Topic: Abortion 2 (Read 20258 times)

End Bringer · « **Reply #20 on:** June 09, 2008, 02:24:51 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on June 09, 2008, 11:42:39 AM

Well if you assert it enough times i'm sure it will become true. An embryo is also part of a human being - remove it from said human being and it will inevitably die, much like a toe.

And I'm sure if you simply assert a denial enough times...well nothing much is going to change. Still missing the fact that a toe is simply an appendage to a human being (or any being that has a toe) while an embryo is simply the development stage of said being. Does the embryo need to remain in the womb or theoretically some form of incubation chamber if technology gets that far? Sure. But then an infant is a human being even when it's still attached to the embilical cord. And will die just as easily without assistance.

Quote

Just because you mention two things in the same sentence does not necessarily mean they are related. The personhood of embryos is not a 'biological fact', no matter how many times you stamp your foot and insist that it is so. Nor do the Laws of biogenesis and identity provide any particularly strong support for the idea. You will have to explain yourself further.

A human embryo being a human being is a biological fact. And is the point I've been constantly pounding you on. The fact that you now have to try to draw the argument away from being a human being to personhood tells me you know you've lost this point in the argument. Personhood is frankly irrelevant to the issue of inalienable human rights as it's based on being human and not inalieanable person rights. This personhood arguement has only been around since Roe vs Wade in order to make abortion more acceptable. But it's pretty much like Dred Scott. He's technically human, but he's not a person since he's black.

Personhood of embryos is a tail wagging the dog argument as personhood is an inherent quality to a human being the same way volume is an inherent quality to a cube. A human being is a person automatically because all human beings are personal kinds of beings whether it's in an early stage of development or later stage. That's what a human is, and remains itself till beginning to end.

Otherwise DB, what's the difference between a human being and a person?

Quote

Why is that relevant? If it were true that men had slightly lower average IQs than women, should we suppress this fact on the basis that in ten years the female supremacists will make use of it to condemn us all to domestic servitude?

Pretty much because the issue of abortion is about the right to life, while a pro-abortionist and your analogy is about a quality of life that 90% of the time would be ruined by their own poor decisions

Quote

You're entitled to your own opinion EB, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

How fortunate then, that the following facts you've chosen only highlight my view.

"If an ox gores a man or a woman to death,... [and] if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined,... the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death....If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned." (Exodus 21:28-32) [/quote]

Much like an animal would be put down for killing a human and the owner of said animal would have to pay if sued (though in this case the money is a guarantee)? Of course as I said this is an arguement from ignorance as slavery under the Bible was more a financial issue than a race one or even a criminal issue as thieves were sentenced to slavery for theft if they couldn't pay restitution. As you would know had you bothered to read the first 11 verses of that same chapter. Slaves even being set free once a certain amount of time of servitude being met to pay off a debt or such. In this case such an act would have the owner of the animal help pay the debt the slave owed the master.

Quote

"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)

Murder being an offense punishable by the death penalty. This is a bit of quote mining on your part as the next two verses clearly outline the difference between killing accidently (with no intent), and premeditation with the punishment for either being drasticly different.

Quote

"And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be avenged; for he is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21)

So a slave had a right to life that the slave owner would be punished with a death sentence for if he took. Considering how other societies of the time, and later more modern societies, viewed slaves as things that could be discarded without much consequences, bestowing rights that protected even the lowest on the social scale is only helping make my point about inalieanble human rights (that right not covering being disciplined) being championed by the Bible to everyone.

Quote

People as property. Slippery slope?

Argument from ignorance DB. Especially since slavery under Biblical standards is simply a step above you contracting your services and the company owning you. You are the companies property in that same sense the Bible makes. Of course the reason the Bible champions human equality is for the same reason the apostle Paul championed equality for slaves, masters, men, and women: Before God we are all equal as we all belong to God. We are all His property DB.

Quote

Why do i need to address this? i agree (unlike your bible) that all living human beings should be granted human rights. The question is whether an embryo qualifies as a human being, and i say not.

And it is a irrefutable biological fact that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. And equally covered under the Laws of Identity and Biogenisis. And you have failed utterly on this point as you have shown that when push comes to shove you are now trying to flip-flop between human being and personhood. The only question now is how long you can continue to squirm.

Quote

Frankly, your tactic of proclaiming yourself the victor in this debate by citing two fairly loosely associated philosphical laws and denying all other relevant detail is not impressive. i do not disagree that if an embryo was a human being it should be accorded human rights, but you have entirely failed to show that it is one.

Apparently not as you have shown to be trying to dodge that those laws specifically addressed the issue of the embryo being a human being by steering them towards the issue of personhood. Of course like I said that your rebuttals amount to simply a denial by proof of assertion and producing no other relevant detail, doesn't help you either. Especially since the only thing that is relevant is if it's a human being.

Quote

i tend to assume that you write all your posts while smirking.

Only when talking with you.

Quote

Are you dismissing the possibility of anything being an emergent property on the basis of the law of identity? When exactly does a work of art become a work of art?

From the moment of conception. In this case it being the moment a artist takes ink to paper, or chisel to stone. Though of course this is somewhat different from the biological context, but you already tried the acorn and the oak tree line, though apparently (or convieniently) forgot all it's implications.

Quote

As i've said, your slippery slope argument is not only hypocritical but also intellectually weak - almost any idea, true or not, could be said to have a slippery slope attached to it. Evolution certainly does, but that doesn't make it any less true. Or, for your benefit, Original Sin - catholic schoolchildren down the ages can atest to the depths to which that slippery slope can go. Slippery slopes are not relevant to truth or falsity.

This amounts to "Sure it can lead to a holocaust in 20 years, but I don't care.". It shows an inherent lack of critical thinking if one doesn't want to consider the implications and the consequences for one's views, just as the Catholic church showed by not clarifying what Original Sin means.

Quote

AND, why must there be a line?

Nice dodge. Because obviously the whole issue of abortion says that there is a line to being a human being that allows us to kill an embryo because it hasn't crossed it. Frankly if you even have to ask that question I can only assume you're intentionally being dense now. So answer the question DB: Where is it? Why is it there and not somewhere else? If you don't know then you are effectively saying you are willing to kill something without the slightest idea as to the distinction. And you can guess by now what that sounds like.

Quote

Keep laughing smirk-boy. Martin Luther King was a liberal Christian who had dozens of extra-marital affairs, strongly supported Planned Parenthood, and favoured affirmative action. Does that sound anything like you?

Still smirking. Especially for somehow thinking that a human being was sinful and fallibale (as if this is a shocking concept to a Christian), means that he wasn't right on another issue. We call this falacy an ad hominem. And while you call me a bigot, I've never called you a racist as I'm sure your view on abortion is equal whether it's a Hispanic embryo, Black embryo, etc.

Quote

Would this be you denying that the majority of churches, especially in the South, supported slavery prior to the civil war on biblical grounds? Or that the abolitionist movement was founded by Quakers (about as non-fundamentalist as you can get while still being Christian)? Seems to me that would support my statements.

That in any group you can find some who take different (and incorrect) views? Sure. I can say the same for pro-abortionists who support euphenasia and those who don't. As you seem inclined for generalizations I wouldn't trust you for a minute to accurately know what being a fundamentelist Christian meant, DB. Though it's interesting that you're now beating up your own assertion about Christians having a long tradition of standing against social reform, while now saying it was started by Christians.

Quote

And social mores change - witness the status of slavery now and 1,000 years ago, and the laws which have changed appropriately. The Bible on the other hand, remains unchanged, which is why you have to be such a mental contortionist to use it as your single source of morality in modern life.

Obviously it remains unchanged. It's the truth, so why would the truth need to change? Though it's interesting how in the matter of asking what gives you more right not to be 'aborted/removed' under your own argument, that you now are sighting how your supposed shield can be taken from you. I believe this is where Martin Niemoller that sntjohnny so often quotes comes in.

Quote

You're playing with definitions like alone they mean or can prove anything. A brain-dead human being (i.e. one who would be unable to sustain cellular functioning without life support) is effectively dead, but still living - in a biological sense. Human, or not?

Not, as he is dead and thus self-evidently isn't alive, which you yourself note. And he's not even really alive in a biological sense, as what you are refering to is keeping the body parts from decaying and still keep functioning.

Quote

]
The 'fuss' is to try to preserve life, and i have not said that there is no distinction between a dead body and a living one, that's your invention. The majority of someone's cells may still be alive, but if the brain is dead then they are no longer a person.

Obviously, because they are no longer a human being.

Quote

You obviously dont know very much about this topic, so try not to embarass yourself. There are very specific tests to determine brain-death, which will unfailingly differentiate a sleeping person, or one in a reversible coma, from one who is no longer a 'person' in any meaningful sense, even though their heart continues to beat. However, none of those tests make any reference to either biogenesis or the law of identity, so i'm thinking that you need a new explanation for how we determine when a person stops being a person.

No. It's actually quite simple: A human being remains a human being from the moment of conception till the moment they are dead. A person is created when a human being is concieved and stops being a person when a human being dies. Clear, easy, consitant, and a solid standard. That you can chop off a person's head and 'some' of the cells won't be dead for a time doesn't make the least bit of difference to the issue.

Quote

You are avoiding addressing the issue of brain-death.

Not really, as I said brain death is no more a complicated issue then chopping off a person's head and machines keeping the lower body parts functioning. That you can keep parts of a complicated body of a being going is irrelevant to when that being started as a simple bodied being.

Quote

Is the soul gone? Perhaps it resides in the brain then, although that would rule out the humanity of embryos who have yet to develop one. Maybe the soul is still there, but since these patients never regain consciousness, one must wonder what it is up to.

Seems you are the only one bringing up the issue of a soul. I guess when one is at the end of their rope, one's forced to mock instead of debate.

Quote

Whatever, it is a stretch to say that a human form with all the attachments we expect and functioning systems and organs (except one) is 'destroyed', so i must conclude that by your logic and the law of identity a brain-dead patient is still a person. Is that right?

As you say they're is a clear distinction between a comma patient and one who is brain-dead with a vital organ being destroyed the matter is quite rapped up. But then this debate was over before it even started DB.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #21 on:** June 09, 2008, 04:27:02 PM »

Word games.

Calling an embryo a 'human being' does not make it a person. Calling a brain-dead adult on life-support a 'human being' does not make it a person. For you to just assert that one is alive and the other dead simply shows up your own arrogance and proves precisely nothing. The two are in similar circumstances - neither has a functioning brain, neither can survive independently, both depend entirely upon their surroundings for their continued existence. The major philosophical difference is potential. The embryo has some, the adult has none.

A human being is a person automatically because all human beings are personal kinds of beings whether it's in an early stage of development or later stage. That's what a human is, and remains itself till beginning to end.

This is not an argument, this is a statement. You have made a lot of statements in this thread, few of them supported. In what way is an embryo a 'personal' kind of being? Does it interact? Can it feel pain? Or are you just assuming your conclusion, as usual?

Otherwise DB, what's the difference between a human being and a person?

By my definition, very little. But then i do not agree with your statement that an embryo is a human being. It is human, in the sense of the bone in the serial killer's garden.

Of course the reason the Bible champions human equality is for the same reason the apostle Paul championed equality for slaves, masters, men, and women: Before God we are all equal as we all belong to God. We are all His property DB.

You can dance around this all you want, but the bible states that slaves are property and metes out a financial penalty rather than the death sentence for a man whose ox killed a slave rather than a free man. That doesn't sound very "reminiscent to employees and employers" to me. If someone kills my employer, the penalty under law would be the same as if he had killed me. You said that "the Bible afforded slaves the same basic rights as slave owners". Where?

And it is a irrefutable biological fact that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. And equally covered under the Laws of Identity and Biogenisis.

Keep saying it. It's going great.

"Are you dismissing the possibility of anything being an emergent property on the basis of the law of identity? When exactly does a work of art become a work of art?"

From the moment of conception. In this case it being the moment a artist takes ink to paper, or chisel to stone.

Interesting. So a work of art exists in potentia, as it were, without ever having to be actually realised in the physical world. As soon as the artist conceives it, it is a work of art?

Actually, you know as well as i do that what constitutes a 'work of art' varies from person to person, and (more importantly), there is no single point during it's creation at which it suddenly becomes one.

This amounts to "Sure it can lead to a holocaust in 20 years, but I don't care.". It shows an inherent lack of critical thinking if one doesn't want to consider the implications and the consequences for one's views, just as the Catholic church showed by not clarifying what Original Sin means.

The implications of an idea are unrelated to it's truth or falsity. This is a truism, so for you to keep bringing up the slippery slope sub-concept merely exposes your irrationality on this topic.

So answer the question DB: Where is it? Why is it there and not somewhere else? If you don't know then you are effectively saying you are willing to kill something without the slightest idea as to the distinction. And you can guess by now what that sounds like.

There is no line. Or rather, the line is a floating band, which will vary from individual to individual. i do not demand that all babies qualify as 'persons' at the time they are born, but somewhere in between birth and childhood they acquire personalities and become human beings. Why is it not permissable to kill babies? Because they occupy a grey area, also inhabited by viable foetuses, where i wouldn't classify them as necessarily being 'people', but where they can certainly suffer, and that is something best prevented.

