I want to know what all those Marine Biologists who do not work with animals or on the ocean actually do?
I didn’t “take” marine biology. I majored in it, and have been doing bioremediation for nearly ~8.5’ish years (though not straight through). Oh, but marine biologists don’t do that, right? Obviously, all marine biologists go out on the ocean and play with animals, right?
As it stands, I’ll kindly accept your post as an apology, since it’s clearly evident you don’t know what you’re talking about and tried to shoehorn all marine biologists into one neat little category in order to be “right”. Speaking of which, I like how you fantastically ignored my explanation to you of how I started doing bioremediation in the first place. I wonder why that is?
Edit: You might as well just came out with “No-true-marine-biologist…”.
No, that would be pointless. It’s just that you’re so eager to side with the fetus that I feel it’s worth occasionally pointing out that there’s a woman involved, too, lest she continue to be overlooked, forgotten, or ignored.
Study Marines? 
How the fuck did this become a dick-measuring contest about marine biology?
“Well I successfully raised sea monkeys as a child (until the dog ate them) and therefore you are both poopyheads!”
And we’re back to homosexuals.
My degree is in Mathematics but I work as a software developer, can I call myself a Mathematician in your eyes?
Well, now I’m reminded of two sitcom moments involving marine biologists. There was that whole Seinfeld episode in which George is pretending to be a marine biologist to impress a woman (as I recall, Jerry had made up the lie - George preferred to pretend to be an architect). There’s a particularly funny ending involving a beached whale.
The other is earlier, from Cheers, during a chat between Diane, Carla and Loretta (the dimwitted second wife of Carla’s scummy ex-husband, Nick). I believe Diane had expressed doubt about Nick’s appeal to women.
Carla: He understands women. Like a meat-cutter knows meat. Like a gem-cutter knows gems.
Lorretta: Like a marine biologist knows marines.
Jean Kasem’s delivery sells the line perfectly. Still cracks me up.
Are you genuinely this dumb? Look, from your own cite about The Veil of Ignorance:
The whole point is that you could be anyone within the society in question - that is, you can hold any position and you do not know which one you have, so therefore you should make a decision that is equitable to everyone. But you are immediately jumping to the conclusion that ‘unborn fetus’ is an available position within *any *society, a conclusion that I find highly erroneous. Fetuses do not have opinions and thoughts and feelings, therefore we cannot reasonably put ourselves in their place or reasonably take their desires into account. You may as well say ‘if the only thing you knew about sitting was that you could either be the sitter or the chair, would you allow sitting to occur?’. That makes no sense, because we don’t take the opinions of chairs into account.
Now, I know you’re going to scream ‘BUT YOU WERE ONCE A FETUS!’ - yeah, that’s true. But at that time I had no consciousness and so I wouldn’t have cared if my mother had aborted me. I would have no way to know that was happening. At the time my mothers opinions and desires were the only ones that existed, so she could do what she thought was best.
If you want to claim that fetuses are members of society with equal rights and equal claim to life, well then you’re arguing from your conclusions. You can’t say ‘assume a fetus has equal rights to an adult’, and then start arguing for why a fetus should have equal rights to an adult. Surely even you can see why that makes no sense.
From my experience, many take a degree like this, and then never land a job even remotely in the field. I guess because they know nothing about marine biology.
It’s like someone says that they are a software engineer, and they got a degree in software engineering, however they really know nothing about computers, and only took one course in software, which they promptly forgot. They now work fixing toasters. But they are a “software engineer”
Here is a case from 2009 concerning a woman whose pregnancy-related medical condition was about to kill her (and the fetus, which was not viable yet):
http://www.minnpost.com/community_voices/2011/02/18/25934/ideology_trumps_rationality_in_congress_latest_abortion_bills
By terminating this pregnancy, she was able to go home to her four kids. Had she continued, there would have been two deaths as well as four children losing their mother.
There is also short-rib polydactyly syndrome, which causes death shortly after birth; for this reason, many choose abortion in order to spare the newborn and themselves additional suffering–warning, some disturbing pics, though very small: http://www.springerlink.com/content/7qm6bgnpycj7ljjl/
I am bringing these up as examples of situations in which abortion makes much more sense than going through with the pregnancy, although YMMV on the second one.
