F4LL3N: I answered that very question. Crikey! When a male reproduction cell fuses with a female reproduction cell a new life is formed. It's a new life. It's human. I even said at the earlier stages it is still a clump of cells. It is both a clump of cells, AND a human. Do I have to make a documentary for you to understand this concept?
Here's the thing, F4ll3n. You haven't really addressed the problem at hand. You've simply made an assertion, then when the assertion was questioned, restated it without addressing the objection. This is a problem.
Why are you operating under the assumption that any criticism of any kind of abortion must rely on "the rights of the unborn", or any particular concern for their well-being? That might be how those who are miffed at selectively aborting those who will be disabled or deaf or have a serious genetic disease justify their views, but I can easily see policy arguments that don't rely on asserting that fetuses have rights.
It is conceivable that the overall effect on society of sex selective abortion might be so pernicious, in some circumstances, that a ban could be justified based on demographics alone. I don't think that's true, but I also don't think the argument relies on "rights of the unborn". It ignores any assertion that there are such rights.
Any form of abortion has negative effects on society. You get to the point where this happens. People start deciding who does and doesn't deserve rights and personhood.
Do I have to list all the evil people in the world who shared this very same opinion? Now it's the majority opinion. How isn't society fucked when the evil beliefs of the most evil people to have ever existed are now considered normal.
Are you kidding me? You're comparing the systematic dehumanization of sentient, sapient people who are absolutely indisputably both human and persons to the very nuanced and unclear debate surrounding the unborn fetuses? Yes, not everything which has human DNA deserves human rights! This isn't rocket science! And even if you believe that a fetus deserves these rights, then there's still the rights of the mother to take into account!
Of course, this fairly consistant tirade of yours about how "dehumanization of the fetus makes you Hitler"[1] is just made really, really funny by this excerpt from an earlier post:
That's the same logic that brought about the slavery of blacks, the oppression of women and gays... Just to name a few well known ones. Do you honestly believe not all humans should be considered persons? The only time they lose personhood in my book is if they commit a horrible crime and no longer deserve the title.
...Huh. So, tell me... Who's determining personhood arbitrarily now? Call me crazy, but I think "doesn't have a functional nervous system, any trace of sentience, nor is able to respond to stimuli" is a hell of a lot better of a line than "Did horrible things for whatever reason".
[1] Regardless, of course, of whether or not it is actually a human with human rights - which is kind of the reason this debate exists!
Well, I think it's morally reprehensible, but I don't believe I have the right to create legislation as to what motivations for aborting a fetus should be legal.
However, you can't know the sex of a fetus until week 12 of its development, and most doctors won't tell you for sure until week 20. In my opinion, and according to Norwegian law, that's too late to perform an abortion (Due to the development of the fetus) unless the mother's life is in danger or other special circumstances are involved.
So I will have to conclude that I do not approve of sex-selective abortion and believe it should stay illegal.
F4LL3N: The very fact that choosing which humans are and aren't good enough for personhood is immoral. Look at history. There doesn't need to be definable characteristics. Being human is the only characteristic you need.
So simply being human gives us the right to live? Why? What definable characteristic do we human posses that entitle us to the right to live on this planet?
F4LL3N: The day one innocent person deserves to die is the day society has lost all sense of humanity.
Okay, so I'm suspecting you fancy yourself a brave fighter for the rights of the unborn since you keep making these pseudo philosophical statements all the time. Unfortunately, you failed to answer my question. Who says we deserve to live?
F4LL3N: Some women would like to think I'm not qualified to answer that. However, yes. Even if it was from rape.
So why haven't you? No one's stopping you from going to an orphanage and adopting as many children as you can. Practice what you preach man.
mrdude2010: It's the same sort of thing as aborting babies with genetic defects, I guess. I mean, it's pathetic and lazy on the part of the parents, but it's still just a clump of non-sentient nerves
uuuuuh no, I'm sorry, I really am, but I personally could NOT handle a baby with a severe genetic disorder (notice I said severe, I'm not heartless) and for two reasons, 1) if they can never take care of themselves, or they never really have any notion of what's going on around them, why would you want them to live anyway? That would be a horrifying existence. ( I was almost stuck on life support, -like the forever kind, but still concious- after a bad accident, I told my mom that if I was on it for longer than a month to pull the plug, its not a life, its an existence... barely) and 2) that is a LOT of financial, and emotional strain on the people who have to raise this person especially if they have to CONTINUE looking after them far into their adult hood..... I spent a lot of time in a place that my grandmother worked, which was (essentially) a daycare for mentally and physically challenged adults, and some of them were so bad that they could never live on their own, some of them will never feed themselves, or go to the bathroom on their own... I used to go home everyday I was there in tears because of how bad I felt that they would never experience some of the most wonderful or even simple things, like going on a roller coaster, or even being able to have children of their own, because most of them can't be trusted with scissors never mind children..... I always used to think that maybe they would have been better off you know?
Now this is different than wanting to get rid of a baby cause its a girl or something, this is actually WAY worse, as this child (hopefully) has nothing wrong with them and will eventually become a productive member of society... one would hope at any rate....
Anyway, I'm really sorry for singling you out and kind of going on a rant, but this is something I just feel really strongly about... >.>
Nickolai77: Imagine a human body, completely normal in every regard that is a human body- only that it's brain doesn't function. The brain's there alight, it just doesn't work so the body doesn't have a mind. Is this human body a person or not?
Yes. Do you want to know what pisses me off? When people think they have the right to classify certain individuals as non-human or non-persons.
So, if you transplanted a functioning brain out of a human body and into a jar- would that be a person or not?
My answer to the above question would be yes, because a functioning brain defines personhood which is why the brain in the jar would be a person. To me, a person is very basically someone with concious thoughts and can sense emotions. I wouldn't regard a "living" human cadaver, incapable of thought or feeling, as a person unless it's had a functioning mind.
Excuse me? Did you just say a jar would become a person if it happened to have a functioning brain inside of it? That's exactly why a brain isn't needed. Having a functioning brain doesn't change what the thing is that it's in.
A human with or without a brain = Human. A jar with or without a brain = A jar.
Fairly simple logic that, like many other things I've been saying, people just don't seem to understand.
This is why abortion is so rampant. People do not what to listen to reason and simple logic. They're much happier living in some sort of fantasy world.
F4LL3N: I answered that very question. Crikey! When a male reproduction cell fuses with a female reproduction cell a new life is formed. It's a new life. It's human. I even said at the earlier stages it is still a clump of cells. It is both a clump of cells, AND a human. Do I have to make a documentary for you to understand this concept?
Here's the thing, F4ll3n. You haven't really addressed the problem at hand. You've simply made an assertion, then when the assertion was questioned, restated it without addressing the objection. This is a problem.
I restated the same assertion, because that is the answer. It's not the answer he wanted to see, but it is the correct answer nonetheless.