"Keep laughing smirk-boy. Martin Luther King was a liberal Christian who had dozens of extra-marital affairs, strongly supported Planned Parenthood, and favoured affirmative action. Does that sound anything like you?"

Still smirking.

Of course.

Especially for somehow thinking that a human being was sinful and fallibale (as if this is a shocking concept to a Christian), means that he wasn't right on another issue. We call this falacy an ad hominem.

No. That would be the case if i was trying to discredit Martin Luther King. i am not - i am saying that he was not a fundamentalist Christian like you, Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard (obviously, in that case he would have gone gay).

Though it's interesting that you're now beating up your own assertion about Christians having a long tradition of standing against social reform, while now saying it was started by Christians.

Read what i said again. You are a christian fundamentalist (biblical inerrancy, rejection of scientific facts in favour of religious dogma, oppressive right-wing morality etc), and Quakers are not. My statements are not contradictory.

Not, as he is dead and thus self-evidently isn't alive, which you yourself note. And he's not even really alive in a biological sense, as what you are refering to is keeping the body parts from decaying and still keep functioning.

So when the brain is dead, the person is dead. Is that right?

...as I said brain death is no more a complicated issue then chopping off a person's head and machines keeping the lower body parts functioning. That you can keep parts of a complicated body of a being going is irrelevant to when that being started as a simple bodied being.

So, personhood resides in the brain..? Embryos dont have a brain.

But then this debate was over before it even started DB.

Sorry, i forgot to add "overwhelming arrogance" to my list of fundamentalist characteristics.

End Bringer · « **Reply #22 on:** June 09, 2008, 11:47:03 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on June 09, 2008, 04:27:02 PM

Word games.

Calling an embryo a 'human being' does not make it a person.

Indeed, you've shown it's a game you play quite well. At least to anyone who doesn't know better. However as a human embryo is a concieved human being (irrefutable biological fact), then it is by definiton a person. End of story.

Quote

Calling a brain-dead adult on life-support a 'human being' does not make it a person. For you to just assert that one is alive and the other dead simply shows up your own arrogance and proves precisely nothing.

Wow. I'm somehow arrogant for saying a living human being is a living person, while a dead adult is not because...he's dead. Riiiiight. Give it up DB. All you keep doing is reassert the same denial without anything behind it without even addressing the points I've raised. Pathetic.

Quote

The two are in similar circumstances - neither has a functioning brain, neither can survive independently, both depend entirely upon their surroundings for their continued existence. The major philosophical difference is potential. The embryo has some, the adult has none.

No the major difference being the former is alive and the latter is dead. Kind of self-evident but then you have shown a remarkable talent for missing the obvious. Much like Cop. your above description seems to fit yourself to a tea.

Quote

This is not an argument, this is a statement. You have made a lot of statements in this thread, few of them supported. In what way is an embryo a 'personal' kind of being? Does it interact? Can it feel pain? Or are you just assuming your conclusion, as usual?

Oh well, if you say they're not supported, well then. And of course it's a statement. It's a statement of fact. You have failed to show a distinction between a human being and a person. As such you have not refuted that a human is a person by definition, while your double attempt to say personhood is at issue, while denying it's even a human being at the same time shows you are grasping for an argument in order to maintain your view rather than honest questioning.

And are you descriping an embryo or an unconcious person that's on anesthetics? That's the problem with arbitrary qualities DB. They disqualify another group of people who are clearly people. Where could that line of reasoning lead to I wonder.

Quote

By my definition, very little. But then i do not agree with your statement that an embryo is a human being. It is human, in the sense of the bone in the serial killer's garden.

By definition there is none.

And this is where the laws of Identity and Biogenisis come in where you have only denied but hardly given reason for refutation. Embryo being an individual life in the stage of life the same way a teenager is a stage of life for a human being. This is biological fact. You can squirm all you like DB, but it's not going away.

Quote

You can dance around this all you want, but the bible states that slaves are property and metes out a financial penalty rather than the death sentence for a man whose ox killed a slave rather than a free man.

I'm sorry, do we even today sentence a man to the death penalty for something his animal does? And you're outraged by that? Last time I checked some people aren't sentenced to death even for murders they themselves commit.

Quote

That doesn't sound very "reminiscent to employees and employers" to me. If someone kills my employer, the penalty under law would be the same as if he had killed me. You said that "the Bible afforded slaves the same basic rights as slave owners". Where?

No, the issue of punishment sounds like restitution that fits the crime rather than vengeance. Good job in skipping the first 11 verses on that same chapter, by the way. I'm laughing that your arguement from outrage is being based on that someone isn't sentenced to death for what one's animal does. Heck in verses 28-32 of that same chapter the death penalty is exactly what the owner gets if he is warned of the potential danger and doesn't do anything. Or that your above statement is directly covered under verse 12 which you yourself quoted earlier. Or heck DB, verses 26-27 even clearly say that a slave is to be set free if a disciplining action results in physical lost. So I'm sorry DB, I could never hope to match the waltz you've shown in both these topics.

Quote

Keep saying it. It's going great.

I will, as all you have said through out this thread is simply "No."

Quote

Interesting. So a work of art exists in potentia, as it were, without ever having to be actually realised in the physical world. As soon as the artist conceives it, it is a work of art?

If it's not even realized in the physical world it doesn't even exsist. At all. As my response outlined with the moment of conception being when the ink touches paper, or chisel to stone.

Quote

Actually, you know as well as i do that what constitutes a 'work of art' varies from person to person, and (more importantly), there is no single point during it's creation at which it suddenly becomes one.

And as I've said it's an apples and oranges argument to the case of biology. And no there is a standard of 'work of art'. What you are refering is the subjective sense of 'beauty' that is what varies from person to person.

Quote

The implications of an idea are unrelated to it's truth or falsity. This is a truism, so for you to keep bringing up the slippery slope sub-concept merely exposes your irrationality on this topic.

No, it merely shows you are employing a standard that is arbitrary and can be used to exclude other groups of people. Otherwise you wouldn't be so defensive over the implication that your idea is a stepping stone to another Holocaust. You'd say: "So? Maybe those things the Holocaust was based on is true." Frankly this is somewhat an admission that your argument is on the same road that lead to the Holocaust, but is saying "That's alright if it is." And your below statements only confirm it further.

Quote

There is no line. Or rather, the line is a floating band, which will vary from individual to individual. i do not demand that all babies qualify as 'persons' at the time they are born, but somewhere in between birth and childhood they acquire personalities and become human beings. Why is it not permissable to kill babies? Because they occupy a grey area, also inhabited by viable foetuses, where i wouldn't classify them as necessarily being 'people', but where they can certainly suffer, and that is something best prevented.

So this is a tactic admission that you don't have a clue. Worse yet you are openly admitting a slippery slope here. So there is no line? Not all babies are necessarily human beings. Then it's a specific type of baby. Then it's a specific type of group no matter age. Then it's a specific type of personality or belief. Then it's the Jews that occupy that grey area where some else is less predisposed to prevent suffering. Shameful DB. Truly shameful. I see no reason why the line to being a human being shouldn't exsist 5 years older than you are in order to 'abort' you DB.

Quote

No. That would be the case if i was trying to discredit Martin Luther King. i am not - i am saying that he was not a fundamentalist Christian like you, Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard (obviously, in that case he would have gone gay).

And as I said, I wouldn't trust you to be the most reliable person to know what 'fundamentalist Christian' meant as you have shown below. As being Christian means a fundamental set of beliefs no matter what denomination. You can say he was 'liberal', but frankly being 'liberal' then can mean 'conservative' 50-60 years later.

Quote

Read what i said again. You are a christian fundamentalist (biblical inerrancy, rejection of scientific facts in favour of religious dogma, oppressive right-wing morality etc), and Quakers are not. My statements are not contradictory.

See? Once again you don't have a clue. As usual.

Quote

So when the brain is dead, the person is dead. Is that right?

Hmm. When the brain is dead the human being is dead. A human being is a person. The math seems pretty clear.

Quote

So, personhood resides in the brain..? Embryos dont have a brain.

Neither do you DB, as you seem to be equating that a human has the right to life based on certain body part. What's next? People who are deformed?

And no, personhood resides in the human being. Brain-death is simply the cause of when the person dies in this case. Frankly as the brain can send impulses to the body parts even after death (why sometimes a corpse's foot twitches) it shows that the case of a human being is destroyed no matter if the impulses are produced by the brain or machines.

Quote

Sorry, i forgot to add "overwhelming arrogance" to my list of fundamentalist characteristics.

Still seems to be a drop in the bucket when compared to atheism. Or the colossal arrogance with your position of: "I have no idea when a human being is a human being, but we can go ahead and kill the thing anyway." It's like saying you'd kill children for not having a high enough IQ. If someone asked how high an IQ you need to live your whole argument amounts to "I have no idea, but I know these kids are pretty stupid." Like I said: Shameful.

Trent · « **Reply #23 on:** June 10, 2008, 04:44:54 AM »

Quote from: David on June 03, 2008, 01:46:19 AM

Yeah, every biology textbook before '73 taught that life begins at conception. It does. The science is irrefutable.

"Life" does not equate to being a person, however. Life is life. Cats have life, germs have life, fish have life, and I'm not sure but I think my ex's pet guinea pig still has some life left in it, too.

Quote

One does not become a human gradually, either.

One does not cease being human when they die or begin to decay, either. I'm pretty sure they cease being a person at that point. A corpse has no rights. That's why someone else makes the decision to inter or cremate.

It could be said that one becomes a person gradually. After all, the characteristics that make one a person (not least among them, a functioning mind) develop as one grows. Primarily, I think, what makes a person a person is personality, and personality is dependant on the mind. So it's the mind that should first be considered as a key requisite for person--rather why a vegetable on life support might not be considered a "person" anymore--so the question becomes, does an embryo have a sufficiently functioning mind, or simply the potential to develop one? I rather think it's the latter.

Quote

If that were true, then it would follow that it is not so bad to kill a child than to kill a teenager, since the teenager has all of its biological systems in place.
But everybody knows that it is just as bad to kill a child as a teenager.

Indeed. But to snuff out an embryo...?

Quote

So one must become a person suddenly. At birth? The scissors that cut the umbilical make you a person? Obviously ludicrous.

Don't be ridiculous. Development of one's biology is not dependent on an external tool.

Quote

Bullcrap. You become a person when you get your genetic code. Conception. Sure, an embryo does not have a brain. But it's doing something that only a human can do: growing a human brain.

Growing a personality, one might say. The potential to become a person, the potential to think, to feel, to observe and consider, to love and to hate, to laugh and to cry... but none of those things are things it's capable of.

Quote

At the bottom of it is this: Pro abortionists don't care. They just don't care.

At the bottom of this: you need to shut up until you can seperate your hatred of abortion from your hatred of those who support it, and stuff the latter somewhere where no one else can see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, or taste it. 'Cause it's out there, rotting in the sun so all can smell its stink. And it's making you look like a bigot. No, I'll rephrase that: it's actually making you a bigot. And that's not exactly helping your case convince, let me tell you.

End Bringer · « **Reply #24 on:** June 10, 2008, 01:15:21 PM »

Quote from: Trent on June 10, 2008, 04:44:54 AM

"Life" does not equate to being a person, however. Life is life. Cats have life, germs have life, fish have life, and I'm not sure but I think my ex's pet guinea pig still has some life left in it, too.

No, but being a human being does equate to being a person however. As has been covered a human being automatically has personhood the same way a cube or sphere automatically has volume. If they don't have volume then they are by definition no longer a cube or sphere.

Quote

One does not cease being human when they die or begin to decay, either. I'm pretty sure they cease being a person at that point. A corpse has no rights. That's why someone else makes the decision to inter or cremate.

DB has tried this, and unfortunately it fails for the self-evident reason that being dead means a life is destroyed. When one die's is when the human being is indeed destroyed andis a no being. ANd technically even corpses have some rights as there are laws against grave robbing or doing just anything to a corpse.

Quote

It could be said that one becomes a person gradually. After all, the characteristics that make one a person (not least among them, a functioning mind) develop as one grows. Primarily, I think, what makes a person a person is personality, and personality is dependant on the mind. So it's the mind that should first be considered as a key requisite for person--rather why a vegetable on life support might not be considered a "person" anymore--so the question becomes, does an embryo have a sufficiently functioning mind, or simply the potential to develop one? I rather think it's the latter.

Obviously you'd rather think that as you are looking for someway to justify abortion. However this 'potential personhood' argument makes it difficult to say everyone has equal rights as personhood becomes a sliding scale. The professor with a good self-concept somehow has more personhood and thus more right to life than the cashier who's out of touch with himself. This is why I utterly reject this gradualistic argument that has no clear fix on when a thing is a thing. As DB has noted, it becomes very hard to distinguash between abortion and infanticide as the reasons seem to make a 'grey area' that encompasses the one week old baby as well as the 5 month old fetus.

Quote

Indeed. But to snuff out an embryo...?

Just as wrong. Made even worse by the fact that the reasons for justification seem to include the child you say it's wrong to kill.

Quote

Don't be ridiculous. Development of one's biology is not dependent on an external tool.

The development of you biology is not dependant on an external tool like food? Really?

Quote

Growing a personality, one might say. The potential to become a person, the potential to think, to feel, to observe and consider, to love and to hate, to laugh and to cry... but none of those things are things it's capable of.

