/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10259170]

Anyone here read Animal Liberation?

Completely changed my worldview and made me go vegan

[Anonymous No.10259210]

You're not alone

discord.gg/zU5UcU

[Anonymous No.10259212]

is this bait? singer is an absolute retard

[Anonymous No.10259219]

>reading utilitarians in (2^11)-(2^5)+1

[Anonymous No.10259226]

ITT deranged deontologists that wouldnt kill someone to stop the world from exploding

[Anonymous No.10259432]

>>10259170
I've read it last year. I was a vegan already and Peter's arguments only made my convictions stronger but nowdays I dont think they are as good as they were when i readed it. For example, the extension from animal ethical treatment to legalization of abortion sounds a little bit dogmatic.

[Anonymous No.10259436]

>utilitarians

[Anonymous No.10259443]

>>10259226
>low-hanging fruit

[Anonymous No.10259444]

(preference) utilitarianism is the only sensible moral framework

[Anonymous No.10259446]

>>10259436

Everyone is a utilitarian in disguise.

[Anonymous No.10259453]

>>10259446
Everyone has fragmented parts of all the predominant moral theories within them.

The idea that one of them completely trumps the other is literally autism.

[Anonymous No.10259455]

>giving a fuck about literal animals
b-but what if someone was d-drowning and you walked by them? ha! i’ve got you now!
singer is an utterly retarded faggot

[Anonymous No.10259470]

>>10259170
Animals are for Human consumption and this is natural law under the eyes of God. There, now fuck off Utilitarians.

[Anonymous No.10259479]

>>10259170
utilitarians more like brainletarians

[Anonymous No.10259538]

Is this the Peter Singer who advocates for infanticide? Don't kill animals but kill your kids instead.

[Anonymous No.10259544]

>>10259446

[Anonymous No.10259622]

>>10259226
false analogy

[Anonymous No.10259666]

>>10259538
>Don't kill animals but eat your kids instead.

[Anonymous No.10259693]

>>10259538
>"killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person"
how can anyone take this lunatic seriously

[Anonymous No.10259735]

>first year of the 699th olympiad
>thinking utilitarians have a n y t h i n g interesting to say

[Anonymous No.10259801]

>>10259693

As a pro-lifer I actually respect him more than any other pro-choicer because he's honest and philosophically consistent. His position is essentially that the unborn are human beings, but it's okay to kill human beings if they're not sufficiently rational. Newborns would fall under this "not sufficiently rational" category so it would be okay to kill them. This position is far more defensible than anything else you'll hear from the pro-choice side because it's logically consistent.

It's certainly not a politically smart position to have which is why pro-choice people who accept this line of reasoning will try to hide it behind viability arguments or they'll try to make abortion a women's rights issue. I appreciate the honesty which is why I respect him.

[Anonymous No.10259813]

>>10259801
>This position is far more defensible than anything else you'll hear from the pro-choice side because it's logically consistent.

You mean it's more logically consistent than only allowing abortion up to the point where we can scientifically verify that the fetus has a brain and a functioning nervous system?

Because I think that's a better cut-off point, because it means you aren't causing suffering on something that can actually experience the suffering.

His position is retarded by comparison.

[Anonymous No.10259822]

>>10259801
Sure it's logically consistent when you assume that it's a person who is not "sufficiently rational".
But that assumption is fucking retarded, to say the least.

[Anonymous No.10259825]

>>10259822
that it's ok to kill*

[Anonymous No.10259853]

>>10259813

Well first I think you would have justify the assumption that having any sort of cut off point is justified. This is because the idea that a human organism with no rights can become a human organism with rights is inconsistent with the idea of human equality, that all humans are born with inherent rights and should be treated equally. Your position is essentially that personhood is human+brain or human+functioning nervous system but how is truly any different from saying that personhood is human+white skin or human+male gender?

[Anonymous No.10259899]

Singer is a retard.
>lmao you have to donate all your money to the third world
>lmao you have to save the kid from drowning
>lmao it's ok to kill babies
>BUT not ok to kill animals lmao
No one takes him seriously. He doesn't have any arguments that hold up to criticism.

[Anonymous No.10259926]

>>10259899
is greentext with "lmao" on every line supposed to be this criticism?