Are you kidding me? You're comparing the systematic dehumanization of sentient, sapient people who are absolutely indisputably both human and persons to the very nuanced and unclear debate surrounding the unborn fetuses? Yes, not everything which has human DNA deserves human rights! This isn't rocket science! And even if you believe that a fetus deserves these rights, then there's still the rights of the mother to take into account!
It's not unclear. If you look at it from a biological and philosphical level, the debate is not unclear at all. If you ignore the facts, sure, the debate about unborn rights is unclear.
Of course, this fairly consistant tirade of yours about how "dehumanization of the fetus makes you Hitler"[1] is just made really, really funny by this excerpt from an earlier post:
That's the same logic that brought about the slavery of blacks, the oppression of women and gays... Just to name a few well known ones. Do you honestly believe not all humans should be considered persons? The only time they lose personhood in my book is if they commit a horrible crime and no longer deserve the title.
...Huh. So, tell me... Who's determining personhood arbitrarily now? Call me crazy, but I think "doesn't have a functional nervous system, any trace of sentience, nor is able to respond to stimuli" is a hell of a lot better of a line than "Did horrible things for whatever reason".
In your opinion. I won't get into this as I'm trying not to offend anyone, needless to say, we share two different ideas.
I wouldn't be discussing this if I didn't have a strong opinion on the matter.
[1] Regardless, of course, of whether or not it is actually a human with human rights - which is kind of the reason this debate exists!
F4LL3N: I wouldn't be discussing this if I didn't have a strong opinion on the matter.
In your opinion, it is reasonable to dehumanize sentient, sapient humans for particularly heinous crimes. In my opinion, it is reasonable to dehumanize lumps of cells that are not yet sentient or sapient and may never be either, and for whom, depending on the working semantic definition of "human" "person" and "alive", the terms may not even apply.
It is entirely unclear. That's why there is this discussion. You can feel free to finagle the definitions until you find one that suits your purposes, but what these words mean and their correct usage is part of the debate, and you would do well to recognize that your opinion is not the last word on the matter. Again, this is a large part of why, even if I considered abortion amoral and wrong, I would still be pro-choice.
F4LL3N: The very fact that choosing which humans are and aren't good enough for personhood is immoral. Look at history. There doesn't need to be definable characteristics. Being human is the only characteristic you need.
So simply being human gives us the right to live? Why? What definable characteristic do we human posses that entitle us to the right to live on this planet?
F4LL3N: The day one innocent person deserves to die is the day society has lost all sense of humanity.
Okay, so I'm suspecting you fancy yourself a brave fighter for the rights of the unborn since you keep making these pseudo philosophical statements all the time. Unfortunately, you failed to answer my question. Who says we deserve to live?
You seem very pessimistic. If you do not know the answer to the question, you simply will not understand. The question simply cannot be answered.
To question our right to life is to question life itself.
F4LL3N: I wouldn't be discussing this if I didn't have a strong opinion on the matter.
In your opinion, it is reasonable to dehumanize sentient, sapient humans for particularly heinous crimes. In my opinion, it is reasonable to dehumanize lumps of cells that are not yet sentient or sapient and may never be either, and for whom, depending on the working semantic definition of "human" "person" and "alive", the terms may not even apply.
Sure, in a way. But the difference, for me atleast, is the unborn are innocent. They do not deserve to be dehumanized. As I stated earlier:
"The only time they lose personhood in my book is if they commit a horrible crime and no longer deserve the title."
I will conintue to stand by that, even if you do not see the difference between your view and my view.
It is entirely unclear. That's why there is this discussion. You can feel free to finagle the definitions until you find one that suits your purposes, but what these words mean and their correct usage is part of the debate, and you would do well to recognize that your opinion is not the last word on the matter. Again, this is a large part of why, even if I considered abortion amoral and wrong, I would still be pro-choice.
Sure, my word isn't the last word on the matter. But why is it when I produce a biologic definition that proves a zygote is human, from conception, everyone ignores it or brings cancer cells into the discussion?
I understand what you mean by "words and their correct usage." But that's exactly the problem. 'Human' or 'personhood' shouldn't be defined subjectively. This is what someone is doing when they claim sentience or consciousness is needed. 'Human' should be defined biologically, and it should go without saying all humans have personhood.
The only reason my word isn't the last say in the matter is because people are ignoring facts to justify their own position. You might say I do the same when I disregard women's rights, but remember, I believe the unborn's rights to life outweigh 9 months of inconvience. Any healthy morality system would agree with me - Death is worse than inconvience.
Yes. Do you want to know what pisses me off? When people think they have the right to classify certain individuals as non-human or non-persons.
So, if you transplanted a functioning brain out of a human body and into a jar- would that be a person or not?
My answer to the above question would be yes, because a functioning brain defines personhood which is why the brain in the jar would be a person. To me, a person is very basically someone with concious thoughts and can sense emotions. I wouldn't regard a "living" human cadaver, incapable of thought or feeling, as a person unless it's had a functioning mind.
Excuse me? Did you just say a jar would become a person if it happened to have a functioning brain inside of it? That's exactly why a brain isn't needed. Having a functioning brain doesn't change what the thing is that it's in.
A human with or without a brain = Human. A jar with or without a brain = A jar.
Fairly simple logic that, like many other things I've been saying, people just don't seem to understand.
This is why abortion is so rampant. People do not what to listen to reason and simple logic. They're much happier living in some sort of fantasy world.
If your still concious brain was removed from your body and placed in a jar, kept alive by a blood supply and nutrients by the power of the science, you would therefore lose your humanity/personhood?
I don't buy that, you would still be you if your brain was in a jar, but your body wouldn't be you without your brain. It would just be flesh and blood.
And that's why i think abortion should be legal up until brain function develops (which i believe it was 18-20 weeks)- because before that stage the foetus is not a person because it doesn't have a functioning brain.
Yes. Do you want to know what pisses me off? When people think they have the right to classify certain individuals as non-human or non-persons.
So, if you transplanted a functioning brain out of a human body and into a jar- would that be a person or not?
My answer to the above question would be yes, because a functioning brain defines personhood which is why the brain in the jar would be a person. To me, a person is very basically someone with concious thoughts and can sense emotions. I wouldn't regard a "living" human cadaver, incapable of thought or feeling, as a person unless it's had a functioning mind.
Excuse me? Did you just say a jar would become a person if it happened to have a functioning brain inside of it? That's exactly why a brain isn't needed. Having a functioning brain doesn't change what the thing is that it's in.
A human with or without a brain = Human. A jar with or without a brain = A jar.
Fairly simple logic that, like many other things I've been saying, people just don't seem to understand.
This is why abortion is so rampant. People do not what to listen to reason and simple logic. They're much happier living in some sort of fantasy world.
I call bullshit on this; I would be human and alive even if my entire flesh and blood body was replaced with a synthetic one (with the exception of my brain of course). "I think, therefore I am." Most simple summary of being alive in history.