And there are full adult humans that show little capability for these things. These things being arbitrary. I've yet to hear what is suppose to distinguash when a person is a person as these arbitrary qualities including when a person is unconcious. Do they suddenly have less rights when they are asleep and more when they wake up?

Quote

At the bottom of this: you need to shut up until you can seperate your hatred of abortion from your hatred of those who support it, and stuff the latter somewhere where no one else can see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, or taste it. 'Cause it's out there, rotting in the sun so all can smell its stink. And it's making you look like a bigot. No, I'll rephrase that: it's actually making you a bigot. And that's not exactly helping your case convince, let me tell you.

Funny, how you and DB seem to be the only one's who are name calling in this. And you'll have to do better than to simply assert that David hate's abortionists with empty rhetoric as I don't recall anyone saying 'Burn abortionists at the stake.' Either step up or shut up.

Trent · « **Reply #25 on:** June 11, 2008, 09:55:32 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on June 10, 2008, 01:15:21 PM

No, but being a human being does equate to being a person however.

I suggest you keep an eye on your word choice. The question of the difference between "human" and "human being" has already been brought up in this thread. The question of what constitutes a "human being" is nigh synonymous with the question of what constitutes a "person."

Quote

As has been covered a human being automatically has personhood the same way a cube or sphere automatically has volume. If they don't have volume then they are by definition no longer a cube or sphere.

But the question is whether an embryo is a human being by default or merely something that develops into one.

Quote

DB has tried this, and unfortunately it fails for the self-evident reason that being dead means a life is destroyed. When one die's is when the human being is indeed destroyed andis a no being. ANd technically even corpses have some rights as there are laws against grave robbing or doing just anything to a corpse.

Sentimental trivialties, those. "Rights" in that case are purely legal and purely invented by people because of their emotions on the matter. I don't think any similarly-invented "rights" would aid a discussion on abortion. To admit that an embryo's "rights" are the result of such invention would be the same as admitting they really don't have any intrinsic rights at all.

Quote

Obviously you'd rather think that as you are looking for someway to justify abortion.

Actually, I'm more inclined to think that you're looking for some way to call it evil. ...Which is about as productive as a knock to the head, so why don't we both just toss that trash in the trash and focus on the actual question rather than the oppositions motives for opposition?

Quote

However this 'potential personhood' argument makes it difficult to say everyone has equal rights as personhood becomes a sliding scale. The professor with a good self-concept somehow has more personhood and thus more right to life than the cashier who's out of touch with himself.

If one wanted to be very detailed and go by a spectrum instead of a borderline, yes, I suppose you could say that. So what?

Quote

This is why I utterly reject this gradualistic argument that has no clear fix on when a thing is a thing.

Having a clear fix on what something is is not the same as having no clear fix on how much of that thing any particular example may be. A person is a person, even if less a person than another. A non-person remains, a non-person, even if less a non-person than other non-people.

Quote

As DB has noted, it becomes very hard to distinguash between abortion and infanticide as the reasons seem to make a 'grey area' that encompasses the one week old baby as well as the 5 month old fetus.

I'm not particularly frightened of that. Uncertainty is a fact of life. If you reject an idea just because it leaves something to chance or debate, you're going to be rejecting an aweful lot of ideas for no good reason at all.

Quote

Just as wrong. Made even worse by the fact that the reasons for justification seem to include the child you say it's wrong to kill.

You're being about as subtle in your thinking as a battering ram. You were the one who brought up the idea of "more" personhood in one person than in another. Even if that idea was hypothetically allowed, it necessitates a "spectrum" which ranges from various levels of "non-person" to those of "person." At some specific point there is a shift between "non-person" and "person," and though the exact position may be a bit hazy or even significantly hazy, it is still that point that matters and the spectrum outside of it which is irrelevant to this discussion. The question is at what point a developing human is considered a person, not how much of a person they are considered.

Quote

The development of you biology is not dependant on an external tool like food? Really?

Food is not a tool, it's a material. The tools are the digestive system and the means by which the body doles out nutrition where it needs to. In other words, all of the tools are internal. External tools are only ever used when the body fails to do something on its own, like construct an immunity to a disease.

Quote

And there are full adult humans that show little capability for these things. These things being arbitrary. I've yet to hear what is suppose to distinguash when a person is a person as these arbitrary qualities including when a person is unconcious. Do they suddenly have less rights when they are asleep and more when they wake up?

You... are truly spectacular in your ridiculousness sometimes. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response except to note that it's not worth dignifying with a response.

Quote

Funny, how you and DB seem to be the only one's who are name calling in this.

I fell out of my chair, bumped my head very badly, but still could not stop laughing for a straight ten minutes after I read this. Laughed myself to tears. Thanks. That was a good one.

Now, do yourself a favor and read what you write. Then ask yourself: Am I operating under the assumption that only insults from atheists and pro-abortionists are insulting? Because you haven't been much better than me, and that's a gentle way to put it.

Quote

And you'll have to do better than to simply assert that David hate's abortionists with empty rhetoric as I don't recall anyone saying 'Burn abortionists at the stake.' Either step up or shut up.

Did you read any of what I responded to, or am I going to have to take you by the ear and drag you to the post? "Abortionists don't care. They just don't care." Psh. As if David can look into our minds and understand our "hidden" reasoning. If I really wanted to go to town with that one, I would have spoken my mind, like so:

SURE! I DON'T CARE! THAT'S WHY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT KIDS BEING BORN INTO HOPELESS CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THE MOTHER ISN'T CAPABLE OF CARING FOR THEM AND COULDN'T ABORT THE PREGNANCY BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE CLAIMED IT WAS "WRONG." I DON'T CARE! THAT'S WHY I'M WORRIED ABOUT RAPE VICTIMS BEING STUCK WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CARING FOR AND FEEDING A CHILD THEY DIDN'T WANT AND MAYBE EVEN CAN'T AFFORD, SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID IT WAS "WRONG" TO ABORT! I DON'T CARE! THAT'S WHY I CARE, RIGHT?!

But I like to think I'm a little more civilized than that. Just a little.

I'd like to make a snide observation about a certain statement I replied to in this very post, but I think it more mature to stick to my resolution not to dwell on the opposition's motives for opposition.

End Bringer · « **Reply #26 on:** June 11, 2008, 02:27:02 PM »

Quote from: Trent on June 11, 2008, 09:55:32 AM

I suggest you keep an eye on your word choice. The question of the difference between "human" and "human being" has already been brought up in this thread. The question of what constitutes a "human being" is nigh synonymous with the question of what constitutes a "person."

I know, DB tried and failed miserably. Even more so when one sees how much he tried to dodge the Laws of Identity and Biogenesis with such excuses as "they don't say how one should be treated" and "it doesn't refer to personhood". The only question at issue in abortion is whether it's a human being or not. And has been numerously stated it's a scientific fact that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception.

Quote

But the question is whether an embryo is a human being by default or merely something that develops into one.

I know. It's a burden of proof that has been left to the pro-life side. And it's a burden that has been met- it is a human being by default. And this has already been explained upon be the issue of whether an acorn becomes an oak. An acorn never becomes an oak it is an oak. It's simply an oak in an immature stage in life. So too is an embryo a human being at an immature stage in life. The only thing that is developing is age and the arbitrary characteristics that come with age.

Quote

Sentimental trivialties, those. "Rights" in that case are purely legal and purely invented by people because of their emotions on the matter. I don't think any similarly-invented "rights" would aid a discussion on abortion. To admit that an embryo's "rights" are the result of such invention would be the same as admitting they really don't have any intrinsic rights at all.

I know. I already outlined the difference between governmental laws and God's/nature's laws. A corpse's rights coming more from respect to those who pass on than anything else. What is relevant to the issue of abortion in this matter is that a woman's "rights" to control her own body to this extent is a govermental law that does not supersede the unborn human being's right to life. Especially given the numerous laws that do restrict what one can do with one's own body.

Quote

Actually, I'm more inclined to think that you're looking for some way to call it evil. ...Which is about as productive as a knock to the head, so why don't we both just toss that trash in the trash and focus on the actual question rather than the oppositions motives for opposition?

Hehe. Seems I don't have to 'look' for a way as I've already outlined the numerous reasons why abortion is tantamount to gunning some one on the street (or arguably worse). DB has tried the lame defense of this being a complicated issue, when I've shown it's not complicated at all. Thus is why anyone who tries to make it more complicated than it is, can be said to already have abortion as the goal while looking for any reason to justify it on the way.

Quote

If one wanted to be very detailed and go by a spectrum instead of a borderline, yes, I suppose you could say that. So what?

So what? Then it becomes the mentally disabled who are killed for not being at a certain end of the spectrum. Then it becomes an ethnic group. Then a group with a particular belief. Then the Jews. That's what's what Trent. If human rights are placed on a spectrum where the line to decide who can live and who can die can be placed anywhere the there is no clearer proof that another Holocaust is at the end of the road in this line of thinking.

Quote

Having a clear fix on what something is is not the same as having no clear fix on how much of that thing any particular example may be. A person is a person, even if less a person than another. A non-person remains, a non-person, even if less a non-person than other non-people.

Non-sensical double talk. Absolutely no one has a sense of what personhood is in a clear fashion. That's why personhood is an arbitrary characteristic in the issue of abortion, that pro-abortionists made up to make abortion more acceptable to the public. As I told DB this is like saying "I can kill children based on IQ. I have no clear fix on how many IQ points they need to live, but they're stupid." Sad.

Quote

I'm not particularly frightened of that. Uncertainty is a fact of life. If you reject an idea just because it leaves something to chance or debate, you're going to be rejecting an aweful lot of ideas for no good reason at all.

Unfortunately as the issue is on killing human beings, then it seems you better have a d--n great amount of certainty in your view. If your killing a child based on it's nonpersoonhood then you better have a concrete idea of what personhood is. Otherwise you're showing the attitude of not having a clue, but killing something anyway. This callousness is why, David and myself have repeatedly said that the debate over abortion has long been over. Abortionists simply don't care since they want their way even if it means a few million people are killed for it.

Quote

You're being about as subtle in your thinking as a battering ram. You were the one who brought up the idea of "more" personhood in one person than in another.

In showing what 'potential personhood' means. I utterly reject this.

Quote

Even if that idea was hypothetically allowed, it necessitates a "spectrum" which ranges from various levels of "non-person" to those of "person." At some specific point there is a shift between "non-person" and "person," and though the exact position may be a bit hazy or even significantly hazy, it is still that point that matters and the spectrum outside of it which is irrelevant to this discussion.

And like I said that you don't seem bothered that the line is hazy, means that the line can be moved to make the one-week old baby be on the 'abortion allowed' end of the spectrum, given that all your characteristics seem to include the baby as well. And this isn't even going into the issue of partial birth abortion and euphenasia.

Quote

The question is at what point a developing human is considered a person, not how much of a person they are considered.

And it's a question that has long been answered: a person is a person at the moment a human being is concieved. Because a human being is de facto a person. A clear certain point. The fact that it means most types of abortions (the vast majority being motivated by self-interest in one's life-style) can't be performed without it being a clear case of murder, is what makes pro-abortionists reject this, as abortion is the end goal.

Quote

Food is not a tool, it's a material. The tools are the digestive system and the means by which the body doles out nutrition where it needs to. In other words, all of the tools are internal. External tools are only ever used when the body fails to do something on its own, like construct an immunity to a disease.

Alright perhaps under this definition of 'tools' food wouldn't fit, but it sounds like any type of medicine would.

Quote

You... are truly spectacular in your ridiculousness sometimes. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response except to note that it's not worth dignifying with a response.

I guess when one can't answer when one doesn't have one. Sleep well.

Quote

I fell out of my chair, bumped my head very badly, but still could not stop laughing for a straight ten minutes after I read this. Laughed myself to tears. Thanks. That was a good one.

Always happy to make someone laugh.

Quote

Now, do yourself a favor and read what you write. Then ask yourself: Am I operating under the assumption that only insults from atheists and pro-abortionists are insulting? Because you haven't been much better than me, and that's a gentle way to put it.

Now I'm laughing that you think 'insulting' means 'name calling'. Sure I've insulted, but mostly because as DB showed he can be offended to his reasoning be described as the same behind the Holocaust even if it is true.

Quote

Did you read any of what I responded to, or am I going to have to take you by the ear and drag you to the post? "Abortionists don't care. They just don't care." Psh. As if David can look into our minds and understand our "hidden" reasoning.

And you think you can for taking a comment about abortionists being uncaring (which given your above callousness is true) as being motivated by hatred towards abortionists? Spare us the hypocrisy.

Quote

SURE! I DON'T CARE! THAT'S WHY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT KIDS BEING BORN INTO HOPELESS CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THE MOTHER ISN'T CAPABLE OF CARING FOR THEM AND COULDN'T ABORT THE PREGNANCY BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE CLAIMED IT WAS "WRONG." I DON'T CARE! THAT'S WHY I'M WORRIED ABOUT RAPE VICTIMS BEING STUCK WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CARING FOR AND FEEDING A CHILD THEY DIDN'T WANT AND MAYBE EVEN CAN'T AFFORD, SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID IT WAS "WRONG" TO ABORT! I DON'T CARE! THAT'S WHY I CARE, RIGHT?!

