Abortion: Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

[magekillr]

Sly, let me ask you, what have you done to prevent abortions from taking place?

[Sly_Wizard]

Sly, let me ask you, what have you done to prevent abortions from taking place?

 

 

 

Not gotten a girl pregnant :

 

 

 

You all do realize you're getting abso-f**king-lutely nowhere, right?

 

 

 

IT'S A PERSON

 

IT"S NOT

 

IT'S A PERSON

 

IT'S NOT

 

I"M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG

 

NO, I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG

 

RABBIT SEASON

 

DUCK SEASON

 

AARGH

 

 

 

Funnily enough, anyone who argues a fetus isn't a person better not have been, at one point, a child, a woman, a slave, Jewish,a Slav or gay. Otherwise, they'd just be a hypocrite ;)

[1_man_army]

I think that last point was argued 5 or 6 pages back (maybe more). Well done on proving Reb right =D> .

[Sly_Wizard]

I think that last point was argued 5 or 6 pages back (maybe more). Well done on proving Reb right =D> .

 

 

 

Alas, the point of my response was lost upon the forum world.

[1_man_army]

I think that last point was argued 5 or 6 pages back (maybe more). Well done on proving Reb right =D> .

 

 

 

Alas, the point of my response was lost upon the forum world.

 

 

 

It's easy to miss that point when it kind of reflects the arguments you've been making on the thread over these last 2 pages.

[warri0r45]

 

Funnily enough, anyone who argues a fetus isn't a person better not have been, at one point, a child, a woman, a slave, Jewish,a Slav or gay. Otherwise, they'd just be a hypocrite ;)

 

 

 

How so?

[magekillr]

Not gotten a girl pregnant

 

 

 

So I guess arguing about it on a runescape forum is going to reduce the amount of abortions then, eh? Sounds to me you don't really care about abortion that much, or you'd be educating people about safe sex and protection. Rather than yelling about it, holding signs outside of Planned Parenthood, and making women feel like [cabbage], why don't you go around educating kids about protection, and encourage birth control/condom dispensaries?

[Rollyboy]

Only a 'wanted' baby is wanted, else it should die.

 

 

 

Hmmm.

 

 

 

What does a doctor say when an expecting mother has lost her baby within the first few weeks?

 

"I'm sorry but you have lost the ____________".

 

If it's wanted it's a 'baby', if it's unwanted or a burden it's a 'mass of cells'.

[mmmcannibalism]

Not gotten a girl pregnant

 

 

 

So I guess arguing about it on a runescape forum is going to reduce the amount of abortions then, eh? Sounds to me you don't really care about abortion that much, or you'd be educating people about safe sex and protection. Rather than yelling about it, holding signs outside of Planned Parenthood, and making women feel like [cabbage], why don't you go around educating kids about protection, and encourage birth control/condom dispensaries?

 

 

 

Do you care about the poor? I sure hope you are donating all of your money to them

 

 

 

Do you care about the crime rate? I sure hope you are working as a probation officer/criminal psychologist/investigator etc.

 

 

 

see why this logic isnt a good idea?

[dusqi]

...one where lots of factors have to be taken into account such as whether it would survive on its own...

 

 

 

Irrelevant. Stages of development are just that-- Stages of development. If you take a newborn and throw him/her outside, it'll die because it cannot fend for itself. Does that mean it has less of a right to live than someone who is forty and can take care of him/herself? I doubt it. Of course, this is the exact argument you use.

 

 

 

I said it was one of many factors to be taken into account. There is a difference between a baby that cannot fend for itself, and a foetus that if separated from its host would cease to exist even if given the best medical care possible.

 

 

 

 

 

...what species it is...

 

 

 

Also irrelevant, since we're speaking of humans.

 

 

 

It is part of my argument about how humans are part of the animal kingdom, not set apart. You have a strange mental dividing line between humans and animals, as if we have not evolved. We apparently have a fundamental disagreement about what is sacred about life. You say that humans are sacred, because they're humans. I say that life is sacred for other reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

...how "complex" it is in terms of cognitive factors (self-awareness, can it feel pain, etc.)...

 

 

 

And, yet again, also irrelevant as, by your logic, you have no choice but to agree with infanticide.

 

 

 

I said it was one of many factors to be taken into account. Infants can feel pain.

 

 

 

 

 

...what damage it would do to the "host" if it survived.

 

 

 

Yes, because we all know just how many abortions are performed due to the mother's life being at risk.