[Anonymous No.10259933]

>>10259801
I honestly find Judith Thomson's position far smarter.
Still agree with neither though.

[Anonymous No.10259952]

>>10259899
You sound like you've definitely read him and not just listened to backlash and sensationalist articles.

[Anonymous No.10259970]

>>10259899
I go to Melbourne Uni and every teacher there sucks his dick constantly because he does a couple lectures a year.

[Anonymous No.10259972]

>>10259853
My *idea* is that personhood happens the moment it would be morally wrong to end their life. E.g the cut-off point that I just described which is enshrined in law in my own country.

You cannot have an abortion after 12 week in my country without there being a seriously good reason.

[Anonymous No.10259989]

>>10259972

Is it your position that the law in your country is synonymous with what is morally acceptable? For example if the law in your country were changed to say you can kill the unborn at any point would you then consider that to be morally acceptable?

[Anonymous No.10259993]

>>10259972
>It's moral because it's the law
The current state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.10259997]

>>10259989
That's not what he was describing and you are not arguing in good faith. He is simply saying that would be his law.

In regards to his position it is logically consistent because it is promotes both a physical and psychological continuity with the fetus, while providing room for exceptions of rape or incest. (Even miscegenation if he is as fashy as me)

[Anonymous No.10260003]

>>10259226
ITT Jews who devise sophistical arguments to justify torture.

[Anonymous No.10260008]

>>10259997

I'm asking these questions so I can understand his position. I wouldn't even say that I'm arguing with him because when I asked him to justify having any sort of cutoff for when humans deserve equal rights he hasn't responded, instead he talks about the law in his country.

[Anonymous No.10260009]

As a Christian I think that animals are under human dominion and can thus be used for our consumption, but I think we ought to treat them reasonably well and not cause them unnecessary suffering. So, for example, I don't think we should use them for medical experimentation; I also think that vegetarianism/veganism is a morally good course of action, but something that falls into the realm of an optional discipline, such as total chastity.

[Anonymous No.10260022]

Are vegans triggered by that part of the Bible where Solomon makes a burnt offering of 20,000 bulls?

[Anonymous No.10260027]

>>10259170
Meat taste good

[Anonymous No.10260040]

>>10260008
>when I asked him to justify having any sort of cutoff for when humans deserve equal rights he hasn't responded

I did respond. I told you that it makes perfect sense to have a cut-off point where the fetus is not considered adequately grown to experience suffering, in order that women have control over their reproductive system.

It makes sense for society to say, yes you have the freedom to terminate a pregnancy, but not after a certain point, because then it becomes a social question and not only an individual one.

[Anonymous No.10260085]

>>10260040

Reasserting that it's a good idea is not a reason to believe this is the case. I pointed out a problem with it that you've ignored, which is that it erodes the axiomatic belief that western civilization is founded on: that all human beings have intrinsic rights and should be treated equally. A system where certain human beings don't have intrinsic worth is incompatible with a system where human beings have equal rights. If you do away with the one you have to do away with the other. You're trying to appeal to women's rights but you're undermining your own argument.

If you want to do away with equal human rights you have to sell the idea. Why should we do that?

[Anonymous No.10260091]

>>10259853
>personhood is human+brain or human+functioning nervous system but how is truly any different from saying that personhood is human+white skin or human+male gender

[Anonymous No.10260097]

>>10260085
>which is that it erodes the axiomatic belief that western civilization is founded on: that all human beings have intrinsic rights and should be treated equally

A fetus isn't a human being; yet.

That's the whole point you moron.

[Anonymous No.10260114]

>>10259853
>Your position is essentially that personhood is human+brain
Clearly a wrong one, considering your replies.

[Anonymous No.10260116]

>>10260097

The unborn from the moment of conception are human beings. You can argue that the unborn aren't valuable or shouldn't have equal rights but you're going to have a tough time if you believe that biologically distinct organisms in the state of development who belong to the species homo sapiens aren't human.

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed."

-Human Embryology & Teratology, 3rd edition pg. 8

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."

-Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

-Langman's Medical Embryology

[Anonymous No.10260119]

>>10260085
>He actually believes that human beings deserve the "equal right to abortions"

This is wrong on multiple levels.

First of all, since Men have no access or physical attachment to the fetus this is by nature, not equal between the genders. There is no right to choose for men, so to assert that it is a fundamental human right is wrong, you are advocating for a woman's right to choose over men.