Highly emotional, but utterly empty rhetoric, though it does prove my statement that you simply want abortion to be an end with any justification you can look for along the way. Made especially worse by the fact that all you seem to care for is a life-style is being interrupted rather than a life. If all that was at issue was simply taking care of the baby, there are systems in place when the mother is unable or unwilling to do so.

Quote

I'd like to make a snide observation about a certain statement I replied to in this very post, but I think it more mature to stick to my resolution not to dwell on the opposition's motives for opposition.

Well then you've certainly failed when you accused David of being motivated by hatred for abortionists. And as you've failed to step up to prove this is indeed the case, I suggest you shut up.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #27 on:** June 11, 2008, 03:44:16 PM »

Right.

Let me try to cut through some of this tinsel.

We agree that a human life begins at conception. We disagree about whether or not said life is a human being/person prior to viability - EB and David say it is, Trent and i suspect not. However, a major part of this debate has been the assertion that a particular right (the right to life) applies to embryos by definition, since they are human and this is alleged to be an inalienable human right. Any suggestion that this might not be the case has led to accusations of beliefs-likely-to-precipitate-genocide, since EB especially feels that if exceptions are made for any sub-section of humanity then it will automatically follow that the Jews or the Blacks will be next. He also dismisses the notion of anything other than a definite unarguable line, beyond which all individuals must qualify for a certain right, and places this line at the point of conception.

To test the consistency of this position, let us substitute a different human right - the right to vote. Different countries have different laws on this issue, but in Britain, voting age is 18, so let's go with that. The consideration here is not whether or not a person is a human being, but more like whether or not they have acquired the intelligence and life experience necessary to make a mature and informed decision about who they wish to govern them. However, the law giving over-18s this right does not imply that at the age of 18 all people suddenly acquire the necessary maturity to make this decision. Of course not. Some may well be mature enough to vote at 14, others not until they are 25, others never. But since a line has to be drawn somewhere, 18 was chosen as a reasonable average.

Does the denial of this right to under-18s give us cause to worry that the slippery-slope principle (so often invoked here) will lead to the eventual denial of voting rights to blacks or Jews or women? EB's position would suggest that this might be a worry. If it isn't a cause for concern, why not?

Surely, to paraphrase End Bringer, If human rights are placed on a spectrum where the line to decide who can vote and who cannot vote can be placed anywhere then there is no clearer proof that another Holocaust is at the end of the road in this line of thinking!!!!

Another relavent comparison to draw is EB's point about unconscious or sedated adults not qualifying for personhood by our standard of personality and conscious thought. It should be noted that at not all times in my adult life will i be capable of voting sensibly - when i am asleep is a prime example, but sometimes (occasionally) i become very foolish as the result of alcohol. Are my voting rights taken away from me at such times, or is there any suggestion that they should be? No.

Likewise (unless the Abortion=Genocide crowd can come up with any convincing reason why not), it is reasonable to suppose that the gradualistic criteria of personhood would not necessarily lapse anytime someone fell asleep.

i am also interested in EB's somewhat confused position on brain-death. He asserts that a brain-dead adult is dead, full-stop, but denies that personhood resides in the brain, and mocks the suggestion that personhood could be linked to a single bodily organ. Interesting that in a brain-dead adult the only part that is biologically dead is the brain, so it's hard to see what other conclusion one can draw from his insistence that these patients are truly dead. Waiting for clarification.

And no, personhood resides in the human being. Brain-death is simply the cause of when the person dies in this case. Frankly as the brain can send impulses to the body parts even after death (why sometimes a corpse's foot twitches) it shows that the case of a human being is destroyed no matter if the impulses are produced by the brain or machines.

i think i can safely assume that you're not medical. A brain-dead person may well not have 'died', in the sense of having had a cardiac arrest, but just through trauma, or infection, or hypoxia they have suffered an irreversible brain injury. If personhood does not reside in the brain then one wonders why someone is not 'dead' according to you when some other organ stops functioning and has to be replicated by machines (i.e. kidney failure).

On the subject of slavery in the bible:

I'm laughing that your arguement from outrage is being based on that someone isn't sentenced to death for what one's animal does.

No, my argument was very specifically that the owner gets sentenced to death if his ox kills a man or a woman when he knew it had a tendency to attack passers-by, but if it kills a slave then he only has to pay the owner some money. If your only response is to misrepresent what i said then i assume that you are unconsciously blocking out the immorality of your holy book.

Oh, and from your reply to Trent:

Funny, how you and DB seem to be the only one's who are name calling in this. And you'll have to do better than to simply assert that David hate's abortionists with empty rhetoric as I don't recall anyone saying 'Burn abortionists at the stake.' Either step up or shut up.

Well, as i think i said in the first (now lost-forever) abortion thread, if people of your view point aren't calling for people who have or carry out abortions to be sentenced for murder then you are acting hypocritically. Also, the idea that you haven't been name-calling? Just to itemise (and this did not take me long):

End Bringer equates the pro-choice position with racism:

"Saying it's human but doesn't mean it has human rights is like saying a black man may be human but that doesn't mean he's afforded human rights." - June 07, 2008, 04:55:16 PM.

End Bringer equates the pro-choice position with racism again, and doesn't care if he offends:

"To deny them is the same as saying a black man is a human but that doesn't entail that we treat him the same throughout the entire human race. Back to the plantations, huh? And I do this knowing full well how you feel about it DB." - June 08, 2008, 02:07:51 AM.

End Bringer states that pro-choicers are stupid, illogical and irrational:

"And as you've shown logic, common sense, and reason can go out the window to a pro-abortionists." - June 08, 2008, 05:29:20 PM.

End Bringer implies that Dannyboy lacks a functioning brain. Twice:

DB - "The two are in similar circumstances - neither has a functioning brain, neither can survive independently, both depend entirely upon their surroundings for their continued existence."

EB - "No the major difference being the former is alive and the latter is dead. Kind of self-evident but then you have shown a remarkable talent for missing the obvious. Much like Cop. your above description seems to fit yourself to a tea."

and...

DB - "So, personhood resides in the brain..? Embryos dont have a brain."

EB - "Neither do you DB" - Yesterday at 01:47:03 AM

Yeah, we're the only one's name-calling, you're right.

P.S. - Trent, sorry to hear about your ex's guinea pig. i hope there's no suggestion of foul play.

End Bringer · « **Reply #28 on:** June 12, 2008, 12:49:30 AM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on June 11, 2008, 03:44:16 PM

Right.

Let me try to cut through some of this tinsel.

Your continued habit to simply start over doesn't make your position any better than the first time.

Quote

We agree that a human life begins at conception. We disagree about whether or not said life is a human being/person prior to viability - EB and David say it is, Trent and i suspect not.

And we say so because it is a biological fact that it is a human being. You've brought up the 'argueing against science' line in this thread, but that description fits you and Trent more in this case DB.

Quote

However, a major part of this debate has been the assertion that a particular right (the right to life) applies to embryos by definition, since they are human and this is alleged to be an inalienable human right. Any suggestion that this might not be the case has led to accusations of beliefs-likely-to-precipitate-genocide, since EB especially feels that if exceptions are made for any sub-section of humanity then it will automatically follow that the Jews or the Blacks will be next.

Given how every criteria that let's you kill a human being at the embryionic stage applies to someone who is clearly a human being under some other condition (I've still yet to hear what makes most of your conditions differ from an embryo and an unconcious person), the accusations are spot on. More so as they are historically shown to be the case.

Quote

He also dismisses the notion of anything other than a definite unarguable line, beyond which all individuals must qualify for a certain right, and places this line at the point of conception.

And proudly. Because as the issue is whether or not you can kill a thing you better have a definite unarguable grasp of what it is. That you're 'uncertain' whether you are killing innocent human beings, but decide to do/allow it anyway is appalling and, yes, evil.

Quote

To test the consistency of this position, let us substitute a different human right - the right to vote.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh this is rich. Need I remind you the difference between a governmental right which this clearly falls under and an inalienable right which are the laws of God/nature that supersede governmental rights. Your continuous equivocating and dancing around provides no end of amusement DB, but it's an apples to oranges example. Right to life is an inherent right to a human being. The right to vote isn't.

Quote

Does the denial of this right to under-18s give us cause to worry that the slippery-slope principle (so often invoked here) will lead to the eventual denial of voting rights to blacks or Jews or women? EB's position would suggest that this might be a worry. If it isn't a cause for concern, why not?

Call me crazy, but because the right to vote is not an inalienable human right as the right to life is. Or the simple fact that voting is based on the inherently gradual but stable principle of time/age, while you've failed to show personhood is indeed gradual (and under your criteria can seem to be in a state of flux depending on when one is asleep)?

Quote

Another relavent comparison to draw is EB's point about unconscious or sedated adults not qualifying for personhood by our standard of personality and conscious thought. It should be noted that at not all times in my adult life will i be capable of voting sensibly - when i am asleep is a prime example, but sometimes (occasionally) i become very foolish as the result of alcohol. Are my voting rights taken away from me at such times, or is there any suggestion that they should be? No.

I'm still waiting for even one relevant comparison in this, as it's another clear case of you flip-flopping around. And under your standard those rights apparently should be taken. It's that you admit they aren't that shows an inconsistency and hypocrisy in your view.

Quote

Likewise (unless the Abortion=Genocide crowd can come up with any convincing reason why not), it is reasonable to suppose that the gradualistic criteria of personhood would not necessarily lapse anytime someone fell asleep.

According to your scenerio you've openly admited that not all times in your adult life will you show personhood. So according to your criteria personhood does seem to lapse. And it's this fact that is one amoung the long list of reasons you've failed to refute, though assert a denial, that makes your arguement fail.

Quote

i am also interested in EB's somewhat confused position on brain-death. He asserts that a brain-dead adult is dead, full-stop, but denies that personhood resides in the brain, and mocks the suggestion that personhood could be linked to a single bodily organ.

Yep. Mostly for the fact that I shouldn't really need to say what an arguement for 'He's a person based on the physical characteristic he posses' sounds like. And my position on this matter is as simple as it can get. Personhood resides in the human being. A human being is dead when his brain dies the same way as if his head was chopped off. Clear, simple, easy, but then the abortion issue has always been a simple one.

Quote

Interesting that in a brain-dead adult the only part that is biologically dead is the brain, so it's hard to see what other conclusion one can draw from his insistence that these patients are truly dead. Waiting for clarification.

And as I said another vital organ can be damaged where the human being is clearly dead, and the brain still fires off linguring impulses. Are you going to say a person stabbed through the heart is still alive and a person if the brain is still making his foot twitch? Or is personhood suddenly in the heart now?

Quote

i think i can safely assume that you're not medical. A brain-dead person may well not have 'died', in the sense of having had a cardiac arrest, but just through trauma, or infection, or hypoxia they have suffered an irreversible brain injury. If personhood does not reside in the brain then one wonders why someone is not 'dead' according to you when some other organ stops functioning and has to be replicated by machines (i.e. kidney failure).

Actually as I said that being brain dead, yet having the body parts maintained by machines is no different then cutting off his head and having the body parts maintained by machines. As such it's exactly like having died in a cardiac arrest. Though I consider a person being dead when they die of kidney failure to be rather self-evident. That a simplistic organ (when compared to the brain everything else are tinker toys) stops functioning simply isn't enough to kill a human being. Indeed, it's when the creatine and other fluid levels rise to fatal levels is when you die. As such the human being isn't dead when the organ's functions can be taken over by a machine. Not so in the case of brain-death as the human being is dead.

Quote

No, my argument was very specifically that the owner gets sentenced to death if his ox kills a man or a woman when he knew it had a tendency to attack passers-by, but if it kills a slave then he only has to pay the owner some money.

Dropped everything else, huh? And this is still an obvious misrepresentation of the passages as it doesn't say that a fine is placed on slaves when he knew the ox was dangerous. It clearly says if he didn't have prior warning all that would happen is that he'd lose an ox if it killed a free man. As such if he had no prior warning and the ox killed a slave he would lose the ox and be fined. Frankly the owner would be punished even more in the scenerio of the slave dieing.

Quote

If your only response is to misrepresent what i said then i assume that you are unconsciously blocking out the immorality of your holy book.

What's this I see? An objective standard of morality and immorality being admitted (implicitly) from a moral reletavist?

Quote

Well, as i think i said in the first (now lost-forever) abortion thread, if people of your view point aren't calling for people who have or carry out abortions to be sentenced for murder then you are acting hypocritically.

Not really. This is a war of ideas, and as in any war it behooves us to employ the tactic that will give us the best results. As the current law is what's the problem it's only prudent to go after that first. In fact it's Scriptually called upon to work within the system, at least initially. There's not a doubt in my mind those who choose and perform abortion are murderers, but as this is a type of murder that is currently legal the only thing that would be hypocritical is to come to this conclusion and not oppose it by moral means.

Quote

Also, the idea that you haven't been name-calling? Just to itemise (and this did not take me long):

End Bringer equates the pro-choice position with racism:

"Saying it's human but doesn't mean it has human rights is like saying a black man may be human but that doesn't mean he's afforded human rights." - June 07, 2008, 04:55:16 PM.

Yes, I'm saying your position equates to racisim. How's that calling you a racist when I said that your view is likely equal no matter what the ethnic group of the embryo is?

