This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The latest trend in pro-abortion thinking

#161hunter_gohanPosted 2/22/2013 3:45:49 PM
because one argument that some people use is that, when it comes to the overwhelming majority of abortions (which do not result from rape), the pregnant mother willingly performed an action (i.e., engaging in consensual sexual-intercourse), for which *the only biological purpose* is the creation of the child she now wishes to have killed (sexual pleasure merely serves as a natural incentive for humans to engage in the reproductive act in question).


Our laws are not set up to enforce Christian morality on the populace. Having (consensual) sex is not illegal. No rights are lost upon doing so.

As this was simply another thing that Aristotle ignored, I'd like to see your answer to it Brandon. I've asked this multiple times in multiple threads; I started a thread specifically about it once. All I ever got from pro-lifers was complete and total silence. The only opinion from a pro-lifer I ever heard was a news article about the leader of a pro-life movement in Wales vehemently opposing even presumed consent laws(He, ironically, was all about consent all of sudden; eventhough, you're still perfectly free to opt out.)

"It's another organism that is using her internal organs to stay alive. I don't have the right to force you to let me use your internal organs, why should a non-sapient single celled life have that right? I can't even force that on a corpse. Where'd this right to life go when I'm laying in a hospital bed dying of kidney failure? "single celled organism requires government to force women to let it use their internal organs" = right to life "Actual person requires government to force a corpse to let it use their internal organs" = .......right to life not found. "

*whew* That took way too long.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#162fudrickPosted 2/22/2013 6:49:04 PM
BrandonNC316 posted...
But to reiterate and summarize, no, the new organism which has formed from conception is not a "continuation" of the life-cycle of the egg or the sperm; those gametes contain only the set of DNA of the woman and the man, respectively, and they are thus entities completely distinct from the unborn child.


No. The gametes' set of DNA is not that of the parent. No offense, but do you understand how meiosis works?
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#163Aristotle16807(Topic Creator)Posted 2/22/2013 7:12:15 PM
I've told you multiple times with you just ignoring my answer. When you realize why it's wrong to kill us, but perfectly cool to commit genocide against the bacteria on our skin every time we take a shower you'll arrive at the answer I've provided for you multiple times.

I did not ignore your answer. If you notice I did respond to it.
“By the way children, sleeping people, comatose patients are not sapient (having wisdom). Hell, you could even say stupid people are not sapient, or mentally challenged or neurotic people.”
Responding =/= ignoring.

Children are perfectly sapient. Can you have conversations with them? Can they think and and talk about abstract subjective things? Can they lie? Then they're sapient. It doesn't matter if they aren't as intelligent or wise as they'll be when they're in their mid-twenties. There are no degrees of personhood. An adult isn't a person times 5 while a tween is a person x 3 or whatever. They're all people. Including the mentally challenged. Just because they might not be as smart as others doesn't make them any less of a person. Frankly if you can't tell the difference between a sapient being going to bed, and not even having a brain capable of being sentient nevermind sapient then there's really no hope for you.

You cannot hold a conversation with a fetus of >25 weeks, an infant and some toddlers. If the requirement for personhood is sapience and the requirement for sapience is certain abilities: lieing, conversation, think abstractly. Then there are many humans under particular conditions that are not sapient. The personhood of the mentally challenged is not in dispute. I am merely taking your narrow view of personhood and showing you how silly it really is. I predict that you will add another criteria for your designs of personhood in your following post.

As for comas, yeah I've already stated once you're in a permanent coma and brain dead the person is dead already. All that's left is the shell.

Did you know that some people have comas that do not last them until death?

"Here take the case of a conjoined twin. There is only one brain present, but that person has a living unique DNAed fraternal twin attached to them that is surviving off their internal organs, but again has no brain. Is it murder to separate them? Are they still two people? You yourself already realize the brain equals the person you just refuse to admit it because it destroys your line in the sand."

Murder is the unlawful killing of another. It does not destroy my line in the sand. There was the development of one brain and one brain only. Please provide evidence that such a case exists where the conscious thoughts of the conjoined twins are not shared. Now what does destroy a line in the sand is your narrow view of personhood, and how you keeping changing your premise every response

So, you do think my finger is a person?! I know why perfectly well. You would too if you didn't keep completely ignoring large chunks of what I'm saying.

You are implying that a human in an early stage of development is a finger. I never said such a thing.
#164Aristotle16807(Topic Creator)Posted 2/22/2013 7:14:21 PM
I have never ignored this, nor said what you accuse me of saying at the end. If fact, it's been a part of my argument since post 1. So too are sperm and unfertilized eggs part of the human species. My hair is human, my fingernail's are human, my fingers are human, my arm is human. None of them are people.