Second, and the irony of these pro-choice pundits is that women do have a choice, it's called don't have promiscuous sex, or do it with protection. The pregnancy should be the consequence, not the choice. Pregnancy should be valued as an important ritual and not a maintenance check akin to getting your fanny waxed. Moralising murder under the insatiable desire for sex is no different than moralising murder under the instaiable desire to eat meat.

[Anonymous No.10260128]

>>10260119

>>He actually believes that human beings deserve the "equal right to abortions"

That's not my position at all, I'm pro-life. You should feel stupid.

[Anonymous No.10260130]

>>10260097
>A fetus isn't a human being
It most certainly is. It is a member of the human species. What I assume you are trying to say is that it isn't a "person" in a legal capacity.

[Anonymous No.10260132]

>>10260116
>The unborn from the moment of conception are human beings

No they are not. The cells are biologically human, but they are not "human beings", nor are they "persons".

[Anonymous No.10260134]

>>10260132

I normally would assume you're trolling but I've seen too many pro-choice people who think and act like this.

[Anonymous No.10260135]

>>10260132
A biological human is a human being. It is something that exists (a "being") which is human. That's what a human being is.

[Anonymous No.10260141]

>>10260128
>pro-life
>someone else should feel stupid

[Anonymous No.10260148]

>>10260135
So a benign tumor in your abdomen is a human being, and it's removal is tantamount to murder?

[Anonymous No.10260154]

>>10259170
>becoming a vegan from reading an anglo-jewish utilitarian
pathetic

[Anonymous No.10260157]

>>10260148

A tumor is not a biological distinct human organism in the state of development. You can call it an organism, and say that it's in development, but you can't say that it's biologically distinct.

[Anonymous No.10260166]

>>10260148
>>10260132

Go back to the 1950's if you want to use their scientific understanding.

[Anonymous No.10260168]

>>10259853
No, you retard, if you weren't so far up your ass with your pro-life ideology you would realize that he was trying to say personhood is defined by humanity + subjective experience, and the prerrequisite for a subject to experience is a nervous system. Killing off a literally braindead person isn't wrong since they lack any kind of experience and in the same way you could claim that killing a fetus that's less than 12 weeks old is acceptable, unless you care about preserving the potential of a subject's existance, but in that case you'd have to draw a line b
as to what defines a potential person.

[Anonymous No.10260170]

>>10260157
>A tumor is not a biological distinct human organism in the state of development.

It most certainly is. It's developing all the time if you don't remove it, and it is human as well.

[Anonymous No.10260173]

>>10260170

Good now read the second sentence of that post.

[Anonymous No.10260176]

>>10260173
It's called a tumor for a reason, e.g it's biologically distinct from the rest of your body.

[Anonymous No.10260177]

>>10260168
>but in that case you'd have to draw a line as to what defines a potential person.
How about "being a member of the human species."

[Anonymous No.10260188]

>>10260177
That sounds like a reasonable propsition. You were cute as a baby too.

[Anonymous No.10260193]

>>10260177
What about fetuses that have a genetic disease and won't ever develop a brain? Or those morules that have a fucked up genetic combination and won't ever make it pass the y weeks mark? They're sure distinctly human according to the definition given by the guys in this thread, but in no way they are a potential person.

[Anonymous No.10260195]

The difference between a fetus and a tumor is that a tumor does not have a soul and a fetus does.

[Anonymous No.10260205]

>>10259170
no, i have been vegan for about two years this time around and have pretty much given up hunting too.
Problem is, i live in the country and love to shoot, i just find it hard to kill anything nowadays if I'm not going to eat it.
peta would have a feel day telling me off if they knew about my secret doubles life.
>pic related too cute and too white to shoot

[Anonymous No.10260207]

>>10260177
Also. Why the fuck are we supposed to care about potentials? The only thing that exists is the things that are real right now, potential beings are nothing but figments of our imagination and putting all that care on things that don't even exist is pretty much retarded.

[Anonymous No.10260208]

>>10260168

With that aside, you're ignoring the pertinent question which is why we shouldn't treat all human beings equally. We have to do away with this idea of equal rights if you want to propose that not all humans are intrinsically valuable at every stage. You're arguing for how we should decide which humans are considering valuable when I'm asking why we should even do that. Why isn't just being human enough?

