 11:32am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

socal2 says

Life does begin at conception.

No, it begins BEFORE conception. The sperm and the egg are alive. Your statement is simply incorrect. It's a biology thing.

socal2 says

I assume you think it is a "growing human being" sometime a

You assume wrong. The very question is meaningless without a definition of human, which you seem unable to provide. In any case, it's not DNA that makes a person.

socal2 says

Most abortion supporters are so biologically ignorant to think it is nothing but a gob of goo or a tumor.

That is a false statement.

socal2 says

So fucking tired of your "you don't know what a liberal is" shtick.

Then learn the fucking definition. There is nothing in liberalism that says whether or not abortion should be legal or when. There are pro-life and pro-choice liberals, and most liberals are both depending on the stage of development.

Even now you can't even write down a correct definition of liberal. Come on, prove me wrong.

socal2 says

The simple fact is that the vast majority of the Democrat party (which is filled with Liberals, Progressives or what ever you call yourselves these days) is 100% in lockstep with unrestricted abortion.

Another blatant lie.

Most, but not all, Democrats support the right to FIRST TRIMESTER abortions without restrictions. Damn few Democrats support THIRD TRIMESTER abortions except in the case where the mother's life is in danger. You don't even know what your opponent's position is. And you clearly don't have the balls to try to make the case that first trimester abortions should be illegal, but you're not willing to admit that they should be legal.

The Republican efforts to restrict abortions have included first trimester abortions.

Only a tiny, stupid minority believes that fertilized eggs should be consider persons with legal rights from conception. No one believes that an offspring withing days of being born is "just a glob of goo" with no rights. If you misrepresent the opposition's arguments that means your position has no merit.

72   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 11:33am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Blurtman says

Red herring. The two are not necessarily synonymous.

What other justification has ever been given for considering a fertilized egg to be a person?

73   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 11:35am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Blurtman says

Nonsense. In your world, perhaps this is true, but this may come as a shock - you are wrong. You are equating a cancer cell line with a human life.

In the exact same way that the "life from conception" people are equating non-sentient body cells with personhood. Thus my point that it is ridiculous.

74   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 11:38am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

SoftShell says

Unless it can be taxed, fed from the various social safety nipples, and chained to government dependency, it ain't alive.

This is a clear Straw Man argument that demonstrates the so-called pro-life community has no justification for its beliefs. If there was an actual other side of the argument, they would be able to refute the criteria I actually proposed for personhood, which is the presence of a mind, rather than telling a lie. Basing personhood on the existence of a mind is not the same thing as basing personhood on taxation and government provided social services. The two are not even remotely related to anyone is isn't severely delusional.

And you can bet Shrek won't admit his mistake here and address my actual arguments.

[Who's Shrek? That's his standard response.]

75   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 11:40am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

SoftShell says

Never burn your T-bone again with the new Libbie Temperature Probes!!!

Of course, Shrek has to show images of religious conservatives and their evil behavior and lie about them being liberals, their exact opposite, in order to make his delusional point. What's next? Showing a white slaver whipping a black girl in the 1840s and saying "look how awful the blacks treated whites"?

76   Strategist (68/68 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 6:38pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

Deflecting again. Who is talking about religion or souls on this thread?

It's hardly deflection when people say stupid things like "life begins at conception" as code for "there's a magical soul that is infused into cells at conception". You are deflecting from the issue. That abortion should be legal for the first trimester when there is no brain and should gradually become more illegal as the second trimester unfolds.

Stop making sense Dan. You are confusing everyone.

77   Strategist (68/68 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 6:46pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

Life does begin at conception.

No, it begins BEFORE conception. The sperm and the egg are alive. Your statement is simply incorrect. It's a biology thing.

At conception it's still not a human being. Maybe a future human being just like every sperm and egg, but a ways to go before it's human. Nature often self aborts if the pregnancy is not progressing as nature intended

78   Strategist (68/68 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 6:54pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

This is cruelty plain and simple. Why can't they identify a fertilized egg to determine it's sex, and not let the males hatch in the first place?

79   Blurtman (31/31 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 8:04pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

In the exact same way that the "life from conception" people are equating non-sentient body cells with personhood.

