Raw LLM Responses

The argument for arbitrary denial of rights that you find 'compelling' strikes me as obviously, absurdly atrocious. In the USA for most of the 19th century, if your mother was property when she gave birth to you, then you automatically were also chattel. Do you seriously expect us to believe that the legal abstraction would be to you a compelling argument for _you_ to accept that status?! Not only the taxonomy of 'human', but even the more objective criterion of physical subtrate, is sensibly irrelevant. What coherently entitles a being to rights we are obliged to respect is *_its capacity for suffering._* Rejecting moral principles in favor of arbitrary taboos suits the anti-abortion extremists because it permits ignoring the fact that born members of other species are not only equipped for the experience of sensations of physical pain of which a human embryo is incapable, but also demonstrate capacity for hope and fear, regret and sadness, including empathic relationships with other beings. Normal humans possess the faculty of empathy, and the history of cultivation of callousness is not one of that simply vanishing. The history is one of empathy getting _twisted_ into sociopathic sadism that takes pleasure in inflicting cruelty. It's ironic that you end up indulging in the very anthropomorphism that you (correctly) criticized for the previous half hour -- by claiming that "robots are racists." No, they are not. They are algorithms that, like squawking parrots or instinctively camoufaging celaphopods, ignorantly copy and repeat patterns found in their environment. They possess no real understanding of meanings, much less capacity for judgement.