You hair is human, your teeth are human, your nose is human, you are a human developed since conception. You misunderstand the difference between ‘a human’ and ‘human’. A zygote is ‘a human’ or ‘human’ Gohan.

And you're missing the very next words which you ignored after what you quote showing that, even if it does involve "without intervention" that doesn't mean anything. Like you say here without intervention (in actively keeping the baby alive) it will die, so is that the correct thing to do? I mean this "without intervention" wouldn't simply be yet another ad hoc excuse to defend your arbitrary line would it?

Please start using the word ignore correctly. Yes, it does mean something. You correctly imply that a fetus will die without intervention (nutrition). This is the case in humans at any stage of development.

Might, might become "The big difference between might be and [will be]. It is like saying a hospice patient might be dead in a few weeks therefore we should treat him as such." You've hopped to so many different places defending your arbitrary ad hoc excuses you've arrived at arguing against yourself.

I have not hopped anywhere, I asked what was wrong with killing us and you said sapience. Yet you believe with the addition of thalamic sensory input to the human container makes you a person. Are you saying it is okay to kill your definition of person because they are not sapient?

P.S. If you show me where I have contradicted myself I will not deny it. Please allude to me when I did this. I was gracious enough to show you when you did it.

No, unless intervention occurs, it will become like us. I was referring to your argument that sperm and ovum are humans in an early stage of development. You have inappropriately taking my words out of the context I put them in and attempted to display me as a hypocrite. Unless you truly did not understand what I said to you.
#165Aristotle16807(Topic Creator)Posted 2/22/2013 7:15:08 PM
So again, "A [blank] alone..." is revealed to be yet another ad hoc bull excuse to defend your arbitrary line between the gametes and a fertilized egg.

You aren’t so good at this arguing thing are you?

Hunter, I implore you to try to use some logic when reading what I am saying. If you truly believe that sperm and eggs are humans in early stages of development because they might join can be used much further back biologically than sperm and eggs. As if a member of the human species has no definitive starting point. Be honest, do you truly believe that each sperm and each egg separately is a human? (again I am referring to sperm and eggs not a zygote so do not twist my words)

First it’s thalamic sensory input, then it is sapience. And a fetus of 25 weeks can’t hold a conversation/lie/deliver abstract thoughts. Do you have something consistent?

I asked you what was wrong with killing us and you said killing something sapient is inherently wrong. I listed entities that are human but are not sapient. You responded by narrowing down your definition of sapience to three filters. I listed more entities that still do not fall under your overly specific criteria. Anyway, there are two things wrong with killing us.

1. It brutalizes the killer
2. It damages the emotions of anyone who had a relationship with the victim.
Now I want you to use some categorical logic on this one. Why is this criteria not sufficient? Who does it exclude?
#166hunter_gohanPosted 2/23/2013 2:28:11 PM
Aristotle16807 posted...
I did not ignore your answer. If you notice I did respond to it.


If you didn't ignore it you wouldn't be asking me to repeat it for what like the fourth time now?

Responding =/= ignoring.


When your response asks a question answered at least 3 times already it's clear you're ignoring it.

You cannot hold a conversation with a fetus of >25 weeks, an infant and some toddlers. If the requirement for personhood is sapience and the requirement for sapience is certain abilities: lieing, conversation, think abstractly.


There you go simply ignoring what I've said yet again!

"For humans "That's definitely red" seems to end when those thalamic brain connections start to form and the yellow starts seeping into the red. The "Yup that's definitely yellow." would probably be when it can start to talk to you.(Though it's obvious they'd have to be a person before they can do that, I'm not sure if there'd be a way to tell or not reliably)."

Awesome job demonstrating you don't ignore what I say by going on to ignore what I've said.

It's not the requirement, it's the spot where we can say "Yup that's definitely yellow".

Then there are many humans under particular conditions that are not sapient.


Yeah like sperm or fertilized eggs.

The personhood of the mentally challenged is not in dispute. I am merely taking your narrow view of personhood and showing you how silly it really is. I predict that you will add another criteria for your designs of personhood in your following post.


So now you're just accusing me of what you've been doing? Just because a mentally challenged person couldn't do these things as well as a non-mentally challenged person doesn't in anyway make them less of a person. Another thing I've stated multiple times already.

Did you know that some people have comas that do not last them until death?

In that case honestly not sure. Did you know the part after this which you ignored makes it completely irrelevant? Someone in a coma is not violating anyone's bodily rights. But don't worry, I'm sure you can just ignore this again like you do with so many other things I've written.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another. It does not destroy my line in the sand. There was the development of one brain and one brain only.