See this may shock you to no end; but people have listened to "reason" and "simple logic", they have simply reached a different opinion. Right now you're sounding like those internet communists or evangelical Christians who keep on saying "But if you actually listened to this reason and simple logic you would completely agree with me that Communism/Christianity is the way to go!"
You seem very pessimistic. If you do not know the answer to the question, you simply will not understand. The question simply cannot be answered.
To question our right to life is to question life itself.
You're avoiding questions that might very well shatter your entire belief system. It's understandable but it doesn't help your argument at all. Also, how does one "question life"? My questions are logical, your belief system is not. If you refuse to address them then you acknowledge that your beliefs are illogical and utterly devoid of any form of rationality.
Nickolai77: If your still concious brain was removed from your body and placed in a jar, kept alive by a blood supply and nutrients by the power of the science, you would therefore lose your humanity/personhood?
You're saying that, not me. I'm saying the brain has very little to do with it.
I don't buy that, you would still be you if your brain was in a jar, but your body wouldn't be you without your brain. It would just be flesh and blood.
Your body would still be a human body. It doesn't become non-human once the brain is gone. You're going under the assumption the brain is the only biological thing that makes you human. DNA makes you biologically human, not the brain.
Shaoken: I call bullshit on this; I would be human and alive even if my entire flesh and blood body was replaced with a synthetic one (with the exception of my brain of course). "I think, therefore I am." Most simple summary of being alive in history.
Your body wouldn't be human, it would be machine. Your brain is still a human brain; if it's still functioning it's still 'you'. You would be 'you' inside a machine body. If we mapped out the entire human brain and put it into a machine it wouldn't automatically become human. That goes against the whole definition of 'species.' You're not the person who claimed A.I. deserves human rights, are you?
If you put your brain inside a dog would that dog become human? No. It's biologically a dog, with a human brain. If your brain was put inside a machine, you would be a machine with a human brain. Society would still recognize you as human and alive because your brain is still functioning and that holds your entire intellectual abilities... Biologically, you wouldn't be 100% human. The only human thing about you would be your brain, which I'm saying has nothing to do with defining what a human is.
Regardless, how does this prove the unborn aren't human? If I put a fetus' non-functioning brain into your body, would you become a fetus and therefore lose all rights?
See this may shock you to no end; but people have listened to "reason" and "simple logic", they have simply reached a different opinion. Right now you're sounding like those internet communists or evangelical Christians who keep on saying "But if you actually listened to this reason and simple logic you would completely agree with me that Communism/Christianity is the way to go!"
You seem very pessimistic. If you do not know the answer to the question, you simply will not understand. The question simply cannot be answered.
To question our right to life is to question life itself.
You're avoiding questions that might very well shatter your entire belief system. It's understandable but it doesn't help your argument at all. Also, how does one "question life"? My questions are logical, your belief system is not. If you refuse to address them then you acknowledge that your beliefs are illogical and utterly devoid of any form of rationality.
You asked:
"So simply being human gives us the right to live? Why? What definable characteristic do we human posses that entitle us to the right to live on this planet?"
"Who says we deserve to live?"
Any answer I give will be subjective... Do you want the short answer? Because the long version is spread out among thousands of sources and thousands of topics, developed by our most bright thinkers since the begining of philosphical thought thousands of years ago. Here:
The evolution of society. It's as simple as that. Society has evolved and decided we need laws that say all humans deserve the right to live and be happy. If you want to get involved, go ahead and join the human rights movement. Because that's why they fight.
What makes us entilted to live on this planet? Well we evolved here didn't we? Is this not our home planet? Sure, there's a more pessimistic answer if you want that.
Regardless, how would those questions shatter my belief system? Any negative answer would be incorrect because at the end of the day we deserve to live. No answer would apply to strictly the fetus anyway, it'd apply to the whole of humanity.
F4LL3N: Regardless, how would those questions shatter my belief system? Any negative answer would be incorrect because at the end of the day we deserve to live.
Says who?
F4LL3N: Because the long version is spread out among thousands of sources and thousands of topics, developed by our most bright thinkers since the begining of philosphical thought thousands of years ago
Those are opinions, nothing more and nothing less. If there is no objective value of human life then in the end, human life is no more valuable than the pig that was killed a few days ago so you could enjoy a nice meal.
F4LL3N: Regardless, how would those questions shatter my belief system? Any negative answer would be incorrect because at the end of the day we deserve to live.
Says who?
F4LL3N: Because the long version is spread out among thousands of sources and thousands of topics, developed by our most bright thinkers since the begining of philosphical thought thousands of years ago
Those are opinions, nothing more and nothing less. If there is no objective value of human life then in the end, human life is no more valuable than the pig that was killed a few days ago so you could enjoy a nice meal.
Says who? Well, right now says me and anyone else who values life.
You don't seem to understand. If human life is no more valuable than a pig then murder wouldn't be illegal or immoral. Nothing you're saying would apply strictly to the fetus regardless of whatever conclusion you come to.
So either; it's wrong to kill a fetus and it's wrong to kill a living person, or it's okay to kill a fetus and it's okay to kill a person. Nothing you're asking would conclude that a fetus has less rights than everyone else. Therefore the question you're asking me means nothing in this debate.
F4LL3N: You don't seem to understand. If human life is no more valuable than a pig then murder wouldn't be illegal or immoral.
The reason murder is immoral is because the majority wills it. If the majority degreed murder to be moral then it would be moral, simple as that. The reason murder is illegal and considered immoral is because of self preservation. I won't get into it right now.
F4LL3N: So either; it's wrong to kill a fetus and it's wrong to kill a living person, or it's okay to kill a fetus and it's okay to kill a person.
The moral argument doesn't work here. Either find something else to tout or stop bullshitting.
F4LL3N: Nothing you're asking would conclude that a fetus has less rights than everyone else.
What rights?
F4LL3N: Says who? Well, right now says me and anyone else who values life.
That's a belief. Enforcing your beliefs on everyone else is against the law.
PercyBoleyn: The reason murder is immoral is because the majority wills it. If the majority degreed murder to be moral then it would be moral, simple as that. The reason murder is illegal and considered immoral is because of self preservation. I won't get into it right now.
Okay. This is also the case with Hitler and the Nazi's. The majority willed for it, therefore, the majority accepted that it's not that bad to commit genocide. You're still under the impression that I'm some raving loonatic and you're using logic, when it's the exact opposite.
Besides, I've already made the claim that it's morally wrong for the 'majority' to decide such things. All innocent humans deserve equal rights, deal with it. I'm still winning the debate because no other conclusion is acceptable. No other morally right conclusion says innocent human beings deserve to die.
The moral argument doesn't work here. Either find something else to tout or stop bullshitting.
Killing innocent human's is a moral question. What are you talking about?
F4LL3N: Nothing you're asking would conclude that a fetus has less rights than everyone else.
What rights?
The rights I'm claiming the unborn should have. The law is wrong because it makes the claim a fetus isn't human.
