7 ms·

> Animal rights is one of the biggest swept under the rug > ethical issues of our day, and one in which I see lots of > smart rational people stumble over

by jonah 14y ago

> Animal rights is one of the biggest swept under the rug > ethical issues of our day, and one in which I see lots of > smart rational people stumble over themselves to justify > their habits (or uncomfortably turn a blind eye). Another, probably larger one, is abortion. Otherwise progressive, considerate people rationalizing that it's alright to kill people just because they're not born yet. It's generally inconsistent with the other positions people who support abortion take.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Without wishing to get into that whole debate, abortion is something that is fairly well discussed here in the UK and as far as I can tell even more so in the US. Most people tend to have some opinion on it. Animal rights seems to be something that even people who often have strong opinions tend not to discuss.
- jonah 14y ago
  I see your point. Some similarities though are that we need to speak out for the people and animals who can't defend themselves and the opposing sides on of each issue tend to talk "past" each other.
eurleif 14y ago
Do you think abortion is wrong from the moment of conception? I think a zygote is clearly incapable of experiencing suffering, just like an animal clearly is capable.
- jonah 14y ago
  I think capability to feel pain is the wrong criteria. Following that line of thinking, would it be OK to kill someone while they were anesthetized? They wouldn't feel pain. It's the destroying of a genetically unique individual human that is the issue. No matter how far along the continuum of development they are.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Why stop there and not say that any viable egg is the issue? And your definition would allow the abortion, or even adult slaughter, of a twin, or two of a triple. That is an interesting opinion.
  - eurleif 14y ago
    An anesthetized person has a mind with which to experience suffering. It's just not currently engaged. Genetically unique? So it's ok to kill an identical twin?
    - jonah 14y ago
      Capable of experiencing suffering or will experience suffering. That's an interesting distinction. What are your thoughts on it. Edit: Also, what is suffering and is it different from pain? I had two qualifiers in there: unique and individual. Each twin is its own individual.
  - EGreg 14y ago
    What about destroying sperm cells or preventing an ovum from implanting or being released?
    - jonah 14y ago
      Bio 101: Sperm and ova each carry only 1/2 the genetic material.[1] Once the egg is fertilized and becomes a zygote it is genetically unique. (An ovum wouldn't implant. That would be a zygote.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatozoon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatozoon
      - aneth4 14y ago
        Most sexually reproducing organisms are genetically unique. That's hardly a basis for a moral judgement. Ethics and morality in philosophy are generally based on minimizing the experience and perception of suffering, not promoting diversity - though diversity can certainly help reduce suffering.
midnightsine 14y ago
I think the debate stems mostly from the imperfections of our spoken language. What is a human? Is it any biological organism that is genetically identifiable as homo sapiens? Is it our bodies? Our minds, hearts and 'souls'? When asked to draw a "human", a man will sketch a head, a torso, a pair of legs, two arms. On the most basic level we see this shape everyday in our lives - that is what we all subconsciously equate the word "human" with. Is it all there is to it? Shouldn't we be focusing on what makes us human as the philosophers would see it? Creativity, spontaneity, our thoughts and dreams - everything that goes on in our brains? Consciousness? There will be more and more debate in the coming years as the concept of what is "human" will come under fire. Technological advancements, medical innovations and strong AI will throw our preconceptions under a train and force us as a species to reconsider, for better or for worse. Do you see how the abortion debate stems from different understanding of the same concept? There is no right and wrong. Dictionaries rule over our minds.
- jonah 14y ago
  Exactly. I see attempting to draw lines as the issue. Even as considered as they might be, any criteria we set will end up being relative and at least somewhat arbitrary. I don't think you can be "partially" human.
- marknadal 14y ago
  Even if there is no right and wrong, we should still fight for the rights of others - simply for the selfish reason of the future viewing us as freedom fighters. But that is a horrible reason to fight for the right of others. So why not simply fight for the most abstract definition of "human"? People used to say only fair-skinned people were human. Now we look back on those people as being bigots for having too narrow of a definition. Two predictions: 1. The future will look back on people who defined "human" as only being outside the womb (or nerve-braincell-connections) as being narrow minded bigots. 2. The people who fought for the human sanctity of zygotes will also be the people who claim sentient AI are "not human" and are ok to kill or enslave. Irony full circle.