Yes, you have your logical argument worked out, and anyone who deviates from it must be wrong. I get it. Folks who believe life begins at conception have their logical arguments worked out as well. Consider if you are wrong, however.

80   Blurtman (31/31 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 8:05pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Strategist says

At conception it's still not a human being.

Your belief, your assumption. Everyone is making assumptions. Consider if yours are wrong.

81   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 8:20pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Blurtman says

Yes, you have your logical argument worked out, and anyone who deviates from it must be wrong. I get it. Folks who believe life begins at conception have their logical arguments worked out as well. Consider if you are wrong, however.

You have presented no arguments. Nor have you supported any of your assertions. Nor have you even attempt to redress the facts I presented.

There are folks who believe the Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old. Regardless of how fervently they believe that, it's not true. Belief does not create truth.

82   Strategist (68/68 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 8:25pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Blurtman says

Strategist says

At conception it's still not a human being.

Your belief, your assumption. Everyone is making assumptions. Consider if yours are wrong.

It's an opinion, just like your belief is an opinion. If science proves otherwise, I will quickly change my mind.

83   Ironman (132/140 = 94% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 8:29pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

Belief does not create truth.

Except when it comes from your keyboard, then it's ALWAYS the truth!

84   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 8:42pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

85   Ironman (132/140 = 94% civil)   2015 Aug 7, 8:49pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

86   Blurtman (31/31 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 8, 8:11am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

Belief does not create truth

Absolutely. You cannot prove when life begins because it is merely a matter of human definitions. In your case, you cannot prove when life or personhood begins. Anyone who takes a position does so based upon assumptions. And anyone can be wrong. If pro-abortion folks are wrong, millions of humans are killed. If the anti-abortion folks are wrong, millions of unwanted children result, the lives of women are changed, some would say ruined, and many will die in back-room abortions. Which is the worst outcome? You decide.

87   Blurtman (31/31 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 8, 8:14am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Strategist says

It's an opinion, just like your belief is an opinion. If science proves otherwise, I will quickly change my mind.

I suggest applying decision analysis to the issue, and see what the possible outcomes can be, and decide which is the worst possible outcome.

88   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 8, 11:48am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Call it Crazy says

We all know what your motto is.

89   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 8, 11:57am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Blurtman says

You cannot prove when life begins because it is merely a matter of human definitions.

Wrong. Definitions are irrelevant. Whether or not statement S is true is not affected by what nomenclature you use. If you change the definitions you are using, you are no longer talking about statement S, but rather a different and independent statement. Word games do not change the nature of reality. You are only playing word games here.

Define life as "petting a puppy" and it does not begin at conception because you have no hands to pet the puppy. But using that definition, whether or not life begins at conception has no relevance to the issue of the legality or ethics of abortion because abortion has nothing to do with petting puppies.

Blurtman says

Anyone who takes a position does so based upon assumptions.

Assumptions are independent of nomenclature as well. Sure, you can express assumptions with words, but the assumptions are represented by the meanings behind those words, not the words themselves. Again, playing stupid word games does not affect whether or not an assumption is valid.

Blurtman says

If pro-abortion folks are wrong, millions of humans are killed. If the anti-abortion folks are wrong, millions of unwanted children result, the lives of women are changed, some would say ruined, and many will die in back-room abortions. Which is the worst outcome? You decide.

False dichotomy. Once again, you miss the point. Both are wrong as the two possibilities you present are not mutually exclusive and are not absolute. You are still ignoring that
1. It's not being "human", whatever the fuck that means, that is important. It's being a person.
2. Personhood does not happen instantaneously. There are degrees of personhood, even if you choose to use the word "human" as a substitute for "person".

So your choice is a false one regardless of your value judgements.

Are you really too stupid not to understand such a simple concept? I have explained this to seven-year-olds and they have understood it. Self-awareness cannot be measured with a litmus test any more than temperature can. There is a whole spectrum of temperatures between freezing to death and burning to death.

90   Blurtman (31/31 = 100% civil)   2015 Aug 8, 12:38pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

Wrong. Definitions are irrelevant.

Human life itself is a definition created by humans. Self-awareness is a definition created by humans.

Dan8267 says

but the assumptions are represented by the meanings behind those words,

You are contradicting yourself, an indication that you may be wrong or at least confused. I.e., "..but the assumptions are represented by the meaning behind the words", i.e, the definitions.