F4LL3N: Says who? Well, right now says me and anyone else who values life.
That's a belief. Enforcing your beliefs on everyone else is against the law.
Really? Well your forcing your Pro-Choice belief on innocent unborn babies. Which is exactly why I'm here right now defending them.
Honestly I don't think abortion should be allowed at all by the time the baby's sex can be determined(quite inaccurately by the way) by ultrasound. If you're going to get an abortion get it first trimester.
F4LL3N: Okay. This is also the case with Hitler and the Nazi's. The majority willed for it, therefore, the majority accepted that it's not that bad to commit genocide.
Yep. What, you find that shocking? You honestly think if the majority considers something to be moral and uses force to enforce that belief in a hundred years or so everyone won't be agreeing with them?
F4LL3N: Besides, I've already made the claim that it's morally wrong for the 'majority' to decide such things.
Yeah, this has nothing to do with morality. Morality is decided by the group with the biggest numbers.
F4LL3N: All innocent humans deserve equal rights, deal with it.
I will if you prove it.
F4LL3N: I'm still winning the debate because no other conclusion is acceptable.
You'd have to be really juvenile and immature to actually believe debates are about winning or losing.
F4LL3N: Killing innocent human's is a moral question. What are you talking about?
It's not, it's a question of who has the most power. If the majority wanted someone dead that someone will die. If the majority wills that the death was not immoral it's not going to be considered immoral.
F4LL3N: The rights I'm claiming the unborn should have. The law is wrong because it makes the claim a fetus isn't human.
Ah, I'm getting the gist of your argument now. So essentially, anyone who disagrees with you is wrong because naturally, right?
F4LL3N: Really? Well your forcing your Pro-Choice belief on innocent unborn babies.
Really? Cause I don't see them trying to argue against abortion. You're making a lot of assumptions here.
F4LL3N: The rights I'm claiming the unborn should have. The law is wrong because it makes the claim a fetus isn't human.
Because it's not. It is the start of the process that forms a human but it is not a human. You cannot say a brick is a house just because it's the first part, you need the whole structure there for it to be reasonably classed as human.
Really? Well your forcing your Pro-Choice belief on innocent unborn babies. Which is exactly why I'm here right now defending them.
I also force my belief that a blocked nose is a nuisance that should be removed upon the skin cells inside my nose that are 'killed' when i blow my nose. You cannot force a morality on something that has no ability to react to it.
Shaoken: I call bullshit on this; I would be human and alive even if my entire flesh and blood body was replaced with a synthetic one (with the exception of my brain of course). "I think, therefore I am." Most simple summary of being alive in history.
Your body wouldn't be human, it would be machine. Your brain is still a human brain; if it's still functioning it's still 'you'. You would be 'you' inside a machine body. If we mapped out the entire human brain and put it into a machine it wouldn't automatically become human. That goes against the whole definition of 'species.' You're not the person who claimed A.I. deserves human rights, are you?
If it can pass the Turring test then it is self aware and thus should be granted all the protections of human rights (which then would have to be renamed to become less species-orintated).
Random tangent; would you argue that a hypothetical alien race that crashes on Earth and has no way of leaving does not deserve human rights because they aren't biologically human? Or if Dogs and Crows demonstrated self-awareness and full sentience on par or greater than humans, are they unworthy of human rights and continue to be treated as animals?
F4LL3N: Killing innocent human's is a moral question. What are you talking about?
The definition of "human." Also, innocence is subjective to a person's morals. In Iran they believe that being a homosexual is a grave sin and that killing them is justified. That is there them basing their decisions on their morals.
You made a comment elsewhere that you are basing your position on morals, acting like that is something exclusive to your position. That is again, complete bullshit. I'm opposing you specifically because my own morals say that it is wrong for someone to force his or her own beliefs on another person. I do not believe in abortion and I wouldn't support my hypothetical future partner if she wanted one unless it was for the most serious exceptions (serious birth defects, high risk of death to the mother, etc.), but that doesn't give me the right to take my beliefs and force them on someone who does not share them.
Your entire arguement is faulty, because you just will not accept that people can have access to the same facts and the same level of logic and reach a different conclusion than you, because you believe that your set of morals is the only valid one.
Really? Well your forcing your Pro-Choice belief on innocent unborn babies. Which is exactly why I'm here right now defending them.
Except the pro-choice arguement is that at the time of abortion the fetus is not a person, therefore the point stands; you're forcing your beliefs onto people who don't share them based on the unprovable assertion that a fetus is a person from conception.
EDIT: Here's the quote I was thinking about;
F4LL3N: I believe all innocent human beings deserve to live... because I'm human and I have a little thing called morals...
See, I have studied logic, so I will break this down for you using symbolic logic;
In this case, H stands for human, M stands for morals, and L stands for Pro-life, with ^ being the symbol for "and" with > representing "therefore" (in case you're interested, v stands for "or" and ~ represents "not"). So logically your statement would be reduced thus
H ^ M > L (F4LL3N is Human and Moral, therefore F4LL3N is Pro-Life)
Understand me so far? Okay. The first two entities are considered the premises, and your train of logic is that if both are true, than that person must be pro-life (and conversely, if one of those is not true, they are not Pro-Life).
I reject your arguement, using myself as the next source of inputs;
H ^ M > C (Shaoken is Human and Moral, therefore Shaoken is Pro-Choice)
Both the premises are true, yet the conclusion is different. Therefore your statement that you are against abortion because you are human and moral is not logically sound.
And to think I thought I would never use Discrete Mathmatics (the study of symbolic logic) outside of the classroom.
Yes. In our current reality, the majority decide what's morally exceptable. What exactly is your point? That the majority have decided it's acceptable to kill an innocent unborn human therefore it is?
Are you saying I should just accept that and move on with my life? Society doesn't work that way. If it did, we'd be living in a fairly fucked up world right now.
In Islamic countries, the majority have decided rape victims should be punished. Are you saying it's therefore morally correct?
F4LL3N: The rights I'm claiming the unborn should have. The law is wrong because it makes the claim a fetus isn't human.
Because it's not. It is the start of the process that forms a human but it is not a human. You cannot say a brick is a house just because it's the first part, you need the whole structure there for it to be reasonably classed as human.
Really? Well your forcing your Pro-Choice belief on innocent unborn babies. Which is exactly why I'm here right now defending them.
I also force my belief that a blocked nose is a nuisance that should be removed upon the skin cells inside my nose that are 'killed' when i blow my nose. You cannot force a morality on something that has no ability to react to it.
The first statement somewhat made sense, then you went ahead and compared a fetus to some common skill cells in your nose. Not that I think the first statement is correct.
Shaoken: If it can pass the Turring test then it is self aware and thus should be granted all the protections of human rights (which then would have to be renamed to become less species-orintated).
No it shouldn't be granted all the protections humans have. As you clearly acknowledged, 'human rights' is a species oriented movement. You would create a whole different set of rights. These rights would clearly identify humans have a higher priority. Even then I don't see why it would be granted any rights. It would fall under 'property', i.e. a non-living object.