aneth4 14y ago
The death penalty and locking up a fifth of the young black population is generally inconsistent with the other positions "people who oppose abortion" take, yet I don't see them doing much about that. If we can stop talking in such broad generalizations now... Nobody who will be born in the future has been born yet. By choosing to use a condom or birth control, are we killing those people? What's the difference between a sperm being inside an egg and outside other than some sort of religious spiritual mumbo jumbo or philosophical possibility? At what point does a fertilized egg become a "person," and who are you to determine that? All those progressive people you condescend to are not "supporters" of abortion. Almost nobody "supports" abortion, and hardly anyone is ok with late term abortion. Those progressive people are generally thinking beings who have morality. They think about things rather than accepting an arbitrary criteria such as whether someone is born or not. For most it is whether the bundle of cells is a sentient being capable of experiencing, something a zygote most certainly is not. A zygote is not a person by any reasonable standard. It has the potential to become person with lots of help from its environment, as does every combination of viable sperm and egg on the planet. Every sperm may be sacred, but every sperm is not deserving of equal protection.
- adamnemecek 14y ago
  No one is arguing about sperms. Even though I consider myself progressive, I have a similar position as the parent comment author. Abortion in 24th week (which is the latest legal date) is WAY too late.
  - aneth4 14y ago
    Reasonable people can debate when the latest legal abortion should be. The parent comment simply referred to abortion. Generally those opposed to abortion believe that abortion should be illegal from egg fertilization, or even prior to this by restricting birth control. I might tend to agree with you that 24 weeks is too late based on a quick look around: "By 22 weeks, your baby's nervous system completely 'connects'. The vital link between their brain and spinal cord (the brain stem) now matures and many nerve cells make vigorous connections. When this happens your baby becomes capable of recognising warmth, light, sound and pain. While primitive brain waves have been detected in unborn babies as early as 7 weeks, it is not until 22 weeks that sustained patterns can definitely be recorded. Some women will now notice that their baby 'jumps' with a loud sound. " http://www.birth.com.au/Pregnancy-week-by-week/Weeks-21-22 http://www.birth.com.au/Pregnancy-week-by-week/Weeks-21-22 If no brainwaves have been detected prior to 7 weeks, I'd probably set that as the lower bound for when abortion should be legal.
jacquesm 14y ago
This thread is about animal rights. If you want to start a thread about abortion feel free but this one isn't it.
tylermenezes 14y ago
If you're going to presuppose that abortion is killing someone, then your conclusion is logically apparent and uncontroversial. Clearly the issue in the abortion debate is whether it's killing or not, and you're begging that question here in order to seem somewhat smarter and superior, or to start a flame war. This sort of post is absolutely unintellectual and unacceptable for Hacker News.
- jonah 14y ago
  It's a complex issue at the intersection of science, ethics, and law. Quite a common combination on HN.
- marknadal 14y ago
  If you are going to presuppose that his post was intentionally a flame and act of superiority then your conclusion is apparent. One which you would agree, should not be posted. To preempt another meta-reply, I'll also state that the wittiness of this post is uncontroversial, and thus a valid post for the better humor of the community.
jessedhillon 14y ago
Jesus what a fucking troll. I can't believe you've garnered so many responses, and not a one is stopping to point out that you're using circular logic. Gee, how come nobody thinks murdering people is wrong? Fucking jackass. If you find I've been combative, it's only because your comment insults the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
lilsunnybee 14y ago
This is a derailing of the original conversation. I'm not saying you can't build a moral case against abortion, but it doesn't make sense to do so here. Why? Because the article concerns attempts to prevent cruelty to animals, ie. pain and suffering. For most if not all of the legally allowed period in the US for aborting fetuses, a fetus doesn't even have the developed nervous system to feel pain, or the basic cognition to experience suffering. So those concerns aren't at all valid. If someone was making the argument that we shouldn't eat meat at all, because killing animal organisms is wrong, then abortion would be relevant to bring up. Humans are killing countless numbers of microscopic organisms everyday, both out of necessity and a desire to stay healthy (using antibacterial products and antibiotics), so at least personally i think an edict against killing is a silly idea. Cruelty and killing are not one and the same though.