 

 

 

I said that it was one of many factors to be taken into account.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not think that "human life is human life" as you do. Humans are one of the animals, not set apart just because we are human. We are not sacred. What does separate us is complexity - and this is something that foetuses don't have.

 

 

 

Once again, no. The word "complexity" holds no meaning. Considering the fact that, in many instances, animals display far greater cognitive abilities than humans do and can, it'd be faulty to assume that just because you're a human you're the epitome of the proverbial evolutionary ladder (That is, being "more intelligent" than your animal counterparts).

 

 

 

I find it interesting that I have been the one arguing that you are hypocritical for not caring about dead animals but caring deeply about dead foetuses, and now you are the one arguing that animals are more cognitively able (but you're still happy to kill them).

 

 

 

We apparently fundamentally disagree on what makes life special. Again, I repeat, you just say that humans are sacred because they're humans. The only thing that fundamentally separates humans completely from other animals is that we as a species can interbreed. Why you'd care deeply about that, I don't understand. (it's a bit like someone asking what's important about America, and you saying "it has Americans in it" - I assume you are American, I apologise otherwise)

 

 

 

I care about taking life that is self-aware, that is intelligent, that would feel pain at being killed - it doesn't matter what species it is. You care about the human species for the sake of it. This is why, for me, a foetus is just cells with limited intrinsic worth, at conception less developed than a bacteria.

[1_man_army]

 

Funnily enough, anyone who argues a fetus isn't a person better not have been, at one point, a child, a woman, a slave, Jewish,a Slav or gay. Otherwise, they'd just be a hypocrite ;)

 

 

 

How so?

 

 

 

Children - because if you advocate abortion you're killing kids and you were all once kids yourselves.

 

Women - ?

 

Slave - ?

 

 

 

Jewish/Slav/Gay - because these child killers say that the feotus isn't human yet and the Nazi's said that these groups weren't human either so abortionist = Hitler.

 

-----

 

Of course, those are strawman arguments and I'm being somewhat sarcastic in my wording (I know you won't but there is always somebody who can't see sarcasm (often me)). Hopefully, Sly can fill in the blanks regarding women and slaves because I'm stumped on why they'd possibly be hypocrites.

 

 

 

Edit

 

 

What does a doctor say when an expecting mother has lost her baby within the first few weeks?

 

"I'm sorry but you have lost the ____________".

 

 

In that instance, a doctor is trying to comfort somebody who is going through a really emotional rollercoaster, it isn't the time to play semantics.

[Rebdragon]

Of course, those are strawman arguments and I'm being somewhat sarcastic in my wording (I know you won't but there is always somebody who can't see sarcasm (often me)). Hopefully, Sly can fill in the blanks regarding women and slaves because I'm stumped on why they'd possibly be hypocrites.

 

On the interwebz you need to be more blunt with your sarcasm; you basically quoted a main anti-abortion stance verbatim in your post.

[Rollyboy]

So a baby is defined by anothers emotion, hence that 'something' that is 'wanted' is a baby. Anything else can be merely be killed as it was nothing to begin with.

 

 

 

How can one definition not apply to the other. I do not get it.

[magekillr]

Not gotten a girl pregnant

 

 

 

So I guess arguing about it on a runescape forum is going to reduce the amount of abortions then, eh? Sounds to me you don't really care about abortion that much, or you'd be educating people about safe sex and protection. Rather than yelling about it, holding signs outside of Planned Parenthood, and making women feel like [cabbage], why don't you go around educating kids about protection, and encourage birth control/condom dispensaries?

 

 

 

Do you care about the poor? I sure hope you are donating all of your money to them

 

 

 

Do you care about the crime rate? I sure hope you are working as a probation officer/criminal psychologist/investigator etc.

 

 

 

see why this logic isnt a good idea?

 

 

 

Yes I care about the poor and the homeless, this is why I am a part of a service fraternity in college, and why I go to the homeless shelter every Thursday.

 

 

 

Yes I care about crime rate, which is why I am a part of the "Students for Sensible Drug Policy" and I attend conferences for Single-payer health care in America to discuss how we implement such a system here.

 

 

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that logic at all. If you care about a politician to get into office, you don't sit on a blog website telling people to vote, you get up and make phone calls/knock on doors to garner support. If an issue is of importance to you, you will find a way to support that cause that actually does something, because yelling about it online sure doesn't help any. And banning it DEFINITELY doesn't help any. If he cared about abortion and lowering it, he would try and educate people and/or support in-depth sexual education classes in school rather than support banning it. It's going to happen illegally, either in a back alley or in a doctor's office, or across the Canadian border....or worse, miscarriage via drinking.