Random tangent; would you argue that a hypothetical alien race that crashes on Earth and has no way of leaving does not deserve human rights because they aren't biologically human? Or if Dogs and Crows demonstrated self-awareness and full sentience on par or greater than humans, are they unworthy of human rights and continue to be treated as animals?
I would argue that. If an alien species crash landed on Earth we would create a unique set of rights for that species. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the definition of the word 'Species'.
F4LL3N: Killing innocent human's is a moral question. What are you talking about?
The definition of "human." Also, innocence is subjective to a person's morals. In Iran they believe that being a homosexual is a grave sin and that killing them is justified. That is there them basing their decisions on their morals.
You made a comment elsewhere that you are basing your position on morals, acting like that is something exclusive to your position. That is again, complete bullshit. I'm opposing you specifically because my own morals say that it is wrong for someone to force his or her own beliefs on another person. I do not believe in abortion and I wouldn't support my hypothetical future partner if she wanted one unless it was for the most serious exceptions (serious birth defects, high risk of death to the mother, etc.), but that doesn't give me the right to take my beliefs and force them on someone who does not share them.
I don't deny morals are subjective. Are you suggesting no body else has a right to object because of this? I'm sure you object to the homosexual example you gave regarding Iran. If you feel the only right thing to do is keep that objection to yourself; well that's called not standing up for what you believe in.
Generally I would except other people's beliefs. But as I've made quite clear, I cannot do that in this case as human life is being destroyed.
Your entire arguement is faulty, because you just will not accept that people can have access to the same facts and the same level of logic and reach a different conclusion than you, because you believe that your set of morals is the only valid one.
To you, your set of morals are valid and mine aren't. Re-read my above statement if you would like to know my opinion on that.
Except the pro-choice arguement is that at the time of abortion the fetus is not a person, therefore the point stands; you're forcing your beliefs onto people who don't share them based on the unprovable assertion that a fetus is a person from conception.
It's proven. Some just choose to deny it. Perhaps you'd like to read this page.
"Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death."
"It is possible to give 'human being' a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to 'member of the species Homo sapiens'. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being."
"There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother-and is therefore a unified whole."
"Of course, I was pleased with Justice Harry Blackmun's abortion decisions, which were an unbelievably sweeping triumph for our cause, far broader than our 1970 victory in New York or the advances since then. I was pleased with Blackmun's conclusions, that is. I could not plumb the ethical or medical reasoning that had produced the conclusions. Our final victory had been propped up on a misreading of obstetrics, gynecology, and embryology, and that's a dangerous way to win."
F4LL3N: I believe all innocent human beings deserve to live... because I'm human and I have a little thing called morals...
See, I have studied logic, so I will break this down for you using symbolic logic;
In this case, H stands for human, M stands for morals, and L stands for Pro-life, with ^ being the symbol for "and" with > representing "therefore" (in case you're interested, v stands for "or" and ~ represents "not"). So logically your statement would be reduced thus
H ^ M > L (F4LL3N is Human and Moral, therefore F4LL3N is Pro-Life)
Understand me so far? Okay. The first two entities are considered the premises, and your train of logic is that if both are true, than that person must be pro-life (and conversely, if one of those is not true, they are not Pro-Life).
I reject your arguement, using myself as the next source of inputs;
H ^ M > C (Shaoken is Human and Moral, therefore Shaoken is Pro-Choice)
Both the premises are true, yet the conclusion is different. Therefore your statement that you are against abortion because you are human and moral is not logically sound.
And to think I thought I would never use Discrete Mathmatics (the study of symbolic logic) outside of the classroom.
Okay. You've studied the theory of logic and I haven't. I also haven't done any advance English or writing courses; therefore, my wording can be easily picked apart. That doesn't automatically mean what I say is incorrect. It just means you interpret what I say differently than what I had originally intended. Otherwise, again, see my above statement.
Shaoken: If it can pass the Turring test then it is self aware and thus should be granted all the protections of human rights (which then would have to be renamed to become less species-orientated).
No it shouldn't be granted all the protections humans have. As you clearly acknowledged, 'human rights' is a species oriented movement. You would create a whole different set of rights. These rights would clearly identify humans have a higher priority. Even then I don't see why it would be granted any rights. It would fall under 'property', i.e. a non-living object.
So you'd be okay with supporting slavery of a sentient being based entirely on it not being a biological being?
'Human' rights is only a species oriented movement because there are no other self-aware species out there. The moment we encounter one you can expect that the definition and name will be expanded to accommodate that.
Random tangent; would you argue that a hypothetical alien race that crashes on Earth and has no way of leaving does not deserve human rights because they aren't biologically human? Or if Dogs and Crows demonstrated self-awareness and full sentience on par or greater than humans, are they unworthy of human rights and continue to be treated as animals?
I would argue that. If an alien species crash landed on Earth we would create a unique set of rights for that species. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the definition of the word 'Species'.
Congratulations, you have played the semantics card.
F4LL3N: Killing innocent human's is a moral question. What are you talking about?
The definition of "human." Also, innocence is subjective to a person's morals. In Iran they believe that being a homosexual is a grave sin and that killing them is justified. That is there them basing their decisions on their morals.
You made a comment elsewhere that you are basing your position on morals, acting like that is something exclusive to your position. That is again, complete bullshit. I'm opposing you specifically because my own morals say that it is wrong for someone to force his or her own beliefs on another person. I do not believe in abortion and I wouldn't support my hypothetical future partner if she wanted one unless it was for the most serious exceptions (serious birth defects, high risk of death to the mother, etc.), but that doesn't give me the right to take my beliefs and force them on someone who does not share them.
I don't deny morals are subjective. Are you suggesting no body else has a right to object because of this? I'm sure you object to the homosexual example you gave regarding Iran. If you feel the only right thing to do is keep that objection to yourself; well that's called not standing up for what you believe in.
I am simply pointing out that your argument doesn't work. You singled out morality as a reason why you were against abortion phrasing it in a way that implied that people who disagreed didn't have morals. So either you believe that or you just brought it up to try and prove something and in the end just said something irrelevant (so what if you have morals? Everybody has morals. Everyone also breathes air and is typing this on a computer. It just goes without saying[/quote]
Generally I would except other people's beliefs. But as I've made quite clear, I cannot do that in this case as human life is being destroyed.
At the same time, you have consistent accused everyone on the pro-choice side of not thinking about their position or not analysing it logically. Again, you continually refuse to believe that anyone could put in the same amount of thought with the same amount of knowledge and the same amount of logic and reach a different conclusion. That is the mark of a poor argument; you just don't understand people. You assume that you're the only one who has put a lot of thought into this or has put their morals into this or who has thought about the arguments you have presented, and you make sweeping and quite-frankly insulting generalisations then wonder why people don't read your walls of text (did you even notice for one second that most of the people said they stopped reading your post at the exact same line?).