[Anonymous No.10260228]

>>10260208
>tfw you wish Witty was alive so you could wear capes and feather hats and slice up imbeciles playing pointless word games
Human rights only apply to legal persons, not to species as has been repeatedly pointed out in the thread, you cockgobbling faggot.

[Anonymous No.10260229]

>>10260193
To me the term person, when referring to a human, is tautologous; as such I don't acknowledge the legal construct of a "human who is not a person." However, I do not think that life must be preserved at all costs. It can be difficult to make a hard distinction, but I think there is a difference normal medical care and the nonconsensual prolongation of a life which would have otherwise naturally ended. As such I support euthanasia to an extent, but I cannot support abortion in any normal circumstance. That position is probably strange given the how the political lines are drawn.

>>10260207
Why do we educate children if not for their potential to grow and contribute to society? Our potential is a part of our being, I think.

[Anonymous No.10260233]

>>10260208
Ok retard, hope you're ready to deal with the finances of sustaining all the people who've been involved in terrible accidents and are literally braindead since "all muh humans are valuable" also, enjoy your incredibly high natality on this already overcrowded world and all the kids who will grow up in shitty families and social circles and will most likely grow up to be thugs and junkies.
Unless you're willing and able to contribute to making a decent world out of all the mess you'd create you should step out of this debate

[Anonymous No.10260242]

>>10260233
>overcrowded world
Spook. Plus, only applies to white nations. I'll let you figure out why.

[Anonymous No.10260245]

>>10260229
The difference is that these children are actual persons existing right now and whose condition as humans we strive to improve by educating them, not non-subjects who, regardless of the circumstance they'll be born onto, we're forcing to exist.

[Anonymous No.10260253]

>>10260229
>To me
>I don't acknowledge
This is quite literally as "not an argument" as it gets.

[Anonymous No.10260255]

>>10260245
Look up the repugnant conclusion by Parfit because he mentions this exact issue. By mere addition of people, you are contributing to greater wellbeing than any quality of life for a minority.

>Forcing to exist
Existence is more desirable than non-existence despite any nihilistic shit you've been reading by French fags.

[Anonymous No.10260257]

>>10260245
>The difference is that these children are actual persons existing right now
I already stated I don't acknowledge a difference between a "human who is a person" and a "human who is not a person."
>and whose condition as humans we strive to improve by educating them,
You could improve the conditions of many unborn children by protecting them from being killed.
>not non-subjects who, regardless of the circumstance they'll be born onto, we're forcing to exist.
This seems like an anti-natalist statement. Are you saying that we should abort due to the rights of the mother or due to the rights of the child? I'm not sure what you mean.

[Anonymous No.10260258]

>>10260228

So ultimately the government is the final word on what is morally acceptable. If they want to kill or enslave certain people they can revoke their human rights or they can arbitrarily redefine what it means to be a person so it becomes morally acceptable to kill or enslave them.

>>10260233

You're changing the subject. Even if we assume that the world is overcrowded and we can't take care of everyone this doesn't inform the question of whether or not the unborn are human who deserve equal protection.

[Anonymous No.10260270]

I read it years ago after going vegan and I only remember it being so entry level and very blasé. It didn't strike a cord with me at all, but I was already familiar with all of the arguments, I was just expecting something a bit more radical going by the title. It should have been called Animal Consideration instead.

[Anonymous No.10260289]

>>10260258
>So ultimately the government
No, you sloberring tard, the whole point of this debate is basicallyabout the point at which personhood begins. As other anon has pointed out subjective experience is a philosophically sound point which corresponds to physiological markers such as development of CNS and brainbirth. Fucking kill yourself, pointless autist.

[Anonymous No.10260293]

>>10260270
What would you recommend instead?

[Anonymous No.10260300]

>>10260289
>the point at which personhood begins
There's no such point because this is simply a legal fiction used to justify the killing of undesirable humans.

[Anonymous No.10260305]

>>10260289

You're not listening to me. Before we get to the point of establishing when the cutoff between what is valuable and what isn't we have to decide whether or not it's a good idea to do that. I don't think its a good idea to do that because I value the idea of human rights which is itself based on the idea of instinct worth in human beings. This belief of human equality is the foundation of western civilization so if you want to take away that foundation you need to sell that belief. Instead of talking past me and reasserting when you believe that human beings should begin to be considered valuable, let's deal with the original assumption that this is something that we should be doing.