[1_man_army]

Of course, those are strawman arguments and I'm being somewhat sarcastic in my wording (I know you won't but there is always somebody who can't see sarcasm (often me)). Hopefully, Sly can fill in the blanks regarding women and slaves because I'm stumped on why they'd possibly be hypocrites.

 

On the interwebz you need to be more blunt with your sarcasm; you basically quoted a main anti-abortion stance verbatim in your post.

 

 

 

Sometimes it's hard to exaggerate some of the more daft arguments that are made lol.

[warri0r45]

So a baby is defined by anothers emotion, hence that 'something' that is 'wanted' is a baby. Anything else can be merely be killed as it was nothing to begin with.

 

 

 

How can one definition not apply to the other. I do not get it.

 

 

 

The doctor in the situation you outlined isn't in the business of rigorous definitions. He/she is trying to console the parents who lost their fetus. You can see how cold it would be to use the actual medical terminology in that situation.

 

 

 

Wanting the fetus doesn't make it a baby; it's still a fetus.

[Draconic]

Didn't read any of this thread, but here's my opinion on abortion-

 

 

 

-I think it is quite a barbaric act, and I'd rather not have it happen to anyone I know. However, I will compromise if I were suddenly given the task of making a law on it.

 

 

 

-Abortions under 40 days of development are legal

 

-Anything over 50 days is out of the question. Should've come to an abortion clinic sooner.

 

-Anyone between 40-50 days should havea decent reason.

 

 

 

The menstrual cycle (which is the best indicator if someone's pregnant or not) is ~28 days, so I think 40 days is reasonable. 40 days of development is also just before the first brainwaves from the fetus are detectable (or so I heard, I remember reading it in an article).

 

 

 

Also, I think it is a responsibility of all sexually active women to take regular (weekly) pregnancy tests.

[mmmcannibalism]

And banning it DEFINITELY doesn't help any. If he cared about abortion and lowering it, he would try and educate people and/or support in-depth sexual education classes in school rather than support banning it. It's going to happen illegally, either in a back alley or in a doctor's office, or across the Canadian border....or worse, miscarriage via drinking.

 

 

 

I agree with you here, I just have a problem with the assertion that you have to be out and about supporting a cause to be for it. Kudos to your community service btw, would be wrong to mention that.

[Sly_Wizard]

 

Funnily enough, anyone who argues a fetus isn't a person better not have been, at one point, a child, a woman, a slave, Jewish,a Slav or gay. Otherwise, they'd just be a hypocrite ;)

 

 

 

How so?

 

 

 

Because, historically, every single one of those groups has been denied rights or even mass exterminated on the basis that they weren't persons. Don't you keep up with history?

 

 

 

So I guess arguing about it on a runescape forum is going to reduce the amount of abortions then, eh? Sounds to me you don't really care about abortion that much, or you'd be educating people about safe sex and protection. Rather than yelling about it, holding signs outside of Planned Parenthood, and making women feel like [cabbage], why don't you go around educating kids about protection, and encourage birth control/condom dispensaries?

 

 

 

Ummm... Yeah. I'll try not to do that anymore in the future, seeing as how often I do it now.

 

 

 

/sarcasm

 

 

 

Considering the fact that condom dispensers are everywhere and you can buy condoms from, like, anywhere for like $5 - $10, I fail to see why anyone who wants to use them can't. Seriously. And they already teach sex ed around here sooo... It looks like my work is complete even before I did anything :thumbsup:

 

 

 

I said it was one of many factors to be taken into account. There is a difference between a baby that cannot fend for itself, and a foetus that if separated from its host would cease to exist even if given the best medical care possible.

 

 

 

First and foremost, lose the word "host" as that implies a parasitic relationship, of which none occurs. Anywho, the point which you so callously glossed over (Or maybe flat out missed) is that as a fetus is as "reliant" on its mother for sustenance as a newborn is "reliant" on others for its sustenance as neither can provide for itself as they both lack the capabilities to do so. Therefore, you cannot make a meaningful distinction between the two in regards to "the ability to survive on its own", as you're not talking about "the ability to survive on its own", but the ability to live outside of the womb on its own. In, which case, you just picked an arbitrary developmental stage of which to be the deciding factor in whether abortion is legal or not.