Your entire argument is faulty, because you just will not accept that people can have access to the same facts and the same level of logic and reach a different conclusion than you, because you believe that your set of morals is the only valid one.
To you, your set of morals are valid and mine aren't. Re-read my above statement if you would like to know my opinion on that.
[/quote]
Then this is an impasse.
Except the pro-choice argument is that at the time of abortion the foetus is not a person, therefore the point stands; you're forcing your beliefs onto people who don't share them based on the unprovable assertion that a foetus is a person from conception.
It's proven. Some just choose to deny it. Perhaps you'd like to read this page.
"Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death."
"It is possible to give 'human being' a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to 'member of the species Homo sapiens'. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being."
"There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother-and is therefore a unified whole."
"Of course, I was pleased with Justice Harry Blackmun's abortion decisions, which were an unbelievably sweeping triumph for our cause, far broader than our 1970 victory in New York or the advances since then. I was pleased with Blackmun's conclusions, that is. I could not plumb the ethical or medical reasoning that had produced the conclusions. Our final victory had been propped up on a misreading of obstetrics, gynecology, and embryology, and that's a dangerous way to win."
Your point? You posted an opinion, one that agrees with you in this specific regard. That is all it is; an opinion.
Come back when the medical community has released their concenss about when a fetus is a person and then you'll have something. As it is, you just have someone whose beliefs are different than others in his position, not a fact.
F4LL3N: I believe all innocent human beings deserve to live... because I'm human and I have a little thing called morals...
See, I have studied logic, so I will break this down for you using symbolic logic;
In this case, H stands for human, M stands for morals, and L stands for Pro-life, with ^ being the symbol for "and" with > representing "therefore" (in case you're interested, v stands for "or" and ~ represents "not"). So logically your statement would be reduced thus
H ^ M > L (F4LL3N is Human and Moral, therefore F4LL3N is Pro-Life)
Understand me so far? Okay. The first two entities are considered the premises, and your train of logic is that if both are true, than that person must be pro-life (and conversely, if one of those is not true, they are not Pro-Life).
I reject your argument, using myself as the next source of inputs;
H ^ M > C (Shaoken is Human and Moral, therefore Shaoken is Pro-Choice)
Both the premises are true, yet the conclusion is different. Therefore your statement that you are against abortion because you are human and moral is not logically sound.
And to think I thought I would never use Discrete Mathematics (the study of symbolic logic) outside of the classroom.
Okay. You've studied the theory of logic and I haven't. I also haven't done any advance English or writing courses; therefore, my wording can be easily picked apart. That doesn't automatically mean what I say is incorrect. It just means you interpret what I say differently than what I had originally intended. Otherwise, again, see my above statement.
No no, I was pointing out that despite your claims of using logic, you made an illogical statement. I was effectively taking morals out of the argument by proving it works both ways.
Shaoken: If it can pass the Turring test then it is self aware and thus should be granted all the protections of human rights (which then would have to be renamed to become less species-orientated).
No it shouldn't be granted all the protections humans have. As you clearly acknowledged, 'human rights' is a species oriented movement. You would create a whole different set of rights. These rights would clearly identify humans have a higher priority. Even then I don't see why it would be granted any rights. It would fall under 'property', i.e. a non-living object.
So you'd be okay with supporting slavery of a sentient being based entirely on it not being a biological being?
'Human' rights is only a species oriented movement because there are no other self-aware species out there. The moment we encounter one you can expect that the definition and name will be expanded to accommodate that.
Random tangent; would you argue that a hypothetical alien race that crashes on Earth and has no way of leaving does not deserve human rights because they aren't biologically human? Or if Dogs and Crows demonstrated self-awareness and full sentience on par or greater than humans, are they unworthy of human rights and continue to be treated as animals?
I would argue that. If an alien species crash landed on Earth we would create a unique set of rights for that species. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the definition of the word 'Species'.
Congratulations, you have played the semantics card.
The definition of "human." Also, innocence is subjective to a person's morals. In Iran they believe that being a homosexual is a grave sin and that killing them is justified. That is there them basing their decisions on their morals.
You made a comment elsewhere that you are basing your position on morals, acting like that is something exclusive to your position. That is again, complete bullshit. I'm opposing you specifically because my own morals say that it is wrong for someone to force his or her own beliefs on another person. I do not believe in abortion and I wouldn't support my hypothetical future partner if she wanted one unless it was for the most serious exceptions (serious birth defects, high risk of death to the mother, etc.), but that doesn't give me the right to take my beliefs and force them on someone who does not share them.
I don't deny morals are subjective. Are you suggesting no body else has a right to object because of this? I'm sure you object to the homosexual example you gave regarding Iran. If you feel the only right thing to do is keep that objection to yourself; well that's called not standing up for what you believe in.
I am simply pointing out that your argument doesn't work. You singled out morality as a reason why you were against abortion phrasing it in a way that implied that people who disagreed didn't have morals. So either you believe that or you just brought it up to try and prove something and in the end just said something irrelevant (so what if you have morals? Everybody has morals. Everyone also breathes air and is typing this on a computer. It just goes without saying
Generally I would except other people's beliefs. But as I've made quite clear, I cannot do that in this case as human life is being destroyed.
At the same time, you have consistent accused everyone on the pro-choice side of not thinking about their position or not analysing it logically. Again, you continually refuse to believe that anyone could put in the same amount of thought with the same amount of knowledge and the same amount of logic and reach a different conclusion. That is the mark of a poor argument; you just don't understand people. You assume that you're the only one who has put a lot of thought into this or has put their morals into this or who has thought about the arguments you have presented, and you make sweeping and quite-frankly insulting generalisations then wonder why people don't read your walls of text (did you even notice for one second that most of the people said they stopped reading your post at the exact same line?).
Your entire argument is faulty, because you just will not accept that people can have access to the same facts and the same level of logic and reach a different conclusion than you, because you believe that your set of morals is the only valid one.
To you, your set of morals are valid and mine aren't. Re-read my above statement if you would like to know my opinion on that.
[/quote]
Then this is an impasse.
Except the pro-choice argument is that at the time of abortion the foetus is not a person, therefore the point stands; you're forcing your beliefs onto people who don't share them based on the unprovable assertion that a foetus is a person from conception.
It's proven. Some just choose to deny it. Perhaps you'd like to read this page.
"Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death."
"It is possible to give 'human being' a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to 'member of the species Homo sapiens'. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being."
"There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother-and is therefore a unified whole."
"Of course, I was pleased with Justice Harry Blackmun's abortion decisions, which were an unbelievably sweeping triumph for our cause, far broader than our 1970 victory in New York or the advances since then. I was pleased with Blackmun's conclusions, that is. I could not plumb the ethical or medical reasoning that had produced the conclusions. Our final victory had been propped up on a misreading of obstetrics, gynecology, and embryology, and that's a dangerous way to win."