Quote

End Bringer equates the pro-choice position with racism again, and doesn't care if he offends:

"To deny them is the same as saying a black man is a human but that doesn't entail that we treat him the same throughout the entire human race. Back to the plantations, huh? And I do this knowing full well how you feel about it DB." - June 08, 2008, 02:07:51 AM.

Again, yes your reasoning is the exact same as behind racism. You say slippery-slope doesn't matter then get offended when shown where it leads. YOu've only yourself to blame DB.

Quote

End Bringer states that pro-choicers are stupid, illogical and irrational:

"And as you've shown logic, common sense, and reason can go out the window to a pro-abortionists." - June 08, 2008, 05:29:20 PM.

Oh brother, do I even have to point out the difference between those things and being smart, logical, and rational while simply not caring (as has been mentioned numerous times) when one wants to do something while looking for a reason to justify it? Was it you or Cop. who said smart people can believe in silly things?

Quote

End Bringer implies that Dannyboy lacks a functioning brain. Twice:

DB - "The two are in similar circumstances - neither has a functioning brain, neither can survive independently, both depend entirely upon their surroundings for their continued existence."

EB - "No the major difference being the former is alive and the latter is dead. Kind of self-evident but then you have shown a remarkable talent for missing the obvious. Much like Cop. your above description seems to fit yourself to a tea."

Where's the date and time for this one?

Quote

and...

DB - "So, personhood resides in the brain..? Embryos dont have a brain."

EB - "Neither do you DB" - Yesterday at 01:47:03 AM

Yeah, we're the only one's name-calling, you're right.

Alright, you're the only one's explicitly name-calling. Feel better?

Though the two above implicit's were meant to be more in jest (when I call someone stupid and mean it I'll explicitly say it as I did to Bryan), while the others are simply descriptions of your reasoning. Hardly the same as accusations of being a bigot that both you and Trent have asserted, but fail to prove.

Quote

P.S. - Trent, sorry to hear about your ex's guinea pig. i hope there's no suggestion of foul play.

Crap, I'm going to be discovered.

Trent · « **Reply #29 on:** June 12, 2008, 07:02:33 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on June 11, 2008, 02:27:02 PM

I know, DB tried and failed miserably. Even more so when one sees how much he tried to dodge the Laws of Identity and Biogenesis with such excuses as "they don't say how one should be treated" and "it doesn't refer to personhood". The only question at issue in abortion is whether it's a human being or not. And has been numerously stated it's a scientific fact that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception.

A scientific fact that it's human, but a being? What makes a "being?" Just biological tissue that happens to be human tissue? I don't think Dannyboy failed at all. I think he was dead on. Saying he failed is not the same as him actually having failed.

Quote

I know. It's a burden of proof that has been left to the pro-life side. And it's a burden that has been met- it is a human being by default.

Expand on "scientific fact" and explain just what makes it a human being. I either don't understand quite how this makes you the instant victor.

Quote

And this has already been explained upon be the issue of whether an acorn becomes an oak. An acorn never becomes an oak it is an oak.

It's not an oak tree, though. ...I'm pretty sure trees are bigger than that, shaped differently, and pretty green up top during the better half of the year.

Quote

It's simply an oak in an immature stage in life.

And one that has the potential to become an oak tree, just as a human embryo is (according to our view) a human with the potential to become a human being.

Quote

So too is an embryo a human being at an immature stage in life.

I wouldn't call an acorn an oak tree, but I sure as hell would call it an oak or an oak acorn.

I wouldn't call an embryo a human being, but I sure as hell would call it a human or a human embryo.

Quote

The only thing that is developing is age and the arbitrary characteristics that come with age.

I'd hardly call a brain, body, or internal organs "arbitrary." O_o

Quote

I know. I already outlined the difference between governmental laws and God's/nature's laws.

Then why did you take a purely governmental law and try to use it as support?

Quote

A corpse's rights coming more from respect to those who pass on than anything else.

Although I'm pretty sure the corpse itself doesn't give a d--n and nothing bad will befall the corpse. Any who cared about them might be impacted, but only because of the opinions and emotions that contributed to the "rights" being constructed. There is no actual, objective damage done if a corpse's "rights" are infringed upon, and let's face it, eventually the thing is going to fall apart anyway.

Quote

What is relevant to the issue of abortion in this matter is that a woman's "rights" to control her own body to this extent is a govermental law that does not supersede the unborn human being's right to life.

And the suggested law against abortion is a governmental law that does not supersede a woman's right to control her own body. Works both ways. The question is, depending on the circumstances, which right should be honored over the other, since they're in conflict?

Quote

Especially given the numerous laws that do restrict what one can do with one's own body.

Because they cause harm to said body. Abortion doesn't cause harm to the woman's body. In many cases it helps in the long run.

Quote

Hehe. Seems I don't have to 'look' for a way as I've already outlined the numerous reasons

Questionable reasons...

Quote

why abortion is tantamount to gunning some one on the street (or arguably worse).

Because rape victims should be stuck with the possibly economically impossible task of raising a child at the cost of any dreams for the future they might have had, because a miniscule biological appendage with no brain or emotions of its own has greater right to life than they do.

Quote

DB has tried the lame defense of this being a complicated issue,

Lame defense my big toe. (I meant to say "posterior," but at that moment I stubbed my toe. For the moment, I hate that part of me more. o_x ) You insist that it's not complicated, but the only thing you do is repeat yourself without explaining why it's actually not complicated or why your arguments work. You fail to explain why a mother in whatever of a number of various circumstances might affect the future of her and/or her unborn child should not be allowed to abort that child if those circumstances make it the overall most beneficial choice, and if you fail to explain that basic scenario, you're failing to make a case at all, because that's the case you're trying to make.

Quote

when I've shown it's not complicated at all.

No. It appears that you've spent more time saying you have than actually trying to show this, but I'm not going to jump to the conclusion of saying you're not trying just yet. You haven't done anything more than insist that an acorn is an oak tree without sufficiently arguing the reasoning for that, although I'm pretty sure by this point that the two sides aren't quite comunicating effectively because of some pointed definition differences...

Quote

Thus is why anyone who tries to make it more complicated than it is, can be said to already have abortion as the goal while looking for any reason to justify it on the way.

And why anyone who tries to make it simpler than it is, can be said to already have anti-abortion as the goal while looking for a reason to justify that on the way.

Quote

So what? Then it becomes the mentally disabled who are killed for not being at a certain end of the spectrum.

And that has what to do with this question? I'm not saying a mental disabled person is not a person, and I'm pretty sure mentally disabled people aren't unborn children, so I'm equally sure it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Red herrings get a resounding "So what?" from me.

Quote

Then it becomes an ethnic group. Then a group with a particular belief. Then the Jews. That's what's what Trent. If human rights are placed on a spectrum where the line to decide who can live and who can die can be placed anywhere the there is no clearer proof that another Holocaust is at the end of the road in this line of thinking.

Which has nothing to do with abortion, so take it to another thread. Spectrum, or border. Either way, at some point there's more blue in the mix than red, and that's where human rights either begin or end, depending on which color is which quality. So really, a spectrum has a borderline anyway, and that borderline is the only part that matters in the context of this discussion. The only question is at what point something can be considered a person--"how much" is a red herring issue, so for a third time: "So... WHAT?!"

Quote

Non-sensical double talk. Absolutely no one has a sense of what personhood is in a clear fashion.

Then we have no clear sense either way on whether an embryo has rights or not, and no way of knowing. So why do you act like you have the answer? A hunch, is it?

Quote

That's why personhood is an arbitrary characteristic in the issue of abortion, that pro-abortionists made up to make abortion more acceptable to the public.

What? The thing that determines whether something has human rights is arbitrary to the question of whether something has human rights?! Well, dip me in gravy and call me a cow, I have not heard that one before.

Quote

As I told DB this is like saying "I can kill children based on IQ. I have no clear fix on how many IQ points they need to live, but they're stupid." Sad.

A brain and its intelligence quotient are two different things. Having a brain and having a perfectly or exceptionally functional one aren't the same thing, nor the same question.

Quote

Unfortunately as the issue is on killing human beings, then it seems you better have a d--n great amount of certainty in your view. If your killing a child based on it's nonpersoonhood then you better have a concrete idea of what personhood is.

A certain level of biological development in which an unborn child can be considered its own person moreso than a part of another. Personally, I base this on having a brain. Not being exceptionally interested in the pregnancy process, I haven't much idea at what point in what month a baby has developed a brain that is rudimentarily functional enough to be considered a working brain, but the people who have a direct impact on laws in this case either know, or are advised by those who do. If they happen to agree with my standard, I'm sure they know where that standard is.

Quote

Otherwise you're showing the attitude of not having a clue, but killing something anyway. This callousness is why, David and myself have repeatedly said that the debate over abortion has long been over.

If it's over, why are we and so many others still talking about it? XD

Quote

Abortionists simply don't care

Again with the imaginary motives.

Quote

In showing what 'potential personhood' means. I utterly reject this.

Because of thought, or blind emotion?

Quote

And like I said that you don't seem bothered that the line is hazy, means that the line can be moved to make the one-week old baby be on the 'abortion allowed' end of the spectrum, given that all your characteristics seem to include the baby as well. And this isn't even going into the issue of partial birth abortion and euphenasia.

Hazy isn't as bad as blurry, and blurry sure as hell ain't as bad as not known. In this case "hazy" is intended to mean slight uncertainty that isn't big enough to really make a difference. My characteristics have pointedly focused on a working brain, which I'm quite sure a one-week old baby has, so burn the strawman and get on with the real debate, will you?

Quote

And it's a question that has long been answered: a person is a person at the moment a human being is concieved.

That's not an answer, that's just what you say the answer is. Since you haven't told us quite enough about why it's so bleeding simple, it's not an "answer," merely a suggestion.

Quote

Because a human being is de facto a person.

And an oak tree is de facto a tree. But, that acorn it dropped on the ground isn't a tree, though it may well become one. I'm pretty sure neither sperm nor egg are human beings, so they're not persons--though they may become one at a later time; I'm contending that an embryo is not a human being, so it's not a person--though they may become one at a later time. But all three are certainly human--human sperm, human egg, human embryo. Much like that oak acorn is still oak.

Quote

A clear certain point. The fact that it means most types of abortions (the vast majority being motivated by self-interest in one's life-style)

And a good piece by a more trouble motivation. I don't give a rat's butt either way about the others--I'm not going to fault them for worrying about their own lives, they are their lives and living is the point of life, yes?

Quote

can't be performed without it being a clear case of murder, is what makes pro-abortionists reject this, as abortion is the end goal.

I've been contending along with Dannyboy that it isn't such a certain point at all--that an embryo/etc. is even a human being, let alone the person that necessitates. And no, you're not quite right. Abortion is not the end goal; abortion is a means to an end. What do you think we're doing, killing embryos for sport, like hunters out for fun in the sun? What a joke.

Quote

Alright perhaps under this definition of 'tools' food wouldn't fit, but it sounds like any type of medicine would.

Medicine is a tool used to make up for the body's inability to handle a situation for itself, yes. But in most cases the body's development does not depend on this--when it does, it's because the body's got a defect that sets it apart from the usual human's development. Let's not confuse construction with maintenence.

Quote

I guess when one can't answer when one doesn't have one. Sleep well.

I guess you don't know that people have limited patience for ridiculous misrepresentations of their views. Eventually you just don't care about answering them anymore, because they practically scream out their own flaws at any passersby.

Quote

Now I'm laughing that you think 'insulting' means 'name calling'. Sure I've insulted, but mostly because as DB showed he can be offended to his reasoning be described as the same behind the Holocaust even if it is true.

I haven't called any names, though I've flung a few retaliatory insults (as seems the general custom on this forum). So I assumed you were just using a loose definition of "name-calling" rather than, you know, actually accusing me of name-calling. (If you're referring to the use of the word "bigot," note that I was trying to provide actual constuctive criticism by pointing out that such behavior makes one look like a bigot... not actually calling him a bigot. There's a rather big, and important, difference there.)

Quote

And you think you can for taking a comment about abortionists being uncaring (which given your above callousness is true) as being motivated by hatred towards abortionists? Spare us the hypocrisy.

Is there another viable reason for the blatant and pointless ad hominem attacks, then? If so, I'd love to hear it. Abortionists have repeatedly made known motivations other than not caring. So make known another reason and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and grant that you two may not simply be displaying distaste with those who oppose their righteous opinions.

Quote

SURE! I DON'T CARE! THAT'S WHY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT KIDS BEING BORN INTO HOPELESS CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE THE MOTHER ISN'T CAPABLE OF CARING FOR THEM AND COULDN'T ABORT THE PREGNANCY BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE CLAIMED IT WAS "WRONG." I DON'T CARE! THAT'S WHY I'M WORRIED ABOUT RAPE VICTIMS BEING STUCK WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CARING FOR AND FEEDING A CHILD THEY DIDN'T WANT AND MAYBE EVEN CAN'T AFFORD, SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID IT WAS "WRONG" TO ABORT! I DON'T CARE! THAT'S WHY I CARE, RIGHT?!

Quote

Highly emotional, but utterly empty rhetoric, though it does prove my statement that you simply want abortion to be an end with any justification you can look for along the way.

Actually, all it does is refute the "abortionists don't care" line.

Quote

Made especially worse by the fact that all you seem to care for is a life-style is being interrupted rather than a life.