Woah woah woah. Did you just concede I've been right this whole time and it's the brain that matters? Yeah it does destroy your line. If that person shouldn't get two paychecks, two votes, and it be pre-meditated murder to separate him from his parasitic twin, then neither is a fertilized egg anymore a person than the parasitic twin with no brain is. You'll have landed on the spot I've been arguing this entire time, we are our brains. Remember your own arguments, might be does not equal is.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#167hunter_gohanPosted 2/23/2013 2:36:30 PM
Please provide evidence that such a case exists where the conscious thoughts of the conjoined twins are not shared. Now what does destroy a line in the sand is your narrow view of personhood, and how you keeping changing your premise every response


lol you really have just resorted to straight up projection huh? What exactly do you mean by the first sentence? Split personality disorder or something?

Anyway, yes it happens(Though apparently parasitic twin is the correct term, not conjoined in this instance):

"The Twin reversed arterial perfusion, or TRAP sequence, results in an acardiac twin, a parasitic twin that fails to develop a head, arms and a heart. The parasitic twin, little more than a torso with or without legs, receives its blood supply from the host twin by means of an umbilical cord-like structure, much like a fetus in fetu, except the acardiac twin is outside the host twin's body. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin#Variants

So, two votes, two paychecks, should it be pre-meditated murder for anyone separating them?

You are implying that a human in an early stage of development is a finger. I never said such a thing.


No I'm showing how not everything that is alive with human DNA is a person.

You hair is human, your teeth are human, your nose is human, you are a human developed since conception. You misunderstand the difference between ‘a human’ and ‘human’. A zygote is ‘a human’ or ‘human’ Gohan.


Which is why I've been separating human and human being or person for this entire convo. It would be less confusing if you'd do the same. A zygote is human, my finger is human; neither are people. That way I can just reply with "How is a fertilized egg a person and not the gametes?" which you've still failed to satisfactorily answer.

Oh also, arguing against yourself yet again! "You have arbitrarily drawn the line between human and person". Hell even worse with you cause we can change that last bit to "...between human and human."

Please start using the word ignore correctly. Yes, it does mean something. You correctly imply that a fetus will die without intervention (nutrition). This is the case in humans at any stage of development.


So you're officially withdrawing "A zygote is a determinate being, the big difference between them and the sperm/egg is that they will (without intervention) become almost exactly like us." as an argument then? You admit "without intervention" is a bull ad hoc excuse that doesn't hold up?

Also, it's now your position that embryos and fetuses aren't humans in a certain stage of development since this "without intervention" rule is reversed according to you?

Tell us again how you haven't been hopping all over the place.

I have not hopped anywhere,....


*looks above* Yeah you ain't fooling anyone. When you start arguing against yourself and have to argue against the very arguments you put forth in a previous post you're hopping all over the place.

....I asked what was wrong with killing us and you said sapience.

Oh look at that, why do you keep asking me then? I'm being consistent. I value the brain at a certain level of development. It's why I have no problem slaughtering all those bacteria whenever I take a shower; it's why I'd have no problem considering Vulcans people. Hell I'm for this even:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#168hunter_gohanPosted 2/23/2013 2:51:17 PM
Yet you believe with the addition of thalamic sensory input to the human container makes you a person. Are you saying it is okay to kill your definition of person because they are not sapient?


"For humans "That's definitely red" seems to end when those thalamic brain connections start to form and the yellow starts seeping into the red."

That's when the yellow starts seeping in. Your last sentence makes no sense because you can't be a person without being sapient in my definition.

P.S. If you show me where I have contradicted myself I will not deny it.


You mean in addition to the already shown examples? Umm you quoted it dude.

You: "“but each sperm or egg might join therefore it is a human at an early stage of development”. The big difference between might be and is. It is like saying a hospice patient might be dead in a few weeks therefore we should treat him as such. "

My reply(in part): "And if we don't abort the fertilized egg it might make it to birth."

Your reply(arguing against the very argument that you brought forth): "And if we feed a child with cerebral palsy it might make it to 30."

Another ad hoc excuse that doesn't actually mean anything that you take the opposite stance on whenever it is used against you. When you're arguing two stances that are opposite of each other that's called contradicting yourself.

Please allude to me when I did this. I was gracious enough to show you when you did it.


lol was that when you completely misrepresented and/or ignored what I've said?

No, unless intervention occurs, it will become like us.


Might. *loops back around to your very own 'might' argument that you've already argued against* Tell us again how you don't contradict yourself? You seem incapable of not doing that at this point.