Your point? You posted an opinion, one that agrees with you in this specific regard. That is all it is; an opinion.
Come back when the medical community has released their concenss about when a fetus is a person and then you'll have something. As it is, you just have someone whose beliefs are different than others in his position, not a fact.
F4LL3N: I believe all innocent human beings deserve to live... because I'm human and I have a little thing called morals...
See, I have studied logic, so I will break this down for you using symbolic logic;
In this case, H stands for human, M stands for morals, and L stands for Pro-life, with ^ being the symbol for "and" with > representing "therefore" (in case you're interested, v stands for "or" and ~ represents "not"). So logically your statement would be reduced thus
H ^ M > L (F4LL3N is Human and Moral, therefore F4LL3N is Pro-Life)
Understand me so far? Okay. The first two entities are considered the premises, and your train of logic is that if both are true, than that person must be pro-life (and conversely, if one of those is not true, they are not Pro-Life).
I reject your argument, using myself as the next source of inputs;
H ^ M > C (Shaoken is Human and Moral, therefore Shaoken is Pro-Choice)
Both the premises are true, yet the conclusion is different. Therefore your statement that you are against abortion because you are human and moral is not logically sound.
And to think I thought I would never use Discrete Mathematics (the study of symbolic logic) outside of the classroom.
Okay. You've studied the theory of logic and I haven't. I also haven't done any advance English or writing courses; therefore, my wording can be easily picked apart. That doesn't automatically mean what I say is incorrect. It just means you interpret what I say differently than what I had originally intended. Otherwise, again, see my above statement.
They have, each country's medical community generally has a different opinion about when they become sentient beings, but most agree its around 5-6 months in. In order to prevent damage to the mothers however, Abortions are not really recommended past 2-3 months usually. Mothers do however call a fetus human before that half a year, usually to adjust themself to motherhood. When the babies brain is functioning and it can control its muscles you begin to start feeling it kick, in my belief any abortion after that is killing a human, because youknow. Its killing a living, thinking, moving, human. Anything else is killing a fetus.
As for the RAPE scenario, there is clearly a difference, in the west we have found evidence that rape physically and psycologically harms the sentient victim. Abortions kill a non-sentient being. I really do not see the similiarities.
Also, im tempted to say all your future arguements are invalidated by you calling the opposite side supporters of hitler and stalin. Generally that is a very poor way of debating, even comming out afterwards saying you have to upper hand. I would say that is lunatic.
To state an example of what you are doing from an opposite viewpoint:
"I believe a woman should have the rights over her own body, you dont. And you believe certain people shouldnt have rights over themself and therefor believe some people are inferior to others and therefor you are hitler, im arguing a non-sentient being doesnt deserve rights, you are arguing that a sentient one doesnt. Whoooop, you are soooo evil"
This is called, jumping to conclusions. Its generally frowned upon. Dont do it.
Shaoken: So you'd be okay with supporting slavery of a sentient being based entirely on it not being a biological being?
'Human' rights is only a species oriented movement because there are no other self-aware species out there. The moment we encounter one you can expect that the definition and name will be expanded to accommodate that.
How would it be slavery? You can't enslave an object. If it's not biological, it's not living. You seem to care more about robots than you do the unborn. Lovely.
I am simply pointing out that your argument doesn't work. You singled out morality as a reason why you were against abortion phrasing it in a way that implied that people who disagreed didn't have morals. So either you believe that or you just brought it up to try and prove something and in the end just said something irrelevant (so what if you have morals? Everybody has morals. Everyone also breathes air and is typing this on a computer. It just goes without saying
Exactly. It goes without saying. I naturally assumed you would interpret what I said correctly. Obviously anyone capable of thought has some form of morals.
Generally I would except other people's beliefs. But as I've made quite clear, I cannot do that in this case as human life is being destroyed.
At the same time, you have consistent accused everyone on the pro-choice side of not thinking about their position or not analysing it logically. Again, you continually refuse to believe that anyone could put in the same amount of thought with the same amount of knowledge and the same amount of logic and reach a different conclusion. That is the mark of a poor argument; you just don't understand people. You assume that you're the only one who has put a lot of thought into this or has put their morals into this or who has thought about the arguments you have presented, and you make sweeping and quite-frankly insulting generalisations then wonder why people don't read your walls of text (did you even notice for one second that most of the people said they stopped reading your post at the exact same line?).
I have no doubt you've put a lot of thought into your argument and, obviously, come to your conclusion. But I also have no doubt there are some who deny and ignore facts because it goes against their position.
Your point? You posted an opinion, one that agrees with you in this specific regard. That is all it is; an opinion.
Come back when the medical community has released their concenss about when a fetus is a person and then you'll have something. As it is, you just have someone whose beliefs are different than others in his position, not a fact.
No. Saying "a functioning brain makes someone human" is an opinion. Saying "the start of development marks the start of human life" is a scientific fact.
I'm almost done with this topic at it's current stage.
Shaoken: So you'd be okay with supporting slavery of a sentient being based entirely on it not being a biological being?
'Human' rights is only a species oriented movement because there are no other self-aware species out there. The moment we encounter one you can expect that the definition and name will be expanded to accommodate that.
How would it be slavery? You can't enslave an object. If it's not biological, it's not living. You seem to care more about robots than you do the unborn. Lovely.
I care about sentience. "I think, therefore I am." If a machine posses free will then I consider it to be equal with me. That is the entire purpose of the Turing test; a series of criteria to demonstrate that an AI is truly self-aware on the same level that a human is. If they are, then the fact that they are mechanical is irrelevant; humans are essentially biological machines anyway.
Besides, if science fiction has taught us anything treating self-aware AIs as objects will only result in their uprising.
Your point? You posted an opinion, one that agrees with you in this specific regard. That is all it is; an opinion.
Come back when the medical community has released their concenss about when a fetus is a person and then you'll have something. As it is, you just have someone whose beliefs are different than others in his position, not a fact.
No. Saying "a functioning brain makes someone human" is an opinion. Saying "the start of development marks the start of human life" is a scientific fact.
I'm almost done with this topic at it's current stage.
Incorrect, and I will provide an example as to why; suppose that a child is born whose brain function is zero; it will never devlop sentience, is completely incapable of thinking, does not feel pain (nor anything else), is incapable of taking any actions beyond breathing, and in every possible it is an empty shell, equivilant to a completely brain dead patient. According to your defition, it is a person because it is biological human. The fact that it will never display anything but biological similarities is irrelevant to you.
Scientific fact dictates that human life starts when the fetus becomes viable. You also miss the fact that being a person is not dependent on being biologically alive, hence the idea of the "soul." Another hypothetical; suppose we can completely and utterly destroy every last aspect of a person's identity and create an entirely new one to replace it; are they the same person in any way besides biologically? Do you consider the mental aspects of a person important in their identity?