by jonah 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

Without wishing to get into that whole debate, abortion is something that is fairly well discussed here in the UK and as far as I can tell even more so in the US. Most people tend to have some opinion on it. Animal rights seems to be something that even people who often have strong opinions tend not to discuss.

jonah 14y ago
I see your point. Some similarities though are that we need to speak out for the people and animals who can't defend themselves and the opposing sides on of each issue tend to talk "past" each other.

eurleif 14y ago

Do you think abortion is wrong from the moment of conception? I think a zygote is clearly incapable of experiencing suffering, just like an animal clearly is capable.

jonah 14y ago
I think capability to feel pain is the wrong criteria. Following that line of thinking, would it be OK to kill someone while they were anesthetized? They wouldn't feel pain. It's the destroying of a genetically unique individual human that is the issue. No matter how far along the continuum of development they are.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Why stop there and not say that any viable egg is the issue? And your definition would allow the abortion, or even adult slaughter, of a twin, or two of a triple. That is an interesting opinion.
- eurleif 14y ago
  An anesthetized person has a mind with which to experience suffering. It's just not currently engaged. Genetically unique? So it's ok to kill an identical twin?
  - jonah 14y ago
    Capable of experiencing suffering or will experience suffering. That's an interesting distinction. What are your thoughts on it. Edit: Also, what is suffering and is it different from pain? I had two qualifiers in there: unique and individual. Each twin is its own individual.
- EGreg 14y ago
  What about destroying sperm cells or preventing an ovum from implanting or being released?
  - jonah 14y ago
    Bio 101: Sperm and ova each carry only 1/2 the genetic material.[1] Once the egg is fertilized and becomes a zygote it is genetically unique. (An ovum wouldn't implant. That would be a zygote.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatozoon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatozoon
    - aneth4 14y ago
      Most sexually reproducing organisms are genetically unique. That's hardly a basis for a moral judgement. Ethics and morality in philosophy are generally based on minimizing the experience and perception of suffering, not promoting diversity - though diversity can certainly help reduce suffering.

midnightsine 14y ago

I think the debate stems mostly from the imperfections of our spoken language. What is a human? Is it any biological organism that is genetically identifiable as homo sapiens? Is it our bodies? Our minds, hearts and 'souls'? When asked to draw a "human", a man will sketch a head, a torso, a pair of legs, two arms. On the most basic level we see this shape everyday in our lives - that is what we all subconsciously equate the word "human" with. Is it all there is to it? Shouldn't we be focusing on what makes us human as the philosophers would see it? Creativity, spontaneity, our thoughts and dreams - everything that goes on in our brains? Consciousness? There will be more and more debate in the coming years as the concept of what is "human" will come under fire. Technological advancements, medical innovations and strong AI will throw our preconceptions under a train and force us as a species to reconsider, for better or for worse. Do you see how the abortion debate stems from different understanding of the same concept? There is no right and wrong. Dictionaries rule over our minds.

jonah 14y ago
Exactly. I see attempting to draw lines as the issue. Even as considered as they might be, any criteria we set will end up being relative and at least somewhat arbitrary. I don't think you can be "partially" human.
marknadal 14y ago
Even if there is no right and wrong, we should still fight for the rights of others - simply for the selfish reason of the future viewing us as freedom fighters. But that is a horrible reason to fight for the right of others. So why not simply fight for the most abstract definition of "human"? People used to say only fair-skinned people were human. Now we look back on those people as being bigots for having too narrow of a definition. Two predictions: 1. The future will look back on people who defined "human" as only being outside the womb (or nerve-braincell-connections) as being narrow minded bigots. 2. The people who fought for the human sanctity of zygotes will also be the people who claim sentient AI are "not human" and are ok to kill or enslave. Irony full circle.