You are misapplying the veil. the veil doesn’t ask you to put yourself into that shoes of the aborted and the shoes of the aborter. It askes you what sort of society you would choose if you didn’t know who you would be in society. You are including the aborted fetus would be part of the Rawlsian franchise, I suspect that others would say taht they are not and that you do not consider the perspective of an aborted fetus any more than you would an unfertilized egg or some sperm that ends up ina condom somewhere.
The problem I have with your invocation of the veil is that so many of your other positions seem to be contrary to the positions that Rawls would have endorsed.
And if you don’t define the embryo as a life then it has no place in the rawlsian analysis.
If we were forcing a woman to be surgically conected to that coma patient in order to keep them alive, I think that changes the picture a little bit. Don’t you. See, violinist.
Because they haven’t attained value yet. When a person enters a coma they are already a thinking person. When a fetus is aborted, it might have become a thinking person, but has not yet. It has not yet attained its value.
Like what I said about the acorn.
You need to think hard about this. It’s consciousness that gives value. A fetus with a brain that’s a non-functional clump of cells cannot support consciousness.
It takes a complex brain to support consciousness. An aborted fetus might attain consciousness later, but it as of yet, never had it. And aborting it doesn’t remove a consciousness that already exists.
Idiot.
It wouldn’t matter in any case.
You’re being too modest.
As for this part, I honestly don’t know how else to explain this to you since you either cannot or will not understand. If there are in fact people who are simultaneously saying that abortion should always be *legal *and that sex-selective abortion should be illegal, well then those people are hypocrites. But you’ve provided no concrete examples of pro-choicers who actually make both those statements. You seem to think this is a ‘gotcha’ for all pro-choicers when in fact it isn’t an opinion held by all pro-choicers. Why don’t I ask you how it is that some pro-lifers have had abortions themselves (the only moral abortion is my abortion). If I reasoned the way you reason I’d say that negates the opinion of all pro-lifers. So explain that. Go on, I’ll wait.
I personally think that abortion should be legal at any time for any reason, and the laws of my country reflect that, so I’m happy with those laws as they lie. I don’t personally approve of sex-selective abortion on a moral level, but I wouldn’t want it to be illegal since that would be infringing on the rights of women in a way that I think is wrong. I can’t tell you anything else other than that. I cannot be personally responsible for any and all opinions held by any and all pro-choicers.
Doesn’t a person stop being a person when it no longer has a mind? I don’t get the distinction you are trying to make.
Well, as long as you didn’t have to swim, you could are probably black.
Conception is the point at which a genetically distinct organism is created within the womb. One that will result in a human being if all goes according to plan. I am not sure why the physical trauma of gestation and birth are important moral criteria in conferring rights.
I don’t disagree so I’m not going to go to the mat over this. Like I said before the DADT hearings convinced me that opposition ot gay marriage was based purely on homophobia and not some nuanced distinction between a heterosexual marriage and a gay marriage that I just don’t get because I’m not religious enough.
I don’t normally note his blackness (except those times I said his chosen username was obvious troll-kindling), and I’m not sure what exactly you were trying to say, but there’s probably a potential joke in describing a marine biologist who doesn’t swim, although the exact formula escapes me.
Not that I believe (or ever really understood) the underlying stereotype, though.
Well, I invite you to consider the (entirely realistic) scenario of a trespasser in your home. There may be no trauma to you whatsoever, physical or mental or financial or whatever, but do you want the right to expel them if you choose?
Heck, the trespasser could be your own identical twin, so there isn’t even a “genetically distinct” element to consider.
This is a pretty poor argument, and one of the reasons why your contention is bunk. You’re effectively arguing that the veil of ignorance is null and void if envisioning yourself in a certain position would require being in the position of someone who is not conscious or displays no consciousness. Okay, fine. Let’s assume that’s true. Consciousness is a multifaceted concept that can be divided into two main components: arousal (ie, wakefulness, or vigilance) and awareness (eg, awareness of the environment and of the self). People who are asleep, in a coma or anesthetized have neither arousal nor awareness and, thus, no consciousness. If we were to apply this whole “the veil of ignorance can’t be applied because there is no consciousness!” line or however you’re trying to spin, then these statements would also be true:
“(S)he’s asleep, and has no consciousness, so (s)he won’t care if you kill him/her!”
“(S)he’s in a coma, and has no consciousness, so (s)he won’t care if you kill him/her!”
“(S)he’s anesthetized, and has no consciousness, so (s)he won’t care if you kill him/her!”