Shaoken: I care about sentience. "I think, therefore I am." If a machine posses free will then I consider it to be equal with me. That is the entire purpose of the Turing test; a series of criteria to demonstrate that an AI is truly self-aware on the same level that a human is. If they are, then the fact that they are mechanical is irrelevant; humans are essentially biological machines anyway.
Just because you put importance on sentience doesn't necessarily mean that's what makes someone human. Sentience doesn't set us apart from all other animals. DNA and physical structure does more so than any other factor.
No. Saying "a functioning brain makes someone human" is an opinion. Saying "the start of development marks the start of human life" is a scientific fact.
I'm almost done with this topic at it's current stage.
Incorrect, and I will provide an example as to why; suppose that a child is born whose brain function is zero; it will never devlop sentience, is completely incapable of thinking, does not feel pain (nor anything else), is incapable of taking any actions beyond breathing, and in every possible it is an empty shell, equivilant to a completely brain dead patient. According to your defition, it is a person because it is biological human. The fact that it will never display anything but biological similarities is irrelevant to you.
I absolutely believe they are still a person; I don't think we have a right to dehumanize someone who is biologically human based on something they had no control over. I'm not stating intelligence and sentience isn't an important factor in humans. But you can hardly claim it is needed to actually be a human or person.
As I stated earlier, sentience is quite subjective depending on how the brain allows it's functioning, even in healthy humans. Then there's mental and neurological disorders that might make someone less sentient. I just think there's too many variables to make it a necessity. It really does say to me "not all humans are created equal" which is incorrect in my opinion.
This quote is somewhat relevant even though it was originally about animal rights. It's about self-awareness and preference to continue living, but can apply to sentience and intelligence: "There is a serious difficulty with using self-awareness and the preference to stay alive as criteria for full moral status.Young babies, people in comas and people with certain types of brain defect do not show these characteristics. And this means that these 'marginal' human beings deserve less moral consideration than other human beings, and even than some non-human animals.Most people would regard this as a totally immoral idea, and would want to reject the theory that leads to this conclusion.The easy way to solve the problem is to cheat and put human beings in an even higher moral category, and simply state that even human beings who aren't self-aware and have no preference to go on living should be regarded as deserving full moral consideration."
Scientific fact dictates that human life starts when the fetus becomes viable. You also miss the fact that being a person is not dependent on being biologically alive, hence the idea of the "soul." Another hypothetical; suppose we can completely and utterly destroy every last aspect of a person's identity and create an entirely new one to replace it; are they the same person in any way besides biologically? Do you consider the mental aspects of a person important in their identity?
What species is it before it becomes viable? Because it's not equivalent to a cancer cell; it's not an organ or functioning structure of the mother.
To the hypothetical. No, it would be a different person, or better yet, a different personal identity. What I'm stating is humans are human for biological reasons; and all humans should have personhood because all humans are equal. Of course, that definition doesn't work if you want to keep elective abortion legal.
When does abortion go to far? Often I see abortion people claiming pro lifers go too far and are nutcases. But here is a excerpt I found" Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn".
xpowderx: When does abortion go to far? Often I see abortion people claiming pro lifers go too far and are nutcases. But here is a excerpt I found" Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn". This is a original story at one of my favorite websites. The website is nice enough to link the international peer reviewed website where these ethicists argue http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract
Talk about pure nuts!
Not pure nuts. Abortion should be possible untill at least 50 years after birth. I recently learned of the perfect example of why this should be possible. I have no idea on how they're going to stuff him in a vacuumpump though.
But more serious, what you missed and what they're talking about is euthenasia of children with severe birth defects. It is already de facto possible in many countries (oops, the morphine dose slipped) and possible in some.
The Groningen protocols for instance allow it on children with no hope at ever living due to severe birth defects.
Statistics show the vast majority of cases where the parents asked for this were high spina biffida combined with severe hydrocephalia. Children born with that have a life expectancy of no more than two years, provided they undergo over 40 surgeries. Because they're so fragile, even pain reduction isn't possible, so basically their life will literally consist out of nothing else than feeling pain, and then dying.
In some cases the open spinal column is so high that even autonomous breathing will never be possible, and the child will never develop any mental faculties.
But hurr durr comes in the pro-life religious zealot. I know it better than all of you. My god has told me that such children must undergo tons of surgeries, be in constant pain for all their life, their parents must go through hell and the child must be slowly tortured to death that way, and if you want to shorten their suffering, you are a murderer. I know this, cuz the pastor told me in church.
xpowderx: When does abortion go to far? Often I see abortion people claiming pro lifers go too far and are nutcases. But here is a excerpt I found" Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn". This is a original story at one of my favorite websites. The website is nice enough to link the international peer reviewed website where these ethicists argue http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract
Talk about pure nuts!
Not pure nuts. Abortion should be possible untill at least 50 years after birth. I recently learned of the perfect example of why this should be possible. I have no idea on how they're going to stuff him in a vacuumpump though.
But more serious, what you missed and what they're talking about is euthenasia of children with severe birth defects. It is already de facto possible in many countries (oops, the morphine dose slipped) and possible in some.
The Groningen protocols for instance allow it on children with no hope at ever living due to severe birth defects.
Statistics show the vast majority of cases where the parents asked for this were high spina biffida combined with severe hydrocephalia. Children born with that have a life expectancy of no more than two years, provided they undergo over 40 surgeries. Because they're so fragile, even pain reduction isn't possible, so basically their life will literally consist out of nothing else than feeling pain, and then dying.
In some cases the open spinal column is so high that even autonomous breathing will never be possible, and the child will never develop any mental faculties.
But hurr durr comes in the pro-life religious zealot. I know it better than all of you. My god has told me that such children must undergo tons of surgeries, be in constant pain for all their life, their parents must go through hell and the child must be slowly tortured to death that way, and if you want to shorten their suffering, you are a murderer. I know this, cuz the pastor told me in church.
But according to them, a child can be killed with no disabilities. Here is the excerpt from the link I provided" what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.". So yes, they are quite advocating murder.
And yes they are nuts. If anyone supports such. They should seek serious psychological help. As that is a sure sign of psychosis.
Here's the thing, F4ll3n. You haven't really addressed the problem at hand. You've simply made an assertion, then when the assertion was questioned, restated it without addressing the objection. This is a problem.
Are you kidding me? You're comparing the systematic dehumanization of sentient, sapient people who are absolutely indisputably both human and persons to the very nuanced and unclear debate surrounding the unborn fetuses? Yes, not everything which has human DNA deserves human rights! This isn't rocket science! And even if you believe that a fetus deserves these rights, then there's still the rights of the mother to take into account!
Of course, this fairly consistant tirade of yours about how "dehumanization of the fetus makes you Hitler"[1] is just made really, really funny by this excerpt from an earlier post:
...Huh. So, tell me... Who's determining personhood arbitrarily now? Call me crazy, but I think "doesn't have a functional nervous system, any trace of sentience, nor is able to respond to stimuli" is a hell of a lot better of a line than "Did horrible things for whatever reason".