Because intense poverty is just discomfort and not worth thinking about, right? Tell that to my currently-homeless coworker and his just-as-homeless family and he'd probably break your nose.

Quote

If all that was at issue was simply taking care of the baby, there are systems in place when the mother is unable or unwilling to do so.

Indeed. Abortion is one such system. Adoption is another. And so on, and so on. They have their pros and cons for both mother and child, and none of them should be discounted. I never said I favored abortion over all else, after all. I just think the option should remain open.

Quote

Well then you've certainly failed when you accused David of being motivated by hatred for abortionists. And as you've failed to step up to prove this is indeed the case, I suggest you shut up.

He made an accusation first. I was merely responding. And in case you have your chronology in a jumble, the resolution in question came after that.

Trent · « **Reply #30 on:** June 12, 2008, 07:47:04 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on June 12, 2008, 12:49:30 AM

Quote from: Dannyboy on June 11, 2008, 03:44:16 PM
Right.

Let me try to cut through some of this tinsel.

Your continued habit to simply start over doesn't make your position any better than the first time.

Nor does your continued shuffle between stating your ideas, mocking the opposition, and pointedly neglecting to expand on why your ideas are as right as you say.

Quote

Quote
We agree that a human life begins at conception. We disagree about whether or not said life is a human being/person prior to viability - EB and David say it is, Trent and i suspect not.

And we say so because it is a biological fact that it is a human being. You've brought up the 'argueing against science' line in this thread, but that description fits you and Trent more in this case DB.

A biological fact that it's human. If you want to go further and say "being," then tell us, what is a "being?"

Quote

Quote
However, a major part of this debate has been the assertion that a particular right (the right to life) applies to embryos by definition, since they are human and this is alleged to be an inalienable human right. Any suggestion that this might not be the case has led to accusations of beliefs-likely-to-precipitate-genocide, since EB especially feels that if exceptions are made for any sub-section of humanity then it will automatically follow that the Jews or the Blacks will be next.

Given how every criteria that let's you kill a human being at the embryionic stage applies to someone who is clearly a human being under some other condition (I've still yet to hear what makes most of your conditions differ from an embryo and an unconcious person), the accusations are spot on. More so as they are historically shown to be the case.

Last I checked, the brain's activity during unconsciousness or sleep falls perfectly in line with normal functionality, as normally humans spend two thirds of their life asleep.

Quote

Quote
He also dismisses the notion of anything other than a definite unarguable line, beyond which all individuals must qualify for a certain right, and places this line at the point of conception.

And proudly. Because as the issue is whether or not you can kill a thing you better have a definite unarguable grasp of what it is. That you're 'uncertain' whether you are killing innocent human beings, but decide to do/allow it anyway is appalling and, yes, evil.

It's not like we're looking at a twelve-month-long gray area, EB. I think that even given what haze there is, we have a clear enough idea to be confident with.

Quote

Quote
To test the consistency of this position, let us substitute a different human right - the right to vote.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh this is rich. Need I remind you the difference between a governmental right which this clearly falls under and an inalienable right which are the laws of God/nature that supersede governmental rights. Your continuous equivocating and dancing around provides no end of amusement DB, but it's an apples to oranges example. Right to life is an inherent right to a human being. The right to vote isn't.

Shockingly, I'm in partial agreement. Or are you just in partial agreement with me? Bah, who cares what direction it's going in...

Quote

Quote
Does the denial of this right to under-18s give us cause to worry that the slippery-slope principle (so often invoked here) will lead to the eventual denial of voting rights to blacks or Jews or women? EB's position would suggest that this might be a worry. If it isn't a cause for concern, why not?

Call me crazy, but because the right to vote is not an inalienable human right as the right to life is. Or the simple fact that voting is based on the inherently gradual but stable principle of time/age, while you've failed to show personhood is indeed gradual (and under your criteria can seem to be in a state of flux depending on when one is asleep)?

I'm going to ignore the already-addressed strawman and focus on the issue of to what degree this applies. I'd like to point out that this is not a human right. It's a right afforded to citizens of the country in question. Tourists are humans, but not allowed to vote.

The example can apply to the point in illustrating how one's views could conclude there's cause to worry about unjust withholding of the right, however.

Quote

Quote
Another relavent comparison to draw is EB's point about unconscious or sedated adults not qualifying for personhood by our standard of personality and conscious thought. It should be noted that at not all times in my adult life will i be capable of voting sensibly - when i am asleep is a prime example, but sometimes (occasionally) i become very foolish as the result of alcohol. Are my voting rights taken away from me at such times, or is there any suggestion that they should be? No.

I'm still waiting for even one relevant comparison in this, as it's another clear case of you flip-flopping around. And under your standard those rights apparently should be taken. It's that you admit they aren't that shows an inconsistency and hypocrisy in your view.

I've given it to you: All human beings sleep and fall unconscious when they take a significant knock to the head or are sedated enough. It's a normal, functional characteristic of a human being and should be treated like one. I've yet to meet a man or woman, or child, of any race, age, or ethnicity, that does not sleep.

Quote

Quote
Likewise (unless the Abortion=Genocide crowd can come up with any convincing reason why not), it is reasonable to suppose that the gradualistic criteria of personhood would not necessarily lapse anytime someone fell asleep.

According to your scenerio you've openly admited that not all times in your adult life will you show personhood. So according to your criteria personhood does seem to lapse. And it's this fact that is one amoung the long list of reasons you've failed to refute, though assert a denial, that makes your arguement fail.

Strawmen fail by default, so on this point you were already wrong before proven so.

Quote

Quote
i am also interested in EB's somewhat confused position on brain-death. He asserts that a brain-dead adult is dead, full-stop, but denies that personhood resides in the brain, and mocks the suggestion that personhood could be linked to a single bodily organ.

Yep. Mostly for the fact that I shouldn't really need to say what an arguement for 'He's a person based on the physical characteristic he posses' sounds like. And my position on this matter is as simple as it can get. Personhood resides in the human being. A human being is dead when his brain dies the same way as if his head was chopped off. Clear, simple, easy, but then the abortion issue has always been a simple one.

So a human being is no longer a human being when it ceases to have a functioning brain, but can still be a human being when it doesn't have a functioning brain.

...

Yes, the issue is a simple one. Score one for the abortionists.

Quote

Quote
Interesting that in a brain-dead adult the only part that is biologically dead is the brain, so it's hard to see what other conclusion one can draw from his insistence that these patients are truly dead. Waiting for clarification.

And as I said another vital organ can be damaged where the human being is clearly dead, and the brain still fires off linguring impulses. Are you going to say a person stabbed through the heart is still alive and a person if the brain is still making his foot twitch? Or is personhood suddenly in the heart now?

The heart is a life-support system. In this case it is the loss of life that causes the loss of "person" status, not the loss of the heart. An unborn child, in any stage, has life and a system to support it, even if that system is external and not its own. If a person with a functioning brain were kept alive by a mechanical substitute for a heart or lungs or some other vital part, but still had a fully-functioning brain and the ability to use it, they would remain a person. Most pointedly because they would not be a vegetable.

Note that neither I nor DB has cited a self-sufficient internal, biological life support system as a criteria for personhood.

Quote

Quote
i think i can safely assume that you're not medical. A brain-dead person may well not have 'died', in the sense of having had a cardiac arrest, but just through trauma, or infection, or hypoxia they have suffered an irreversible brain injury. If personhood does not reside in the brain then one wonders why someone is not 'dead' according to you when some other organ stops functioning and has to be replicated by machines (i.e. kidney failure).

Actually as I said that being brain dead, yet having the body parts maintained by machines is no different then cutting off his head and having the body parts maintained by machines. As such it's exactly like having died in a cardiac arrest. Though I consider a person being dead when they die of kidney failure to be rather self-evident. That a simplistic organ (when compared to the brain everything else are tinker toys) stops functioning simply isn't enough to kill a human being. Indeed, it's when the creatine and other fluid levels rise to fatal levels is when you die. As such the human being isn't dead when the organ's functions can be taken over by a machine. Not so in the case of brain-death as the human being is dead.

Good work. Incidentally, it is only the brain that cannot logically be replaced while still maintaining the life of the "human being."

Quote

Quote
No, my argument was very specifically that the owner gets sentenced to death if his ox kills a man or a woman when he knew it had a tendency to attack passers-by, but if it kills a slave then he only has to pay the owner some money.

Dropped everything else, huh? And this is still an obvious misrepresentation of the passages as it doesn't say that a fine is placed on slaves when he knew the ox was dangerous. It clearly says if he didn't have prior warning all that would happen is that he'd lose an ox if it killed a free man. As such if he had no prior warning and the ox killed a slave he would lose the ox and be fined. Frankly the owner would be punished even more in the scenerio of the slave dieing.

But not so much as if a free man had died, if I'm getting what DB is saying.

Quote

Quote
If your only response is to misrepresent what i said then i assume that you are unconsciously blocking out the immorality of your holy book.

What's this I see? An objective standard of morality and immorality being admitted (implicitly) from a moral reletavist?

More likely he's trying to point out an internal moral inconsistency within your own religious framework. I'm going to stay away from actually arguing for or against that case, as it's somewhat off the point, but I think what he's trying to say is that even within the Bible there are shades of a "spectrum" going on in terms of "personhood."

Quote

Quote
Well, as i think i said in the first (now lost-forever) abortion thread, if people of your view point aren't calling for people who have or carry out abortions to be sentenced for murder then you are acting hypocritically.

Not really. This is a war of ideas, and as in any war it behooves us to employ the tactic that will give us the best results. As the current law is what's the problem it's only prudent to go after that first. In fact it's Scriptually called upon to work within the system, at least initially. There's not a doubt in my mind those who choose and perform abortion are murderers, but as this is a type of murder that is currently legal the only thing that would be hypocritical is to come to this conclusion and not oppose it by moral means.

I have to register my respect for that statement there. That's more or less how I think, minus the "Spiritually" part. More like "intellectually" and "instinctively."

[

Quote

quote]Also, the idea that you haven't been name-calling? Just to itemise (and this did not take me long):

End Bringer equates the pro-choice position with racism:

"Saying it's human but doesn't mean it has human rights is like saying a black man may be human but that doesn't mean he's afforded human rights." - June 07, 2008, 04:55:16 PM.

Yes, I'm saying your position equates to racisim. How's that calling you a racist when I said that your view is likely equal no matter what the ethnic group of the embryo is?

Quote

End Bringer equates the pro-choice position with racism again, and doesn't care if he offends:

"To deny them is the same as saying a black man is a human but that doesn't entail that we treat him the same throughout the entire human race. Back to the plantations, huh? And I do this knowing full well how you feel about it DB." - June 08, 2008, 02:07:51 AM.

Again, yes your reasoning is the exact same as behind racism. You say slippery-slope doesn't matter then get offended when shown where it leads. YOu've only yourself to blame DB.[/quote]

Except in this case, the black man and all other human ethnic groups are held to the same standard and all pass at the same time and same place, so racism it is not. It's a different case. Not to mention one with relatively (and massively) more reasonable criteria.

Quote

Quote
End Bringer states that pro-choicers are stupid, illogical and irrational:

"And as you've shown logic, common sense, and reason can go out the window to a pro-abortionists." - June 08, 2008, 05:29:20 PM.

Oh brother, do I even have to point out the difference between those things and being smart, logical, and rational while simply not caring (as has been mentioned numerous times) when one wants to do something while looking for a reason to justify it? Was it you or Cop. who said smart people can believe in silly things?

Stupid, irrational, and illogical are different than smart, rational, logical, but just plain wrong, though. I suppose it's one or the other if we're wrong, but no use jumping to conclusions as to which one, yes?

Quote

Quote
End Bringer implies that Dannyboy lacks a functioning brain. Twice:

DB - "The two are in similar circumstances - neither has a functioning brain, neither can survive independently, both depend entirely upon their surroundings for their continued existence."

EB - "No the major difference being the former is alive and the latter is dead. Kind of self-evident but then you have shown a remarkable talent for missing the obvious. Much like Cop. your above description seems to fit yourself to a tea."

Where's the date and time for this one?

Why? You're not going to claim you never said those things, are you? Because you did.

Quote

Quote
and...

DB - "So, personhood resides in the brain..? Embryos dont have a brain."

EB - "Neither do you DB" - Yesterday at 01:47:03 AM

Yeah, we're the only one's name-calling, you're right.

Alright, you're the only one's explicitly name-calling. Feel better?

The above was p r e t t y explicit, methinks.

Quote

Though the two above implicit's were meant to be more in jest (when I call someone stupid and mean it I'll explicitly say it as I did to Bryan), while the others are simply descriptions of your reasoning. Hardly the same as accusations of being a bigot that both you and Trent have asserted, but fail to prove.

I would like to re-state that I only said David was making himself look like a bigot. Subtle, yet crucial, distinction.

Quote

P.S. - Trent, sorry to hear about your ex's guinea pig. i hope there's no suggestion of foul play.

Crap, I'm going to be discovered.

[/quote]

I didn't say anything happened. I just haven't seen or heard from either ex or pet in two years, so they both could have been run over by steamrollers and I would be none the wiser. But no news is typically good news (if boring news), so I'm going to lean toward the idea that they're still living.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #31 on:** June 13, 2008, 11:21:53 AM »

EB,

Your continued habit to simply start over doesn't make your position any better than the first time.

i was not "starting over", i was summarising the important points thus far and presenting a new argument. If you think that i missed out anything important then please include it, preferably without your (apparently) obligatory cheap-shot.

