I first heard it on the Simpsons. It's the episode where Homer goes into space and accidently breaks open the ant farm.
Kent Brockman sees a close up of one of the ants and thinks that the space ship has been overrun by a super race of giant ants....
"It's unclear whether they will consume the captive crew or merly enslave them But one thing is certain, there is no stopping them...the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overloards. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted media personality I can be useful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves..."
Wow, how sad is it that I can do that from memory.
Anyway, that's where I first heard that line. Although it's entirly possible that the simpsons stole it from somewhere else that I don't know about.
"Its the same way I've always felt about gays. If you're gay, that's fine. I don't care. But don't dare push your ways upon me. That's when I begin to get angry."
It's the same way I've always felt about straight people. If you're straight, that's fine. I don't care. But don't dare push your ways upon me. That's when I begin to get angry.
Forgive my asking but how is a law allowing gay marriage pushing you, as a straight person, to do anything? For that matter how is a law banning gay marriage not pushing your ways on gay people?
"If the gays want more "fairness", push for laws that enable them to have more fairness."
And that's what they're doing. And one of the first steps is challenging existing laws that are unfair.
I still feel like I'm failing to understand something of the definition of a human that you are using. Are you saying that all it takes to be human is the requisite genetic code? If so then answer me this: why is a fertilized ovum a human and a red blood cell is not? Both are single cells that contain human DNA.
"Yep- and differ it by 2% and you have a chimpanzee. Human is the name of a SPECIES - and Human Rights is the application of law to provide all members of the species equal protection"
Yes. But we've had the concept of a species much longer than we've known about genetics. When we talk about genetics species has a very particular meaning. But it is a meaning arbitrarily assigned to it by geneticists. Other people may disagree with the definition. The question is, are we in law using the same definition of species as we are in science. Should we be? For the record having given the bill a cursory search I don't believe they once use the word species. But now I'm drifting into semantic waters so I will move on.
"Then you'd better abandon your support of any rights based on species- because it is an incontrovertible fact IF you accept the idea of speciation."
But my whole point is that some people DON'T accept the idea of genetic speciation at least in so far as defining the essential nature of a human. If I accept the idea of genetic speciation then the whole debate is a non-issue. The question is, why should we accept genetic speciation over any (every) other proposed definition, and who are we to make that determination for everyone?
"True enough- you need to read a good biography of Elaenor Roosevelt if you want to know more (she was the principal author of that document of principles- just to get my spelling straight in my own head). She intended Article 2- and it's companion, Article 3- to be read as a support of anti-abortion laws"
I actually didn't know that about Eleanor Roosevelt. That's very interesting. I wouldn't have thought that abortion would have been as big of an issue in 1948, but then as you can no doubt tell, I'm no history major either;-)
"The converse is also true. If the UDHR is the inalienable rights by which we judge governments, then a muderer does NOT automatically give up his Article 2 and Article 3 rights without some other need to protect society."
That's an excellent point. It always astonishes me how some people can extol the virtues of the death penalty in the same breath they're decrying abortion. It always struck me as somewhat hypocritical. If a right to life is indeed a universal human right then it should apply regardless of whether or not the human in question has committed an act we don't approve of.
"You truly have no scientific backing for your philosophy"
Well that's certainly true. That's what makes it philosophy;-)
"while those who believe in the seemless garment of life are attracting both law (philosophy) and fact (scientific genetic evidence of speciation) in their favor. When faced with physical evidence, philosophy must bend. Always"
I think what I'm really driving at here is that resorting to the letter of science to answer every question is as much a philosophical decision as anything else. Science places importance on some aspects of nature and down plays others. Who's really to say that the scientific answer is the right one?
Beyond that I'd like to thank you for sharing you thoughts with me. I've found it enlightening and intellectually stimulating. I hope I haven't offended you with any of my ramblings.
"the entire biological plan for an individual was present at conception, that the rules changed once more. It's not based on religious belief, it's based on science."
I'm still unconvinced. There's still an implied philosophical (if not, as you say, religious) opinion underlying this "scientific fact". Put it this way, by your logic I can scientifically prove that an acorn is an oak tree. I don't know about you but I would imagine there a lot of scientist who would beg to differ with that sort of glib analysis. You've assumed (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) that the single defining characteristic that makes a human a human, in an ontological sense, is their genetic makeup. This is certainly a valid opinion, one perhaps that is shared by many scientists. But I would still contented that it is a philosophical opinion not an incontrovertible fact.
Beyond that I don't think we're actually in disagreement about anything. Certainly human beings should have the right to live without fear of being arbitrarily murdered. Although in all fairness I would have interpreted "social origin, property, birth or other status" to mean that I can't withhold the aforementioned rights based on when/where/to whom (not if) someone was born. But since I wasn't involved with writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and I'm willing to bet that neither were you) such interpretations are purely conjecture on both our parts.
"So we have BOTH a scientific fact on when life begins, and an international law arugment defining when one becomes a person. Do you have any backing for the fetus NOT having the right to life?"
Well as I said in my original post, no not really. I think it's a thorny issue with no clear answers. I guess if I had to offer an argument (for the sake of the debate) I would say that we in fact don't have a scientific fact on when life begins, nor an international law argument defining when one becomes a person. All we have is philosophical/religious opinion, and it would be immoral for us to try and force our philosophical opinions on other people by fucking with the law.
