Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TigerPaw who wrote (357715)2/11/2003 7:45:00 PM
From: David R  Read Replies (1) of 769618
By "Life" I refer to human life, for which the taking is both immoral and against the law. Sorry for the ambiguity. BTW, Singer sees no moral difference between killing the crab at Joe's, and killing a newborn or invalid (i.e. the Nazi connection).

haven't justified it, I have stated often that it is not desirable, I have just shown why there is no rational basis to outlaw it.

If, in fact, a newborn pr pre-born is a living human, then there is a rational basis to outlaw killing it, just as there is a rational basis to make it a crime for me to kill you (or visa-versa).

Do you know what genocide is? ...
My point is that once you allow an arbitrary definition of what constitutes human life (such as your's and Singer's assertion of self-awareness), then the definition can be arbitrarily moved, to wit the Nazi declared Jews to be non-human.

This Nazi reference is generally known ...
Only when used as an ad hominem. When you are espousing the exact same rational and argument that the Nazis used to justify killing all "sub-humans", which included jews, infirmed, and disabled, then pointing that out is not ad hominem. It is a factual comparison.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.