aneth4 14y ago

The death penalty and locking up a fifth of the young black population is generally inconsistent with the other positions "people who oppose abortion" take, yet I don't see them doing much about that. If we can stop talking in such broad generalizations now... Nobody who will be born in the future has been born yet. By choosing to use a condom or birth control, are we killing those people? What's the difference between a sperm being inside an egg and outside other than some sort of religious spiritual mumbo jumbo or philosophical possibility? At what point does a fertilized egg become a "person," and who are you to determine that? All those progressive people you condescend to are not "supporters" of abortion. Almost nobody "supports" abortion, and hardly anyone is ok with late term abortion. Those progressive people are generally thinking beings who have morality. They think about things rather than accepting an arbitrary criteria such as whether someone is born or not. For most it is whether the bundle of cells is a sentient being capable of experiencing, something a zygote most certainly is not. A zygote is not a person by any reasonable standard. It has the potential to become person with lots of help from its environment, as does every combination of viable sperm and egg on the planet. Every sperm may be sacred, but every sperm is not deserving of equal protection.

adamnemecek 14y ago
No one is arguing about sperms. Even though I consider myself progressive, I have a similar position as the parent comment author. Abortion in 24th week (which is the latest legal date) is WAY too late.
- aneth4 14y ago
  Reasonable people can debate when the latest legal abortion should be. The parent comment simply referred to abortion. Generally those opposed to abortion believe that abortion should be illegal from egg fertilization, or even prior to this by restricting birth control. I might tend to agree with you that 24 weeks is too late based on a quick look around: "By 22 weeks, your baby's nervous system completely 'connects'. The vital link between their brain and spinal cord (the brain stem) now matures and many nerve cells make vigorous connections. When this happens your baby becomes capable of recognising warmth, light, sound and pain. While primitive brain waves have been detected in unborn babies as early as 7 weeks, it is not until 22 weeks that sustained patterns can definitely be recorded. Some women will now notice that their baby 'jumps' with a loud sound. " http://www.birth.com.au/Pregnancy-week-by-week/Weeks-21-22 http://www.birth.com.au/Pregnancy-week-by-week/Weeks-21-22 If no brainwaves have been detected prior to 7 weeks, I'd probably set that as the lower bound for when abortion should be legal.

jacquesm 14y ago

This thread is about animal rights. If you want to start a thread about abortion feel free but this one isn't it.

tylermenezes 14y ago

If you're going to presuppose that abortion is killing someone, then your conclusion is logically apparent and uncontroversial. Clearly the issue in the abortion debate is whether it's killing or not, and you're begging that question here in order to seem somewhat smarter and superior, or to start a flame war. This sort of post is absolutely unintellectual and unacceptable for Hacker News.

jonah 14y ago
It's a complex issue at the intersection of science, ethics, and law. Quite a common combination on HN.
marknadal 14y ago
If you are going to presuppose that his post was intentionally a flame and act of superiority then your conclusion is apparent. One which you would agree, should not be posted. To preempt another meta-reply, I'll also state that the wittiness of this post is uncontroversial, and thus a valid post for the better humor of the community.

jessedhillon 14y ago

Jesus what a fucking troll. I can't believe you've garnered so many responses, and not a one is stopping to point out that you're using circular logic. Gee, how come nobody thinks murdering people is wrong? Fucking jackass. If you find I've been combative, it's only because your comment insults the intelligence of anyone who reads it.

lilsunnybee 14y ago

This is a derailing of the original conversation. I'm not saying you can't build a moral case against abortion, but it doesn't make sense to do so here. Why? Because the article concerns attempts to prevent cruelty to animals, ie. pain and suffering. For most if not all of the legally allowed period in the US for aborting fetuses, a fetus doesn't even have the developed nervous system to feel pain, or the basic cognition to experience suffering. So those concerns aren't at all valid. If someone was making the argument that we shouldn't eat meat at all, because killing animal organisms is wrong, then abortion would be relevant to bring up. Humans are killing countless numbers of microscopic organisms everyday, both out of necessity and a desire to stay healthy (using antibacterial products and antibiotics), so at least personally i think an edict against killing is a silly idea. Cruelty and killing are not one and the same though.