[Anonymous No.10260366]

>>10260305
>This belief of human equality is the foundation of western civilization
Can you imagine being this deluded? Western civilization has been built upon the denial of the rights of certain groups of humans, it has been that way all the way from the Greeks to today. Do you own anything made in the third world? Well, guess what, you're actively supporting the denigration of human beings, if you're living in either the US or Europe the economy and culture you're taking part in is founded on the death and abuse of human beings, if you were really that into the preservation of human rights you'd be out there working for that cause but instead you chose to spend your day virtue signalling on an anime imageboard. Human rights are in reality a priviledge and I would rather have people using their energy into preserving the dignity of life than having living people for life's sake

[Anonymous No.10260370]

>>10260366

You sound like you did very well in college.

[Anonymous No.10260392]

>>10260366
So this is the power of pro-abortion arguments...

[Anonymous No.10260393]

>>10260366

I don't know you guys keep trying to change the subject. Now you're whining about western civilization and this idea we shouldn't talk about morality because it's taking time away from "really helping people" is absurd. If you're going to pull that card why don't you hold yourself to the same standard? Why are you ranting on 4chan when you could be volunteering at a homeless shelter?

[Anonymous No.10260535]

>>10260366
>I would rather have people using their energy into preserving the dignity of life
if you care about the divinity of life that means you agree that human life has inherent worth... which is one of the most important concepts of western civillization, exactly as the anon you're replying to said.

[Anonymous No.10260555]

>>10260305
>Before we get to the point of establishing when the cutoff between what is valuable and what isn't we have to decide whether or not it's a good idea to do that.
No, it is in fact your job to present a case why beings lacking consciousness and agency and as such devoid of human nature in all but physicality should be extended same rights as whole persons.
>human rights which is itself based on the idea of instinct worth in human beings. This belief of human equality is the foundation of western civilization
The levels of legal and historical illiteracy are simply phenomenal. Rousseau is not the beginning of Western civilization, niggers lacked personhood in the US just about a century ago and Aristotle naturally(sic) held the concept of natural slavery along with natural law. Your whole retarded babble is "let's just take my conclusion as an assumption and work from that. also it's correct because I have historical cretinism". Leave the "prove me wrong" for your brainlet-gang on ebyn tradishunalism board.

[Anonymous No.10260574]

>>10260555

I don't care when, how, and why human rights began to exist because it's beside the point. Human beings having equal rights are the ideal state of things right now, and if you want to change that you need to provide reasons why we should.

[Anonymous No.10260593]

>>10260555
>No, it is in fact your job to present a case why beings lacking consciousness and agency and as such devoid of human nature in all but physicality should be extended same rights as whole persons.
This is simply question-begging. Asking for proof that fetuses "should be extended [the] same rights as whole persons" assumes that there are such things as "whole persons" -- I presume in contrast to "partial persons." He questions this distinction of humans and you demand that he argue from within that distinction, you see?

[Anonymous No.10260595]

>>10260574
>I don't care when, how, and why human rights began to exist
Then stop making statements about these things, triple nigger.
>Human beings having equal rights are the ideal state of things right now
This is an incoherent and idiotic sentence on more than a few levels.
>if you want to change that you need to provide reasons why we should
Human rights are defined for persons, which fetuses aren't in most Western countries, so I'm mostly content.

Also judging by the complete illogicity of your post I sense you're not the guy I replied to and just a random clown trying to collect (you)s. Kindly fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10260599]

>>10260593
>He questions this distinction of humans and you demand that he argue from within that distinction, you see?
The basis of distinction is within the very sentence you quoted, dunce.

[Anonymous No.10260609]

>>10260599
Is someone in a coma a whole person?