"You correctly imply that a fetus will die without intervention (nutrition)."
"...the big difference between them and the sperm/egg is that they will (without intervention) become almost exactly like us."

You really need to stop arguing against the very arguments you put forth only to put them forth yet again. Not holding an arbitrary line in the sand and attempting to defend that line might help. Does "without intervention" matter, or does it not? Please stop contradicting yourself. It either does or doesn't.

I was referring to your argument that sperm and ovum are humans in an early stage of development. You have inappropriately taking my words out of the context I put them in and attempted to display me as a hypocrite. Unless you truly did not understand what I said to you.


They are human; if you mean human being or people then they(for the sake of argument) are since you still can not satisfactorily tell me why a fertilized egg should be a person while they shouldn't. Or would you like to revisit the debunked unique DNA line?

You aren’t so good at this arguing thing are you?

Better than you. I'm not the one that has to go against my own arguments a few posts after making them. Here we'll do it again where you'll yet again argue against your very own argument:
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#169hunter_gohanPosted 2/23/2013 2:58:40 PM
Hunter, I implore you to try to use some logic when reading what I am saying. If you truly believe that sperm and eggs are humans in early stages of development because they might join can be used much further back biologically than sperm and eggs. As if a member of the human species has no definitive starting point.


Aristotle, I implore you to try to use some logic when reading what I am saying. If you truly believe that a fertilized egg is human in early stages of development because it might survive and might not develope Anencephaly or become a parasitic twin with no brain can be used much further back biologically than a fertilized egg. As if a member of the human species has no definitive starting point. (Actually that would be when the testicles turn the non- living non-human nutrients my blood supplies it into living, human sperm! The miracle of life baby!)

Be honest, do you truly believe that each sperm and each egg separately is a human?


For the sake of argument yes, since you've already long abandoned your "unique DNA" line to show why fertilized eggs should be considered people but not the gametes.

(again I am referring to sperm and eggs not a zygote so do not twist my words)


I'm showing you why your logic is flawed and doesn't work by applying it to other situations. By arguing against them you are admitting the logic doesn't work.

It'd be like this: "You should listen to what Police Officers say because they drive black and white(or blue and white or whatever specific color scheme they have where you are) cars."

"Umm, what about that crazy guy who drives around in the black and white van with chopped up body parts in the back?"

"listen to X because their car is color scheme Y" is shown to be faulty logic that does not stand up.

This is what I'm doing everytime I'm using your own arguments against you which you proceed to then argue against showing you realize the logic doesn't hold.

First it’s thalamic sensory input, then it is sapience. And a fetus of 25 weeks can’t hold a conversation/lie/deliver abstract thoughts. Do you have something consistent?


Just because you have horrible reading comprehension apprently doesn't mean I'm not being consistent. It's always been sapience, the thalamic connections forming is when the yellow starts seeping into the red, the conversation/lie/abstract thoughts is the "that's definitely yellow" part, and I have no problem erring on the side of caution.(this is actually a hell of a lot of caution. Plenty of things are sentient, but not sapient. It is impossible to be sapient without being sentient though and like I said it's grey in between those two parts and I don't want to commit to an arbitrary spot like you guys by just guessing so err on the side of caution). These are all things I've stated before.(well the beginning in the parenthesis is expanding on it. You see it's "expanding" here because it's not contradicting anything I've previously said but merely trying to make what I've said clearer.)

I asked you what was wrong with killing us and you said killing something sapient is inherently wrong. I listed entities that are human but are not sapient.


What does this refer to? Your first reply after I answered your question was you saying I didn't answer it. It then moves on until you list out the children etc that I assume is what you're referring to in the next quoted section.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#170hunter_gohanPosted 2/23/2013 3:00:20 PM
You responded by narrowing down your definition of sapience to three filters. I listed more entities that still do not fall under your overly specific criteria.


You mean those ones which were perfectly sapient? ( a non permanent coma may or may not be)

Anyway, there are two things wrong with killing us.

1. It brutalizes the killer


What exactly does this mean? Would it hold for people who kill bacteria, plants, Vulcans?

2. It damages the emotions of anyone who had a relationship with the victim.


So if no one has a relationship with said person, then it's cool to kill em?

Funny how your criteria don't actually address the person being killed at all. Just other people.

Now I want you to use some categorical logic on this one. Why is this criteria not sufficient? Who does it exclude?


Off the top of my head, sociopaths killing anyone who doesn't have any relationships.(since whatever you do mean by "brutalizes the killer" probably wouldn't happen to a sociopath)
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.