 

 

 

It is part of my argument about how humans are part of the animal kingdom, not set apart. You have a strange mental dividing line between humans and animals, as if we have not evolved. We apparently have a fundamental disagreement about what is sacred about life. You say that humans are sacred, because they're humans. I say that life is sacred for other reasons.

 

 

 

Once again, organisms have a natural predisposition to members of their own species. It's really no more complicated than that.

 

 

 

...And going by your criteria regarding what makes life "sacred", I sure do hope you're a vegetarian.

 

 

 

I said it was one of many factors to be taken into account. Infants can feel pain.

 

 

 

Infants also aren't self-aware (At least, not when they're born).

 

 

 

...And animals can feel pain, too.

 

 

 

I said that it was one of many factors to be taken into account.

 

 

 

Ummm... I know. You didn't really respond to my point, though.

 

 

 

I find it interesting that I have been the one arguing that you are hypocritical for not caring about dead animals but caring deeply about dead foetuses, and now you are the one arguing that animals are more cognitively able (but you're still happy to kill them).

 

 

 

Of course, my argument had nothing to do with animals being cognitive or whatnot-- That was your argument. I was merely pointing out that, going by your own criteria, you should be against the killing of animals but okay with infanticide.

 

 

 

We apparently fundamentally disagree on what makes life special. Again, I repeat, you just say that humans are sacred because they're humans. The only thing that fundamentally separates humans completely from other animals is that we as a species can interbreed. Why you'd care deeply about that, I don't understand. (it's a bit like someone asking what's important about America, and you saying "it has Americans in it" - I assume you are American, I apologise otherwise).

 

 

 

???

 

 

 

Yeah, you're going to have to explain this one to me.

 

 

 

I care about taking life that is self-aware, that is intelligent, that would feel pain at being killed - it doesn't matter what species it is.

 

 

 

And, once again, I must state/ask/say, "I hope you're a vegetarian?" because, if not, then your stance is rather hypocritical.

 

 

 

You care about the human species for the sake of it. This is why, for me, a foetus is just cells with limited intrinsic worth, at conception less developed than a bacteria.

 

 

 

I didn't want to go there, but I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law. The problem with this train of thought is that it can be used to rationalize the mass extermination of groups which are considered to be "inferior" or "worthless", as it has been before. The criteria by which you relegate a fetus to having "limited intrinsic worth" is highly arbitrary, which I'm sure you know, which is why I'm sure you said it in the first place. The problem with that train of thought is that the only way you'll be wrong is if you admit you're wrong. Otherwise, you'll always consider yourself to be right. And if you consider yourself to be right, then there's no problems in any of your actions.

 

 

 

Children - because if you advocate abortion you're killing kids and you were all once kids yourselves.

 

Women - ?

 

Slave - ?

 

 

 

Jewish/Slav/Gay - because these child killers say that the feotus isn't human yet and the Nazi's said that these groups weren't human either so abortionist = Hitler.

 

-----

 

Of course, those are strawman arguments and I'm being somewhat sarcastic in my wording (I know you won't but there is always somebody who can't see sarcasm (often me)). Hopefully, Sly can fill in the blanks regarding women and slaves because I'm stumped on why they'd possibly be hypocrites.

 

 

 

Oops. Missed this one.

 

 

 

Stating that pro-choicers are Nazis and therefore they're arguments invalid = Strawman

 

 

 

Pointing out that discriminating against fetuses on the basis that they're not persons to be in the same vein as discriminating against children, women, slaves, Jews, Slavs or gays because they weren't persons =/= Strawman

 

 

 

You have a weird definition of the word strawman :?

 

 

 

Edit: I'm sure all the Canadian women are happy.

 

 

 

I'm sure all the African-American people in the U.S. loved this.

 

 

 

Really late edit: *Grumbles*

[warri0r45]

 

Funnily enough, anyone who argues a fetus isn't a person better not have been, at one point, a child, a woman, a slave, Jewish,a Slav or gay. Otherwise, they'd just be a hypocrite ;)

 

 

 

How so?

 

 

 

Because, historically, every single one of those groups has been denied rights or even mass exterminated on the basis that they weren't persons. Don't you keep up with history?

 

 

 

So where does the hypocrisy come into it? Say a woman thinks a fetus isn't a person, but believes that women are people. What's the problem? She's just applying different standards to different groups.