[Anonymous No.10260620]

>>10260305
>I value the idea of human rights
I have yet to see a society that's able to uphold all human rights, you're basing your morality on something that's basically a fiction with hardly any basis on reality and expecting everyone else to do the same.
In any real society you're bound to be forced to make compromises, if you realized that the world is full of ghettos and drug-ridden shitholes where kids are born to be beat to shit by life everyday until they day and there are more priorities other than bringing more people to live in humilliating conditions you'd see how this whole "pro-life" view crumbles.
If you're going to be claiming that every pregnancy needs to become a full person it's unavoidable that you'll be asked about how you're going to protect the rights of those people. Basically, please ground you virtue beliefs in a real context, because otherwise they give off the aura of being pure abstract masturbation.

[Anonymous No.10260644]

>>10260609
Of course. Loss of consciousness presupposes having consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10260656]

>>10260620

A failure to meet a standard doesn't make the standard itself bad, it only means that people are failing to meet it. I have never met a person who was entirely virtuous but this isn't a reason to think the ideal good person is bad and should be done away with.

The entire world could be a drug raddled ghetto but this wouldn't change the reality of the unborn. Either the unborn is or is not a person deserving equal rights regardless of whether or not we are capable of taking care of them. This is a red herring because we can discuss the question of whether the unborn are persons while also working to take care of them. It's not an either or thing and this sort of fallacious thinking in no way "crumbles" the pro-life view. It's merely a distraction.

[Anonymous No.10260657]

>>10260644
So what matters is that you had consciousness at one point, not whether you currently have it? Would you apply that to someone in a persistent vegetative state?

[Anonymous No.10260669]

>>10260657
>apply that to someone in a X state
Personhood is aquired the moment consciousness first emerges. There I saved you 10 charade questions.

[Anonymous No.10260722]

>>10260669
So can a person lose their personhood?

[Anonymous No.10260798]

The anon that takes issue with the idea of transcendent personhood bestowed upon all humans regardless of their subjective experience or physiological capability is missing the elephant in the room. Anon, if you believe there is a cut off point beyond which beings are persons, and this point is defined as some state of advanced subjectivity and physiological capability, why apply personhood only to mature humans? It's inconsistent to get up in arms about the other anon appealing to an imaginary fiction if you still cling to one in your argument for the acquisition- as opposed to intrinsic possession- of personhood. There's good evidence to support the similarity of higher brain function across all mammals. Do you think any animals have status as persons? Or some kind of diminished personhood, as Singer argues?

[Anonymous No.10261535]

>>10260798

>There's good evidence to support the similarity of higher brain function across all mammals. Do you think any animals have status as persons? Or some kind of diminished personhood, as Singer argues?

I've asked pro-choicers this so many times and I never get an answer. If a brain or a nervous system is what makes a being valuable then why are newborn infants protected while dolphins and whales aren't? Singer will at least be consistent and say that newborns shouldn't be protected.

[Anonymous No.10261562]

>>10260116
>>10260130
>throws a fertilized fetus onto the floor
>"Behold, a man!"

[Anonymous No.10261700]

vegan

[Anonymous No.10261712]

>>10259470
>Humans are above animals
Don't you love christcucks?

[Anonymous No.10262011]

>>10261712
how is he wrong?

[Anonymous No.10262016]

>>10261562
uh, yes? that doesn't sound absurd at all.

[Anonymous No.10262030]

>>10262016

The "fertilized fetus" is a tad absurd.

[Anonymous No.10262229]

>>10261562
the very second two human gametes come together to form a completely unique human zygote is the inevitable potentiality of a man, so yes

[Anonymous No.10262679]

>>10259432
>animal ethical treatment to legalization of abortion sounds a little bit dogmatic
wait what

[Anonymous No.10262870]

>>10260722
No.
>>10260798
>why apply rights-qualification only to subjects capable of posessing rights
This is embarassing. Read some Rousseau. Also stop cluttering your point in heaps of irrelevant fluff.
> If a brain or a nervous system is what makes a being
Not a being. Human being. This is the inital bound of our discussion, since bearing rights are uniquely human capability.

[Anonymous No.10263019]

>>10262870
>since bearing rights are uniquely human capability
Why?

[Anonymous No.10263784]

>>10260300
>>the point at which personhood begins

>There's no such point because this is simply a legal fiction used to justify the killing of undesirable humans.

Quite right.

[Anonymous No.10264016]

>>10259853
>comparing having a brain to having a particular skin colour.

are you fucking serious? someone without a brain would be quite literally dead.

[Anonymous No.10264019]

>>10260300
There is as we define it.