Clearly there have been three murders: the newborn, the toddler, and the adult woman. When killing a human is involved, the ultimate capacities (which define personhood), rather than the presently exercisable capacities, are what count, because the ultimate capacities define what an entity is deprived of when being killed. The killing of the human beings should hold the greatest moral relevance in any trial. I do think the animals that have been killed have been harmed, though (it's hard to empathize with a cockroach, but I digress). Especially the elephant and squirrel probably would have suffered while dying from the gunshot wound, and the zoo should be allowed to sue for the loss of the elephant. I don't think Mattmon's reasoning of "it's okay to kill the squirrel because I eat meat" applies, since most of us would see the responsible and humane killing of animals for food to be morally different than randomly killing animals for fun, as is the case in the zoo shooting.
The "Zoo Shooting" argument? ROFL. The rebuttal is super easy. Do you eat meat? Yes, I eat meat. Therefore killing the squirrel is completely different from killing the born human. Additionally, this ia a False Dilemma. Option 1: Killing both is okay Option 2: Killing both is wrong Missing Option 3: Killing one is okay, and killing one is wrong.
"The 'Zoo Shooting' argument? ROFL. The rebuttal is super easy. "Do you eat meat? Yes, I eat meat. Therefore killing the squirrel is completely different from killing the born human." But one eats meat (if they do) BECAUSE killing an animal is completely different from killing the born human. The meat-eating is a consequence of the difference. The question the author wants to get at is, WHY is killing an animal completely different from killing a born human? Talking about all the consequences (such as eating meat) of the difference doesn't help us to answer the question of what causes the difference. The author's answer to that why or what-causes question is "because the born human is human." If it's true that there's a difference, that answer might not necessarily be the right explanation of the difference, but to rebut a theory of what leads to the difference, it seems to me you have to talk about what leads to the difference and not about what follows from the difference.
That's not where the author's arguement is going though. The author claims that the pro-choice person has three options:
Bite the bullet and say that killing a squirrel is just as bad as killing a born human;
Bite the bullet and say that it isn’t wrong to kill a newborn human; or
Abandon the argument. He is LITERALLY SAYING that you MUST agree that killing both is wrong, or that killing both is okay. You must pick one or the other in order to be "CONSISTENT". He is presenting a false dilemma, and that makes his argument absurd. If you want to discuss the reason why eating meat is okay, we can do that, because we clearly do value humans and other animals differently. My point was just to point out that we don't have the false dilemma.
"That's not where the author's arguement is going though." You originally wrote: "The 'Zoo Shooting' argument? . . . The rebuttal is super easy." I think part of our disagreement revolves around exactly what conclusion the "Zoo Shooting" argument leads to / is going toward. You seem to be assuming that it leads to the conclusion:
Bite the bullet and say that killing a squirrel is just as bad as killing a born human;
Bite the bullet and say that it isn’t wrong to kill a newborn human; or
Abandon the argument. That's not really a conclusion, though. I think the "Zoo Shooting" argument leads to the conclusion "the born human is a person (and in terms of personhood different from the squirrel) because the born human is human." If you'll adopt my version of the conclusion, I think you'll find that my previous reply to you shows that that conclusion is not successfully rebutted by your "meat" argument. But even if we adopt your version of the conclusion, let's look at that conclusion. You say it presents a false dilemma. But we have to look at what the "Zoo Shooting" argument posits, and evaluate the argument in terms of what it posits. It posits that the pro-choice person is arguing either:
the thing that makes you a person is having any level of sentience (countered by saying that that would mean it’s just as wrong to kill a squirrel as it is to kill a human, because they’re both sentient) or
the thing that makes you a person is having a more advanced ability like self-awareness (countered by saying that that would mean it isn’t wrong to kill the newborn, because it isn’t self-aware yet) So to summarize, the pro-choice person is arguing either:
the thing that makes you a person is having any level of sentience or
the thing that makes you a person is having a more advanced ability like self-awareness. If the pro-choice person is arguing 1, then he cannot argue "Killing one is okay, and killing one is wrong," because BOTH infant and squirrel have a basic level of sentience. If the pro-choice person is arguing 2, then he cannot argue "Killing one is okay, and killing one is wrong," because NEITHER infant nor squirrel has self-awareness. So whichever of the two arguments the pro-choice person is making (the author posits that there are only two arguments that person might be making), "Missing Option 3: Killing one is okay, and killing one is wrong" is not an option for him.
I don't think Mattmon's reasoning of "it's okay to kill the squirrel because I eat meat" applies, since most of us would see the responsible and humane killing of animals for food to be morally different than randomly killing animals for fun, as is the case in the zoo shooting.
Do you eat meat? Yes, I eat meat. Therefore killing the squirrel is completely different from killing the born human.
Additionally, this ia a False Dilemma.
Option 1: Killing both is okay
Option 2: Killing both is wrong
Missing Option 3: Killing one is okay, and killing one is wrong.
"Do you eat meat? Yes, I eat meat. Therefore killing the squirrel is completely different from killing the born human."
But one eats meat (if they do) BECAUSE killing an animal is completely different from killing the born human. The meat-eating is a consequence of the difference. The question the author wants to get at is, WHY is killing an animal completely different from killing a born human? Talking about all the consequences (such as eating meat) of the difference doesn't help us to answer the question of what causes the difference.
The author's answer to that why or what-causes question is "because the born human is human." If it's true that there's a difference, that answer might not necessarily be the right explanation of the difference, but to rebut a theory of what leads to the difference, it seems to me you have to talk about what leads to the difference and not about what follows from the difference.
He is LITERALLY SAYING that you MUST agree that killing both is wrong, or that killing both is okay. You must pick one or the other in order to be "CONSISTENT". He is presenting a false dilemma, and that makes his argument absurd.
If you want to discuss the reason why eating meat is okay, we can do that, because we clearly do value humans and other animals differently. My point was just to point out that we don't have the false dilemma.
You originally wrote:
"The 'Zoo Shooting' argument? . . . The rebuttal is super easy."
I think part of our disagreement revolves around exactly what conclusion the "Zoo Shooting" argument leads to / is going toward. You seem to be assuming that it leads to the conclusion:
That's not really a conclusion, though. I think the "Zoo Shooting" argument leads to the conclusion "the born human is a person (and in terms of personhood different from the squirrel) because the born human is human."
If you'll adopt my version of the conclusion, I think you'll find that my previous reply to you shows that that conclusion is not successfully rebutted by your "meat" argument.
But even if we adopt your version of the conclusion, let's look at that conclusion. You say it presents a false dilemma.
But we have to look at what the "Zoo Shooting" argument posits, and evaluate the argument in terms of what it posits. It posits that the pro-choice person is arguing either:
or
So to summarize, the pro-choice person is arguing either:
or
If the pro-choice person is arguing 1, then he cannot argue "Killing one is okay, and killing one is wrong," because BOTH infant and squirrel have a basic level of sentience.
If the pro-choice person is arguing 2, then he cannot argue "Killing one is okay, and killing one is wrong," because NEITHER infant nor squirrel has self-awareness.
So whichever of the two arguments the pro-choice person is making (the author posits that there are only two arguments that person might be making), "Missing Option 3: Killing one is okay, and killing one is wrong" is not an option for him.