[Sly_Wizard]

 

Funnily enough, anyone who argues a fetus isn't a person better not have been, at one point, a child, a woman, a slave, Jewish,a Slav or gay. Otherwise, they'd just be a hypocrite ;)

 

 

 

How so?

 

 

 

Because, historically, every single one of those groups has been denied rights or even mass exterminated on the basis that they weren't persons. Don't you keep up with history?

 

 

 

So where does the hypocrisy come into it? Say a woman thinks a fetus isn't a person, but believes that women are people. What's the problem? She's just applying different standards to different groups.

 

 

 

It's more than just applying different standards to different groups. She'd be arguing that one group be treated in the same way/considered in the same vein as that of which the group she's apart of fought against. That's like me stating that it's not okay to make slaves of blacks, but okay to make slaves of, say, Mexicans. I'm fairly sure I could come up with a rationalization for such a stance, but it wouldn't make me any less of a hypocrite :P

 

 

 

Edit: *Grumbles*

[warri0r45]

 

Funnily enough, anyone who argues a fetus isn't a person better not have been, at one point, a child, a woman, a slave, Jewish,a Slav or gay. Otherwise, they'd just be a hypocrite ;)

 

 

 

How so?

 

 

 

Because, historically, every single one of those groups has been denied rights or even mass exterminated on the basis that they weren't persons. Don't you keep up with history?

 

 

 

So where does the hypocrisy come into it? Say a woman thinks a fetus isn't a person, but believes that women are people. What's the problem? She's just applying different standards to different groups.

 

 

 

It's more than just applying different standards to different groups. She'd be arguing that one group be treated in the same way/considered in the same vein as that of which the group she's apart of fought against. That's like me stating that it's not okay to make slaves of blacks, but okay to make slaves of, say, Mexicans. I'm fairly sure I could come up with a rationalization for such a stance, but it wouldn't make me any less of a hypocrite :P

 

 

 

Edit: *Grumbles*

 

 

 

Well, these days all those people you listed are treated as just that - people. Perhaps your argument might hold more weight if these people argued against personhood for a fetus while actively arguing for personhood for themselves, but only if they couldn't justify the groups being different.

 

 

 

I wouldn't equate their cause with owners of mexican slaves arguing against owning black slaves - those two groups are just too similar. In the case of the personhood of a woman vs. a foetus I think it's nothing more than different standards for different groups.

[Rollyboy]

The doctor in the situation you outlined isn't in the business of rigorous definitions. He/she is trying to console the parents who lost their fetus. You can see how cold it would be to use the actual medical terminology in that situation.

 

 

 

Wanting the fetus doesn't make it a baby; it's still a fetus.

 

 

 

But why is an abortion any different to a miscarriage, when both (referring to the thing/mass of cells/fetus/baby) are at the same level. Why would it be cold if that is what it is.

 

 

 

I've never heard a mother refer to what is growing inside of her as a fetus, but more joyfully as a baby.

 

 

 

Okay question:

 

If I punched a pregnant woman and the 'thing' died, would I be charged with murder (killing the fetus/baby) AND/OR bodily harm (injuring the mother)?

[warri0r45]

The doctor in the situation you outlined isn't in the business of rigorous definitions. He/she is trying to console the parents who lost their fetus. You can see how cold it would be to use the actual medical terminology in that situation.

 

 

 

Wanting the fetus doesn't make it a baby; it's still a fetus.

 

 

 

But why is an abortion any different to a miscarriage, when both (referring to the thing/mass of cells/fetus/baby) are at the same level. Why would it be cold if that is what it is.

 

 

 

I've never heard a mother refer to what is growing inside of her as a fetus, but more joyfully as a baby.

 

 

 

Okay question:

 

If I punched a pregnant woman and the 'thing' died, would I be charged with murder (killing the fetus/baby) AND/OR bodily harm (injuring the mother)?

 

 

 

There is no difference, except that with a miscarriage the baby was lost accidentally (and was wanted) where in abortion it was killed and removed intentionally. Do I even need to explain why calling it a fetus would seem cold? "I'm sorry ma'am, you just had a miscarriage and lost your fetus".

 

 

 

The point here is that, abortion or miscarriage, it's a fetus that's lost, not a baby. That's the proper terminology. Technically, it's referred to as a fetus until birth [1], though personally I look at it a little more flexibly.

 

 

 

As for your question, that really depends on what the law says and how many weeks/months into the pregnancy the mother is. It's a hard question, especially when the mother wants the baby. In that case I'd probably call it as good as murder.