You Dan8267 says

False dichotomy. Once again, you miss the point. Both are wrong as the two possibilities you present are not mutually exclusive and are not absolute. You are still ignoring that

1. It's not being "human", whatever the fuck that means, that is important. It's being a person.

2. Personhood does not happen instantaneously. There are degrees of personhood, even if you choose to use the word "human" as a substitute for "person".

"There are degrees of personhood.." - Really. It is an interesting theory, but only that. A mystical belief, even. So if personhood begins at conception,.....

Dan8267 says

Self-awareness cannot be measured with a litmus test any more than temperature can

Again you are bringing up your pet theories, and shouting that they are reality. The personhood theory is yours, and so I cannot argue its merits as It is your creation and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I guess one interpretation might be that baby X is a person at 4 months, buy baby Y is a person at 6 months, and so we have to test for personhood, or self-awareness, in order to abort, but we can't measure it. And yes, chimps, dolphins, bonobos, gorillas, magpies, etc are self-aware, too. I guess they are human then?

91   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 8, 2:22pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Blurtman says

Human life itself is a definition created by humans.

Nature is not created by your diction. Your diction is created to talk about nature.

Blurtman says

You are contradicting yourself,

No, I am not. My words are clear and consistent. Try speaking more precisely about what you are proposing.

Blurtman says

It is an interesting theory, but only that.

It is not a theory. A theory is a conceptual framework that makes testable predictions. My statement is an observation that is empirically verified.

Also, a theory isn't a guess. Something can be a theory and a verified fact. Example: the law of gravity.

92   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 8, 2:29pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Blurtman says

And yes, chimps, dolphins, bonobos, gorillas, magpies, etc are self-aware, too. I guess they are human then?

http://www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour-tool-use.php

One of Dr. Goodall’s most important discoveries was that chimpanzees make and use tools, an activity long thought to be exclusive to humans. In 1960, at Gombe National Park, Jane observed two chimps pick up small twigs, strip off the leaves, and use them as tools to fish for termites in the ground, which they then swept into their mouths as a snack.

This was the first time that an animal, other than a human, was observed to modify an object to create a tool, and then use the tool for a specific purpose.

Until that time, scientists had thought that only humans used and made tools; it was considered the defining characteristic that separated us from other animals. Our species was defined as "Man the Tool Maker." When Louis Leakey received an excited telegram from Jane describing her discoveries, he made his now famous response:

"Now we must redefine tool, redefine Man, or accept chimpanzees as humans."
- Dr. Louis Leakey -

The correct choice is to accept chimpanzees as humans. More precisely, the human nature and chimp nature overlap. Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their genetic code. Chimps are 98.8% human, and equally so, humans are 98.8% chimps. There is no boundary between human an non-human. This is even fuzzier when you take into account all of our ancestors over the past 6 million years. Is Homo erectus human? How about Australopithecus afarensis? As I've stated many times, calling something human vs non-human is largely meaningless and arbitrary, and irrelevant to the question of abortion. Abortion is not objectionable due to what DNA is contained by the offspring being aborted. It's about the mind, if any, being destroyed.

But to get to the issue you just brought up... What we call human rights should be called personal rights and they should apply to all sentient beings including the other apes, dolphins, and whales. They would also apply to sentient extraterrestrial life and artificial intelligence. There are no contradictions in my philosophies.

93   Dan8267 (146/148 = 98% civil)   2015 Aug 8, 2:31pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Oh, and I'm not the only one who believes this.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/21/8460657/judge-gives-chimpanzees-human-rights-first-time

For the first time in US history, a judge has decreed that a pair of chimpanzees held at a university research facility are covered by the same laws that govern the detention of humans, effectively rendering the animals as legal "people" in the eyes of the law. New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe said that the apes, held at Stony Brook University for research purposes, are covered by a writ of habeas corpus — a basic legal principle that lets people challenge the validity of their detention.

« First     « Previous     Comments 54-93 of 93     Last »

Watch comments by email

home   top   users   about   contact  
#investing   #housing   #politics   #humor  
housing crash   thunderdome   sexy pix   site suggestions  
best comments   ad hominem comment jail   patrick.net on twitter   random post  
please recommend patrick.net to your friends