"We agree that a human life begins at conception. We disagree about whether or not said life is a human being/person prior to viability - EB and David say it is, Trent and i suspect not."

And we say so because it is a biological fact that it is a human being.

You cannot (for the nth time) prove this by definition. i could call a dead body a 'human being' but that wouldn't make it worthy of human rights. The only biological fact is that a human life begins at conception. Anything over and above that you need to provide an argument in support of, and as Trent says, you have used up far more space on this thread proclaiming yourself to be the winner than you have actually debating.

A continued flaw in your position is the inconsistency in how you view the status of embryos and brain-dead adults. Look at it this way, a human's biological life starts at conception and ends when their cellular function ceases (permenantly). You wish to deny personhood to the brain-dead, but you can't get away with just saying "Because they're dead", because biologically they aren't, and if you extend personhood to embryos on the basis of the 'biological fact' of their humanity then you must also extend it to the brain-dead (unless you have other qualifications to invoke).

In other words, you can't claim that personhood is synonymous with biological human life if you exclude brain-dead adults from the equation. It's contradictory.

My argument is that there is a precedent for every adjustment my view on the matter makes to yours, and i have illustrated this by discussing the qualifications that exist in the right to vote. i am not, as you seem to mistakenly think, saying that the two rights are exactly the same.

Right to life is an inherent right to a human being. The right to vote isn't.

So? You successfully ignore all the important comparisons that can be drawn between these two different kinds of rights by focusing only on the fact that they are different. i know they are different. The point is that voting rights are a close model for my view of personhood, and as such, they show that my position is consistent.

the simple fact that voting is based on the inherently gradual but stable principle of time/age, while you've failed to show personhood is indeed gradual (and under your criteria can seem to be in a state of flux depending on when one is asleep)?

i have already addressed this, and you've apparently ignored it. Why should personhood lapse when one is unconscious if voting rights (which are, as i said, a good model for my view of personhood) do not do so? And yes, voting rights are based on a gradual progression, just as i feel the right to life is, but apparently no one considers it likely that this will lead to the removal of voting rights to other groups. This shows your slippery slope argument to be little more than emotional appeals and special pleading.

According to your scenerio you've openly admited that not all times in your adult life will you show personhood. So according to your criteria personhood does seem to lapse.

*Sigh* Voting rights provide a model for a kind of right which begins at a certain pre-agreed point in a human life (despite the fact that certain people may well reach the criteria of eligability for it before that time), and which does not lapse from that point until death, even if the person in question may not exhibit all the qualities which justify that right 24/7. The fact that the two are different kinds of rights does not invalidate the comparison.

Are you going to say a person stabbed through the heart is still alive and a person if the brain is still making his foot twitch? Or is personhood suddenly in the heart now?

It's all about the brain EB, and i suspect that you know it. We can replace a failing heart, for goodness sake, and the person will be the same one that they were before. Can't replace a failing brain. You may claim that is because of the brain's immense complexity compared to other organs, and there is some truth in that. However, it is a fact that almost any other organ which stops working can be replicated by machines without compromising personhood. i see guys coming into the hospital for dialysis every day, their kidneys are useless, but they're still the same people. Now, what we can do is replicate the brain's regulatory effect on the cardiovascular system with drugs in an ITU setting, but once the brain is dead we consider personhood to be absent, despite the fact that the rest of their body may be healthy and capable of surviving (with support) for years. Given that, and the major changes in personality and identity that a simple head injury can cause, i find it hard to see how you can deny that personhood resides in the brain.

"No, my argument was very specifically that the owner gets sentenced to death if his ox kills a man or a woman when he knew it had a tendency to attack passers-by, but if it kills a slave then he only has to pay the owner some money."

Dropped everything else, huh? And this is still an obvious misrepresentation of the passages as it doesn't say that a fine is placed on slaves when he knew the ox was dangerous.

Well, i guess that's how you can resolve the moral dissonance to your own satisfaction. Despite the fact that 21:30 and 21:31 both obviously refer to instances where there has been prior warning of the ox's behaviour, and no clear indication that 21:32 is a stand-alone verse. It seems like a forced ad hoc interpretation to me, but whatever.

And no, i haven't 'dropped' everything else. The idea that one can beat one's slaves with impunity so long as they dont die right away still sucks as far as i'm concerned, but i'm a little weary of arguing biblical morality with you.

Though the two above implicit's were meant to be more in jest (when I call someone stupid and mean it I'll explicitly say it as I did to Bryan), while the others are simply descriptions of your reasoning. Hardly the same as accusations of being a bigot that both you and Trent have asserted, but fail to prove.

Well, just so you know, implicit suggestions of stupidity come across as insults when (by some failure of my psychic powers) i am unable to pick up the fact that you don't really mean it. Also, my exact words were "Following your example of name-calling in this debate, i should really be denouncing you as a vicious mysogynist bigot", which i went on to say was a reference to the slippery slope from your position. A reference, therefore, to your reasoning, not your actual person.

cimics · « **Reply #32 on:** June 13, 2008, 05:37:45 PM »

Dannyboy --

Let me offer what I think is the reason the right to vote analogy breaks down.
The right to vote is directly for our collective benefit not for our individual benefit. It is so that our society will be a good one. Individuals ultimately benefit from having a good society, but that is an indirect benefit.

So we can deny a particular class of individuals the right to vote if doing so is for our collective benefit. Children shouldn't vote because they (generally) cannot be trusted to vote intelligently. If the government is over a particular geographic area, then people outside that geographic area do not have the right to vote because we deem it in our collective interest for people who live under the government to be the ones who vote for it. And we can draw an arbitrary line (e.g. age 18) with respect to who gets to vote and who does not if that arbitrary line serves our collective interest. One could say it does serve our collective interest because, though it may result in losing input from people who could vote intelligently (and gaining input from people who cannot), the fairness and workability of a consistent approach is deemed to outweigh those losses. Because the right is for the benefit of the collective, denying it to a particular individual, even "wrongly" can be permitted, because the right is not directly for the individual's benefit.

The right to life, however, is directly for the individual's benefit. Therefore, any denial of the right to life must be justified for that particular individual and not on a collective basis.

Copernicus · « **Reply #33 on:** June 13, 2008, 07:34:32 PM »

Quote from: cimics on June 13, 2008, 05:37:45 PM

The right to life, however, is directly for the individual's benefit. Therefore, any denial of the right to life must be justified for that particular individual and not on a collective basis.

I consider this conclusion false, because society makes life and death decisions for its own good. Capital punishment and war are examples where the collective will overrides the right of the individual. In the matter of pregnancies, it is the conflict between the individual rights of two parties that is at issue. The woman's right to control her own fate is considered paramount up until what has traditionally been called the "quickening" phase of the pregnancy. After that, society begins to take official notice of an emergent human being with separate civil rights.

I would go further and point out that "rights" only make sense in the context of society. They are part of the social fabric, and they always pertain to relationships between members of a society. To claim that pre-natal fetuses have individual rights is simply to beg the question.

cimics · « **Reply #34 on:** June 13, 2008, 10:33:52 PM »

Quote

I consider this conclusion false, because society makes life and death decisions for its own good. Capital punishment and war are examples where the collective will overrides the right of the individual. In the matter of pregnancies, it is the conflict between the individual rights of two parties that is at issue. The woman's right to control her own fate is considered paramount up until what has traditionally been called the "quickening" phase of the pregnancy. After that, society begins to take official notice of an emergent human being with separate civil rights

What you're really talking about in the life context is a balancing approach. The interests of the individual can yield to the interests of society if society's interests are weighty enough, but you still have to take the individual's interest into account. However, you don't have to balance the interests of the individual against the interests of society in the voting context. It's all interests of society. That's an important distinction between the two "rights" at issue.

The implication of your argument is also that the woman's right to control her own body, like the right to life, is an individually-focused right . . . but my intent in my post was to explain why the voting rights analogy is not particularly compelling, not to engage (yet) in all aspects of the abortion debate. One step at a time, kemosabe.

Quote

I would go further and point out that "rights" only make sense in the context of society. They are part of the social fabric, and they always pertain to relationships between members of a society. To claim that pre-natal fetuses have individual rights is simply to beg the question.

But some rights are individually-focused while others are collectively-focused, for want of a better way to put it. The right to life is individually focused -- the interests of the individual are directly considered important, even if those interests must be balanced against collective interests. The right to vote is collectively focused -- it's accorded to individuals, but for the direct purpose of serving the collective interest.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #35 on:** June 15, 2008, 01:17:50 PM »

Cimics,

Although i am not 100% sure that your analysis of the difference between the right to vote and the right to life necessarily invalidate my analogy, would it make any difference if i substituted the legal 'age of consent'? The right to make one's own decisions about entering into sexual relations is surely an individual-focused affair.

Danny

cimics · « **Reply #36 on:** June 15, 2008, 02:23:57 PM »

Quote

Although i am not 100% sure that your analysis of the difference between the right to vote and the right to life necessarily invalidate my analogy, would it make any difference if i substituted the legal 'age of consent'? The right to make one's own decisions about entering into sexual relations is surely an individual-focused affair.

Indeed, that is a better analogy. Don't we err on the side of caution in determining the age of consent? And we do so to protect the minor, right?

Dannyboy · « **Reply #37 on:** June 15, 2008, 04:49:17 PM »

Yes, and erring on the side of caution is an argument that i am very sympathetic to in this debate. If no one else's rights were infringed thereby, i would doubtless be against abortion of any sort (global over-population crisis notwithstanding). However, a major difference between the age of consent and the right to life is that if we err too far on the side of caution with the right to life someone else's rights are definitely infringed. And that matters, not so much that it should change our decision about when we consider someone a person, but it does matter.

End Bringer · « **Reply #38 on:** June 16, 2008, 12:44:45 AM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on June 15, 2008, 04:49:17 PM

Yes, and erring on the side of caution is an argument that i am very sympathetic to in this debate. If no one else's rights were infringed thereby, i would doubtless be against abortion of any sort (global over-population crisis notwithstanding). However, a major difference between the age of consent and the right to life is that if we err too far on the side of caution with the right to life someone else's rights are definitely infringed. And that matters, not so much that it should change our decision about when we consider someone a person, but it does matter.

Flaw in that reasoning is one I've repeatedly pointed out in that a woman does not have a 'right' to do just anything with her body. There are a plethora of laws on the book that say that woman can't do just anything with her body and neither can men. As a right is a just claim to something, one can't say "I have a right to so-and-so, thus make a law giving me that right". And in the case of abortion it wouldn't be just her body anyway.

Though if you needed a point to make your analogy truly invalid DB, I could say the issue of abortion can be held in the context of a monarchy, communistic state, or even a dictatorship where the right to vote is pretty much a mute point, and it wouldn't change the issue of abortion one iota except in the method one uses to make it legal or illegal. The right to life is a transcendant right that government has no authority to either give or take away, no matter what type of government you find yourself living under. This is another reason why you're above statement of a right being infringed is also flawed. The right to life being a transcendant right means a government law allowing a woman the choice to do something to her body can not justify the violation of a transcendant right. Human law by it's very nature is lower than a higher law to which even governments are held under. This is exactly what was appealed to in the Declaration of Independance, the issue of slavery, the issue of segregation, and the Nuremburg trials.

In this, your analogy of the right to vote or even the right to drive a car is more similar to the right to an abortion. All are governmental man made rights founded on human law. When the law changes the right disappears. That's the nature of rights when the foundation is merely on man made laws.

End Bringer · « **Reply #39 on:** June 16, 2008, 02:43:00 PM »

Quote from: Trent on June 12, 2008, 07:02:33 AM

A scientific fact that it's human, but a being? What makes a "being?" Just biological tissue that happens to be human tissue? I don't think Dannyboy failed at all. I think he was dead on. Saying he failed is not the same as him actually having failed.

No, he failed as it is a scientific fact that it is indeed a human being. A human being is created from the moment of conception. It is simply a human being in a stage of life where the body is composed of a single cell. This is also covered under the laws of Identity and Biogenesis. DB tried to shuffle around this in an utterly hilarious attempt to try to make their focus on personhood or treatment. Reread the thread and you'll find that he has never addressed these points. He's simply tried to put them out of the context they were used for and now has abandoned this aspect of the discussion for his flawed analogy.

Quote

Expand on "scientific fact" and explain just what makes it a human being. I either don't understand quite how this makes you the instant victor.

Look up any biology book on the subject that's older than the 70s and you'll find that it's an irrefutable scientific fact that a human being is created from the moment of conception. That's where the human or any being's life cycle begins.

Quote

It's not an oak tree, though. ...I'm pretty sure trees are bigger than that, shaped differently, and pretty green up top during the better half of the year.

Obviously as a tree is simply the mature form of an oak. It's as asinine as saying a teenager is not an elderly person.

Quote

And one that has the potential to become an oak tree, just as a human embryo is (according to our view) a human with the potential to become a human being.

And an adult has the potential to reach 100 under such a view. That's pretty much a "Duh" kind of response Trent as growth and aging mean an immature thing obviously has the potential to mature. The person is inexcusably a human being at both points of being 50 or 100. His potential to reach that age has no barring on whether he's a human being when he's 50 simply because he hasn't matured to 100.

