Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 13 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
Arguments: | 8 |
Debates: | 1 |
Not really the same with robots. . . They would only enjoy the status of "fully aware that thats what they were in for" if they were treated as full persons with rights like any other person and could CHOOSE to go into the dangerous situations.
An interesting question: I think that, if science and technology could reach that point, and IF those cybernetic organisms were fully self-aware, and not controlled by another directly, then they could constitute persons. Some form of emotional intelligence might be required, and a form of self identification that is similar to humans could be a good criteria as well. I would grant the Terminator personhood as he is acting in ways that transcend his programming and display independent thought and reasoning.
(On a side note, this topic was sparked for me by my philosophy of the mind class earlier this year)
Here's where I disagree with you in part: personhood is not synonymous with humanity.
Excellent question though: I believe yes they are Homo sapiens before they leave the birth canal. As a biologist, the genetic makeup of a fetus is distinctly human and distinct from the mother's.
I agree with you, I wasn't arguing for animal personhood. I don't believe that most (if any, it depends and I'm not sure) constitute persons. I have read I, Robot, and thats part of what brought my feelings on this about early on. This is an issue that soon could become pertinent to our society if AI is furthered much more.
Personhood should be granted to any creature of sufficient intelligence to be considered sentient or has the potential to grow into such a creature. By creature I do not necessarily limit this definition to organic beings, but rather to any autonomous being that is not controlled by another.
He has a good point: you are making a standard of "dependent on the womb of another," but that only serves to further your point that abortion is morally blameless. There are many other categories of human beings that are dependent on another in a manner very similar to that of a fetus to the womb. Handicapped people are a good example of this, and, depending on the severity of their handicap may be just as incapable of independent life as a fetus.
I am in agreement that the government shouldn't be mandating the legality of abortion, but I am also of the belief that it is immoral. The two do not necessarily overlap since legality and morality are not synonymous.
The question here is a question of legality, not of morality.
Birth Control should absolutely be allowed. There is no reason to change that. Contrary to some beliefs, birth control does not lead to more sexual activity among groups, but rather leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies. People will have sex regardless of if there is birth control, so why make it impossible to prevent pregnancy? Since when has sex truly been for reproduction's sake only?
|