[dusqi]

I said it was one of many factors to be taken into account. There is a difference between a baby that cannot fend for itself, and a foetus that if separated from its host would cease to exist even if given the best medical care possible.

 

 

 

First and foremost, lose the word "host" as that implies a parasitic relationship, of which none occurs. Anywho, the point which you so callously glossed over (Or maybe flat out missed) is that as a fetus is as "reliant" on its mother for sustenance as a newborn is "reliant" on others for its sustenance as neither can provide for itself as they both lack the capabilities to do so. Therefore, you cannot make a meaningful distinction between the two in regards to "the ability to survive on its own", as you're not talking about "the ability to survive on its own", but the ability to live outside of the womb on its own. In, which case, you just picked an arbitrary developmental stage of which to be the deciding factor in whether abortion is legal or not.

 

 

 

If the woman doesn't want the baby, it is a parasite to her.

 

 

 

 

 

It is part of my argument about how humans are part of the animal kingdom, not set apart. You have a strange mental dividing line between humans and animals, as if we have not evolved. We apparently have a fundamental disagreement about what is sacred about life. You say that humans are sacred, because they're humans. I say that life is sacred for other reasons.

 

 

 

Once again, organisms have a natural predisposition to members of their own species. It's really no more complicated than that.

 

 

 

...And going by your criteria regarding what makes life "sacred", I sure do hope you're a vegetarian.

 

 

 

I find it interesting that I have been the one arguing that you are hypocritical for not caring about dead animals but caring deeply about dead foetuses, and now you are the one arguing that animals are more cognitively able (but you're still happy to kill them).

 

 

 

Of course, my argument had nothing to do with animals being cognitive or whatnot-- That was your argument. I was merely pointing out that, going by your own criteria, you should be against the killing of animals but okay with infanticide.

 

 

 

We apparently fundamentally disagree on what makes life special. Again, I repeat, you just say that humans are sacred because they're humans. The only thing that fundamentally separates humans completely from other animals is that we as a species can interbreed. Why you'd care deeply about that, I don't understand. (it's a bit like someone asking what's important about America, and you saying "it has Americans in it" - I assume you are American, I apologise otherwise).

 

 

 

???

 

 

 

Yeah, you're going to have to explain this one to me.

 

 

 

I care about taking life that is self-aware, that is intelligent, that would feel pain at being killed - it doesn't matter what species it is.

 

 

 

And, once again, I must state/ask/say, "I hope you're a vegetarian?" because, if not, then your stance is rather hypocritical.

 

 

 

You care about the human species for the sake of it. This is why, for me, a foetus is just cells with limited intrinsic worth, at conception less developed than a bacteria.

 

 

 

I didn't want to go there, but I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law. The problem with this train of thought is that it can be used to rationalize the mass extermination of groups which are considered to be "inferior" or "worthless", as it has been before. The criteria by which you relegate a fetus to having "limited intrinsic worth" is highly arbitrary, which I'm sure you know, which is why I'm sure you said it in the first place. The problem with that train of thought is that the only way you'll be wrong is if you admit you're wrong. Otherwise, you'll always consider yourself to be right. And if you consider yourself to be right, then there's no problems in any of your actions.

 

 

 

This was my point many pages ago, I hope that people who are against abortion are also vegetarians because animals have much of what makes human life important and valuable. You, however, don't care about life for its intrinsic value, you just care about humans for no other reason than because you are one. It's not "natural" to only care about one's own species, and even if it was "natural", that's not an argument. Morality doesn't come from nature. Nature is amoral, it just is as it is, shaped by the processes that acted upon it.

 

 

 

The criteria is arbitrary because there aren't any reasonable criteria to use which are not arbitrary. Nevertheless, people know that what the Nazis did was horrible, not because it broke your rule about killing anything human, but because they recognise that exterminating groups who clearly have self-awareness, can feel pain, etc.etc.etc. is wrong. Ask anyone why killing the Jews was wrong, and they won't say "because they are of the same species as me", they'll say something like "because they were people with hopes and dreams just like me". A subtle difference. The second one gives a reason why their lives have value, the first just uses an in-group vs. out-group distinction.

 

 

 

Put it another way, if you had to argue why you shouldn't be killed, you wouldn't just say "because I'm a human and so are you". You'd give reasons why your life has value. Or another scenario is what happens if a superior alien race come to earth - would they be right to start killing humans just because they're not one? Or would we like them to take into account the fact that we have some value as organisms that want to continue living?