Slashdot Mirror
I first heard it on the Simpsons. It's the episode where Homer goes into space and accidently breaks open the ant farm. Kent Brockman sees a close up of one of the ants and thinks that the space ship has been overrun by a super race of giant ants....
"It's unclear whether they will consume the captive crew or merly enslave them But one thing is certain, there is no stopping them...the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overloards. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted media personality I can be useful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves..."
Wow, how sad is it that I can do that from memory. Anyway, that's where I first heard that line. Although it's entirly possible that the simpsons stole it from somewhere else that I don't know about.
"Its the same way I've always felt about gays. If you're gay, that's fine. I don't care. But don't dare push your ways upon me. That's when I begin to get angry."
It's the same way I've always felt about straight people. If you're straight, that's fine. I don't care. But don't dare push your ways upon me. That's when I begin to get angry.
Forgive my asking but how is a law allowing gay marriage pushing you, as a straight person, to do anything? For that matter how is a law banning gay marriage not pushing your ways on gay people?
"If the gays want more "fairness", push for laws that enable them to have more fairness."
And that's what they're doing. And one of the first steps is challenging existing laws that are unfair.
I still feel like I'm failing to understand something of the definition of a human that you are using. Are you saying that all it takes to be human is the requisite genetic code? If so then answer me this: why is a fertilized ovum a human and a red blood cell is not? Both are single cells that contain human DNA.
;-)
;-)
"Yep- and differ it by 2% and you have a chimpanzee. Human is the name of a SPECIES - and Human Rights is the application of law to provide all members of the species equal protection"
Yes. But we've had the concept of a species much longer than we've known about genetics. When we talk about genetics species has a very particular meaning. But it is a meaning arbitrarily assigned to it by geneticists. Other people may disagree with the definition. The question is, are we in law using the same definition of species as we are in science. Should we be? For the record having given the bill a cursory search I don't believe they once use the word species. But now I'm drifting into semantic waters so I will move on.
"Then you'd better abandon your support of any rights based on species- because it is an incontrovertible fact IF you accept the idea of speciation."
But my whole point is that some people DON'T accept the idea of genetic speciation at least in so far as defining the essential nature of a human. If I accept the idea of genetic speciation then the whole debate is a non-issue. The question is, why should we accept genetic speciation over any (every) other proposed definition, and who are we to make that determination for everyone?
"True enough- you need to read a good biography of Elaenor Roosevelt if you want to know more (she was the principal author of that document of principles- just to get my spelling straight in my own head). She intended Article 2- and it's companion, Article 3- to be read as a support of anti-abortion laws"
I actually didn't know that about Eleanor Roosevelt. That's very interesting. I wouldn't have thought that abortion would have been as big of an issue in 1948, but then as you can no doubt tell, I'm no history major either
"The converse is also true. If the UDHR is the inalienable rights by which we judge governments, then a muderer does NOT automatically give up his Article 2 and Article 3 rights without some other need to protect society."
That's an excellent point. It always astonishes me how some people can extol the virtues of the death penalty in the same breath they're decrying abortion. It always struck me as somewhat hypocritical. If a right to life is indeed a universal human right then it should apply regardless of whether or not the human in question has committed an act we don't approve of.
"You truly have no scientific backing for your philosophy"
Well that's certainly true. That's what makes it philosophy
"while those who believe in the seemless garment of life are attracting both law (philosophy) and fact (scientific genetic evidence of speciation) in their favor. When faced with physical evidence, philosophy must bend. Always"
I think what I'm really driving at here is that resorting to the letter of science to answer every question is as much a philosophical decision as anything else. Science places importance on some aspects of nature and down plays others. Who's really to say that the scientific answer is the right one?
Beyond that I'd like to thank you for sharing you thoughts with me. I've found it enlightening and intellectually stimulating. I hope I haven't offended you with any of my ramblings.
"the entire biological plan for an individual was present at conception, that the rules changed once more. It's not based on religious belief, it's based on science."
I'm still unconvinced. There's still an implied philosophical (if not, as you say, religious) opinion underlying this "scientific fact". Put it this way, by your logic I can scientifically prove that an acorn is an oak tree. I don't know about you but I would imagine there a lot of scientist who would beg to differ with that sort of glib analysis. You've assumed (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) that the single defining characteristic that makes a human a human, in an ontological sense, is their genetic makeup. This is certainly a valid opinion, one perhaps that is shared by many scientists. But I would still contented that it is a philosophical opinion not an incontrovertible fact.
Beyond that I don't think we're actually in disagreement about anything. Certainly human beings should have the right to live without fear of being arbitrarily murdered. Although in all fairness I would have interpreted "social origin, property, birth or other status" to mean that I can't withhold the aforementioned rights based on when/where/to whom (not if) someone was born. But since I wasn't involved with writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and I'm willing to bet that neither were you) such interpretations are purely conjecture on both our parts.
"So we have BOTH a scientific fact on when life begins, and an international law arugment defining when one becomes a person. Do you have any backing for the fetus NOT having the right to life?" Well as I said in my original post, no not really. I think it's a thorny issue with no clear answers. I guess if I had to offer an argument (for the sake of the debate) I would say that we in fact don't have a scientific fact on when life begins, nor an international law argument defining when one becomes a person. All we have is philosophical/religious opinion, and it would be immoral for us to try and force our philosophical opinions on other people by fucking with the law.