Quote

I wouldn't call an acorn an oak tree, but I sure as hell would call it an oak or an oak acorn.

I wouldn't call an embryo a human being, but I sure as hell would call it a human or a human embryo.

Then this is a semantics game. And one that is obviously weak given that I never called it an oak tree. I said an acorn is an immature oak. Thus it is an oak being. Obviously as a seed it's not a tree because the two represent different stages of maturity. So to is an embryo and an adult a human being at different stages of maturity.

Quote

I'd hardly call a brain, body, or internal organs "arbitrary." O_o

As a physical characteristic it is indeed arbitrary to the issue of being a human being. The only point it would matter is whether or not the being is alive without them at a certain point.

Quote

And the suggested law against abortion is a governmental law that does not supersede a woman's right to control her own body. Works both ways. The question is, depending on the circumstances, which right should be honored over the other, since they're in conflict?

No, as the right to life is an inalienable law no matter what kind of government is in power as I've made clear to DB. It automatically trumps a govermental law, especially one that is not upheld consistently as there are many laws that provent one from doing just anything with their own body.

Quote

Because they cause harm to said body. Abortion doesn't cause harm to the woman's body. In many cases it helps in the long run.

But it'sa their body. They say they have the right to do what they want with it. The matter of them wanting to harm it or help it is a mute point because if they have the right to do anything they want then they obviously can do anything they want to their body. And in the case of abortion it's not even just their body. It causes harm to the unborn human being's body. Or even under this 'potential human being' line it would be a harmful act against potentially someone else's body. In which case it's worse than simply underage smoking.

Quote

Questionable reasons...

One's you haven't even come close to refuting as all you've done amount's to your opinion of "I wouldn't...", and no stated reasoning behind it other than it would allow the performance of abortion.

Quote

Because rape victims should be stuck with the possibly economically impossible task of raising a child at the cost of any dreams for the future they might have had, because a miniscule biological appendage with no brain or emotions of its own has greater right to life than they do.

In which case more punishment is called on the rapist, no? That's the person who is guilty of a crime and deserving of punishment, no? And be it consent or rape victim the driving factor in all this seems to be wanting to maintain a life style at the cost of a life. Shameful.

Quote

You insist that it's not complicated, but the only thing you do is repeat yourself without explaining why it's actually not complicated or why your arguments work. You fail to explain why a mother in whatever of a number of various circumstances might affect the future of her and/or her unborn child should not be allowed to abort that child if those circumstances make it the overall most beneficial choice, and if you fail to explain that basic scenario, you're failing to make a case at all, because that's the case you're trying to make.

I've stated the reasoning why this is a simple issue numerous times in this thread. It is a simple issue when it comes to the facts themselves. None have been refuted. My arguemnets work for the simple reasons that they are scientificly supported, logiclly supporeted, and remains at a concrete point of saying when a thing is a thing. And as far the circumstances of when a mother can abort a child that have been touched on in this discussion has been when the circumstances is threw concentual sex or rape. In which case the benfit to come threw this is the lifestyle of the mother or perhaps even the father. As such there is no distinction between the unborn being having been concieved threw concentual means, rape, or incest and as a matter of being consistent I argue that abortion is unacceptable in such circumstances. The only circumstance in which an abortion would be allowed is when the pregnancy clearly threatens the life of the mother. Her life, not her life-style.

Quote

No. It appears that you've spent more time saying you have than actually trying to show this, but I'm not going to jump to the conclusion of saying you're not trying just yet. You haven't done anything more than insist that an acorn is an oak tree without sufficiently arguing the reasoning for that, although I'm pretty sure by this point that the two sides aren't quite comunicating effectively because of some pointed definition differences...

As I pointed above this is a simple strawman as I've never said an acorn is an oak tree. Reread the thread to see how I've shown this is not a complicated issue, but rather has to be made into one for abortionist to continue on.

Quote

And why anyone who tries to make it simpler than it is, can be said to already have anti-abortion as the goal while looking for a reason to justify that on the way.

I'm sure this parroting act may be a great debating strategy to you, but you should try coming up with an original thought sometime.

Quote

And that has what to do with this question? I'm not saying a mental disabled person is not a person, and I'm pretty sure mentally disabled people aren't unborn children, so I'm equally sure it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Red herrings get a resounding "So what?" from me.

No, because when you put rights on a sliding spectrum the logical conclusion and one affirmed by history is that such acts on par with slavery and the Holocaust are at the end of that road.

Quote

Which has nothing to do with abortion, so take it to another thread. Spectrum, or border. Either way, at some point there's more blue in the mix than red, and that's where human rights either begin or end, depending on which color is which quality. So really, a spectrum has a borderline anyway, and that borderline is the only part that matters in the context of this discussion. The only question is at what point something can be considered a person--"how much" is a red herring issue, so for a third time: "So... WHAT?!"

And the only reasoning you give behind where the line should be placed on red or blue is "I". In which case one can repeat "So....WHAT?!" Who cares what "you" think? That "you" wouldn't kill a mentally disabled person doesn't mean someone else isn't willing and thinks they're being reseanable. They can justify it in the same way you can justify abortion. "We can kill an unborn child because it's not a mentally developed human being. Menatlly disabled people aren't mentally developed human beings. Ergo we can kill them. Killing the unborn child can benefit the mother in the long run. Killing mentally disabled people can benefit society in the long run." And on and on and on.

Quote

Then we have no clear sense either way on whether an embryo has rights or not, and no way of knowing. So why do you act like you have the answer? A hunch, is it?

No, because as been stated numerous times personhood is a tail wagging the dog argument. The issues around abortion have been and will always be: Is it a human being? And inalienable human rights (note that it never says inalienable person rights). And has been shown threw biology, and the Laws of Identity and Biogenesis a human being is created from the moment of conception. Personhood is an inherent trait to a human being the same way volume is an inherent trait to a cube or sphere. Thus a person is created automatically when a human being is concieved. Simple, easy, and means abortion for the vast majority of circumstances is murder.

Quote

What? The thing that determines whether something has human rights is arbitrary to the question of whether something has human rights?! Well, dip me in gravy and call me a cow, I have not heard that one before.

Probably because personhood has never been the thing that determines human rights.

Quote

A brain and its intelligence quotient are two different things. Having a brain and having a perfectly or exceptionally functional one aren't the same thing, nor the same question.

Strawman, as what I was criticizing was this concept of 'uncertainty' you are OK with.

Quote

A certain level of biological development in which an unborn child can be considered its own person moreso than a part of another. Personally, I base this on having a brain. Not being exceptionally interested in the pregnancy process, I haven't much idea at what point in what month a baby has developed a brain that is rudimentarily functional enough to be considered a working brain, but the people who have a direct impact on laws in this case either know, or are advised by those who do. If they happen to agree with my standard, I'm sure they know where that standard is.

So above the functionality was not an issue, but now it is one? Riiight.

I can easily say "So what?" as the only justification behind this is what you personally think and you've shown to be contradicting on this issue of functionality. Who's to say the issue of a functionality is not relevant to someone else? It's also easy to point out you're basing personhood on a physical chacteristic of a brain much like Dred Scott based it on the physical characteristic of skin color. Though as the issue of being brain dead is a favorite to DB, it's also easy to see that even a corpse would be a person under this standard as they would have a brain. Doesn't fly.

Quote

If it's over, why are we and so many others still talking about it? XD

Because people who don't want to listen, not surprisingly don't listen.

Quote

Again with the imaginary motives.

I don't need to speculate about your motives as much as it's an observation of attitude.

Quote

Because of thought, or blind emotion?

As I have shown, thought. Blind emotion is more descriptive of your use of rape victims.

Quote

Hazy isn't as bad as blurry, and blurry sure as hell ain't as bad as not known. In this case "hazy" is intended to mean slight uncertainty that isn't big enough to really make a difference. My characteristics have pointedly focused on a working brain, which I'm quite sure a one-week old baby has, so burn the strawman and get on with the real debate, will you?

No, because as you've shown contradicting above with the issue of mentally disabled people you're characteristics of a working brain would seem to allow them on the "abortion allowed" end. YOu say it's not relevant to this issue, but your justifications make it relevant.

Quote

That's not an answer, that's just what you say the answer is. Since you haven't told us quite enough about why it's so bleeding simple, it's not an "answer," merely a suggestion.

Reread the thread. Though to copy you're debating skills this 'working brain' is not an answer, that's just what you say the answer is. It's not an "answer" merely a suggestion.

Quote

And an oak tree is de facto a tree. But, that acorn it dropped on the ground isn't a tree, though it may well become one. I'm pretty sure neither sperm nor egg are human beings, so they're not persons--though they may become one at a later time; I'm contending that an embryo is not a human being, so it's not a person--though they may become one at a later time.

And I've shown this is a weak scemantics game, as well as a strawman. An embryo is a human being, much the same way an acorn is an oak being as an oak tree is an oak being. Tree is something only you have made an issue of Trent.

Quote

But all three are certainly human--human sperm, human egg, human embryo. Much like that oak acorn is still oak.

Human baby, human child, human teenager, human adult. That's how you can know a fetus and embryo are human beings as a fetus and an embryo is just another stage of age/growth the same as a human adult.

Quote

And a good piece by a more trouble motivation. I don't give a rat's butt either way about the others--I'm not going to fault them for worrying about their own lives, they are their lives and living is the point of life, yes?

*snort* If you think you can live without concequensences then that simply shows you're inherently immature and irrational. A sociopath can consider 'living' to include murdering people. In fact that's another justification for the Holocaust and slavery. The Slave masters had their own lives and a living built on slavery. And it would also be a point to note that no matter what kind of standard is at issue you would be denying the unborn child's ability to live or have a life.

Quote

IAnd no, you're not quite right. Abortion is not the end goal; abortion is a means to an end. What do you think we're doing, killing embryos for sport, like hunters out for fun in the sun? What a joke.

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure the motivation is more of selfishness and the end goal being where you can engage in sexual activities without consequences. Preganancy always being a major consequence. If abortion was illegal..why...you may have to consider changing your behavior or owning up to the consequences. And that's unthinkable.

Quote

Medicine is a tool used to make up for the body's inability to handle a situation for itself, yes. But in most cases the body's development does not depend on this--when it does, it's because the body's got a defect that sets it apart from the usual human's development. Let's not confuse construction with maintenence.

Unfortunaetly this is an aspect that has shown to be relevant as DB has frequently attempted to make living independantly an issue. And the bodies development would indeed depend on the use of medication as since medicine helps a vast many people live longer it their lives are continued and their bodies are allowed to develop further than otherwise where they would be dead or weak and sickly. As such the mother womb would simply be a biological tool the same as medicine.

Quote

I guess you don't know that people have limited patience for ridiculous misrepresentations of their views. Eventually you just don't care about answering them anymore, because they practically scream out their own flaws at any passersby.

The fact that you've engaged in a lengthy reply shows this response to be rubbish. You don't have an answer.

Quote

I haven't called any names, though I've flung a few retaliatory insults (as seems the general custom on this forum). So I assumed you were just using a loose definition of "name-calling" rather than, you know, actually accusing me of name-calling. (If you're referring to the use of the word "bigot," note that I was trying to provide actual constuctive criticism by pointing out that such behavior makes one look like a bigot... not actually calling him a bigot. There's a rather big, and important, difference there.)

And I said to show where David was motivated by hate for abortionists which youre stated response was: "No, I'll rephrase that: it's actually making you a bigot."

Quote

Is there another viable reason for the blatant and pointless ad hominem attacks, then? If so, I'd love to hear it. Abortionists have repeatedly made known motivations other than not caring. So make known another reason and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and grant that you two may not simply be displaying distaste with those who oppose their righteous opinions.

Perhaps the confusion you are having is what you are uncaring towards. As shown by this thread and under the context that has been given in this thread it's the reasoning, logic, and consequences when it comes to abortion. You and DB have certainly proven this to be the case. Even you have admitted abortion is a means to an end, so you'll justify that means by anyway possible not caring is the reasoning behind it is reasonable or even right.

Quote

Actually, all it does is refute the "abortionists don't care" line.

About the rationality behind your reasonig. I'll certainly grant that you care about a rape victim, though more often than not when it comes to abortion it's more caring for yourself.

Quote

Because intense poverty is just discomfort and not worth thinking about, right? Tell that to my currently-homeless coworker and his just-as-homeless family and he'd probably break your nose.

Are you proposing to kill them? Because that's what it comes down to when you take the stand that a certain kind of life isn't worth living. Personally I see it as more a morally incumbency for us individuals to help those who need help.

Quote

Indeed. Abortion is one such system. Adoption is another. And so on, and so on. They have their pros and cons for both mother and child, and none of them should be discounted. I never said I favored abortion over all else, after all. I just think the option should remain open.

No, because the Holocaust was an option to get post war Germany back on it's feet. We'd settle national debt if we killed everyone on wellfare. Laws and rights means some kinds of options are never to be taken.

Quote

He made an accusation first. I was merely responding. And in case you have your chronology in a jumble, the resolution in question came after that.

Dear lord, I'm in Elenentry school with a "He started it." excuse.

Author Topic: Abortion 2 (Read 20258 times)