But would you argue that? Of course not. The fact that none of the aforementioned individuals are conscious, display no consciousness or have any perception of self would not be considered justification enough to kill them. Anywho, here’s a simple question for you; would you like to be killed in any of the aforementioned circumstances?
…Oh, wait. That’s a trick question as you cannot envision yourself in any of the following circumstances. You know… Lack of consciousness and all that.
(I sometimes wonder whether or not people understand the concepts they are arguing.)
I’d like to see where I assumed this as true for the purpose of this thread.
Am I?
Show me where I said this.
That is precisely what I’ve said on numerous occasions. I even said so in the post you quoted, which makes it kind of… odd… that you would type the above.
…Yeah…
This goes right back to the issue of pro-choicers wanting to play word games. Because they cannot say that the unborn aren’t human beings, they say they’re not persons, which has no concrete definition except the one pro-choicers want to ascribe to it. Trying to argue it is an exercise in futility, is akin to playing dumb and can be similarly applied to any issue (though that will undoubtedly get you labeled a bigot ;)). While I could play that game, I’ll pass on it.
Rawls never took a position on abortion. I don’t really know what the rest of this has to do with anything I’ve said.
But how can you be “forced” into the naturally deriving consequent of an action that you willingly engaged in?
And thus the “no-true-Scottsman” line persists. I’m quite curious how you deduced that I’m not a real marine biologist.
Because you seem to know nothing about it, did not study the most basic of concepts in it, and never worked in the field.
If someone claims to be a Scottsman, because they went on holidays there once, but never lived in Scotland, and knows nothing about Scotland… You know what? They are not a Scottsman.
I’m jealous of engineers sometimes. They have a professional accreditation and professional organizations. A college can’t set up an “engineering” degree and pass people off as engineers without (say) any math courses.
So your argument has nothing to do with present or future status, but rather past status? That seems rather contrived. When a person enters a coma, they become a “non-thinking person”. If, as you are seemingly assert, becoming a thinking person grants value, then why doesn’t one lose their value when they lose the thing which made them have value in the first place?
What if that acorn grows into an oak tree and the oak tree uproots and dies? Is it treated like an acorn or an oak tree firmly rooted in the ground?
(Yes, there’s a lot of facetiousness in that response.)
What if the individual in question is not only not conscious, but displays no consciousness? What if the individual is a tasty animal?
Not really. Unless, of course, you’re applying some complex definition to consciousness.
So, again why does it matter if it “never had it” or if it “doesn’t have it now”? There’s no fundamental difference between the two situations, as both of the things or individuals in question are capable (or incapable) of the same things.
Interesting. So let me make sure I understand your position correctly.
1.) I have a degree in Marine Biology, which doesn’t mean anything.
2.) I spent years-- both in college and two years after it-- working with other people collecting (that means getting on a boat) and testing soil samples from around the Pensacola Bay/Gulf Coast area, which also doesn’t mean anything.
3.) I presently do something similar in the central Florida area, though not nearly as often as I did prior and not along the coastline as I did when I was in Pensacola.
You may have had a point if I was working in a call center selling phones or something completely unrelated to marine biology, but I don’t. Perhaps I need to go take a job at Sea World and work with Shamu so I can come back and get your approval.
…Then again, I probably won’t.
God you are stupid. Let’s break this into small parts:
a) being asleep is not the same thing as being unconscious and people who are asleep do have some awareness (they can hear loud noises, feel pain, etc.). So let’s just remove the asleep people from the equation, hmmm?
b) are you really arguing that you can’t imagine what you would want if you were in a coma or anaesthetized? So all those people who make living will that defines what they want to happen to them if they are comatose are … what? Lying? The difference between a fetus and an unconscious person is that one has had thoughts and feelings at some point and could express them in advance. I’ll let you decide which one.
c) despite this, there are situation in which we do allow unconscious people to be removed from life support and therefore killed. Allowing someone to die rather than forcing them to live a miserable existence can be the most humane thing possible, although I know this is something pro-lifers don’t understand.
d) in any case, your family or next of kin generally get to make the call on keeping you alive if you are comatose. You know, just like the woman gets to make the call on whether she gets an abortion. You are trying to paint this as though some random people are going to come into the hospital and start shooting comatose people, which is absurd because we’re not talking about random people shooting pregnant women in the stomach. We’re talking about people who are directly involved.