Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Abortion Abortion Forum - A complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issue


Thanks Tree18Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:26 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
My daughter an her husband carry a gene, that causes Fanconi Anemia our grandchild was born with this disease. Odds on this is 1:131,000

They choose not to have children they could because the odds are 1:4 that their children will have the disease, so they could have embryos and have them tested and implant a healthy embryo, They choose not to do that because it would be killing a child if the embryo should have the disease and they abandon it.

So are they wrong in their belief?
yes.

they could easily create several embryos, have them tested, implant a healthy one and discard the rest, that would be perfectly ethical and morally ok in every way. the embryos created are no more than a few dozen cells, it is nothing remotely resembling a human being, you kill more human cells than that every time you brush your teeth. the process you describe was offered to them by good people doing good work, its a process that lots of couples go through, its a process that medical professionals offer and that health insurers pay for, because it is ethically and morally ok.

of course, they dont have to do it, nobody is going to force them into a fertility clinic against their will. if they have weird middle ages beliefs like 'life begins at conception' then that belief will be respected and their choice will be their own. they are wrong, but its a free world and they are allowed to cling to absurd middle age ideology if they want to.
Thanks from RNG and catus felis
hot dragon is offline  
Old December 4th, 2017, 09:10 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
this is all dodge, smokescreen and avoidance of actually answering the question.
What dodge? There's no question stated anywhere:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
the technology to remove an ectopic pregnancy alive and undamaged simply doesnt exist. we can remove it quite easily but it is by neccessity destroyed in the process.

maybe one day we will develop such technology, maybe ectopics can be moved to the uterus, or an artificial womb/ incubator. maybe. that solves a problem for a few people in a distant imagined future. right now though, whenever there is an ectopic pregnancy, it is killed.

allowing it to die naturally nearly always results in the mother also dying. thats why they are removed. but the foetus itself is a normal, healthy foetus, it is a unique member of its species, just like any other foetus, it isnt deformed, it was naturally concieved and is, according to any pro life argument, an unborn child. and this child is killed to save mums life.

imagine a scenario where a woman has a baby, but also has a fatal congenital heart disease. the only way to save her life is a heart transplant. thankfully, her baby is a normal healthy baby and also a compatable donor, so the baby is killed (and its heart harvested) to save the life of the mother.

now i would hope you would be aghast at such a suggestion. but this is the same situation as an ectopic pregnancy: mum will die if we do not do a procedure that will inevitably kill the baby. the only difference is the age of the baby, one is a born child, the other is a 6 week old embryo. killing one of them is evil, killing the other is ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
that is what i am asking you. is it ok?
My answer is that I see no difference; that's why I'm asking you - show me what the difference is. If it's ok to kill in an ectopic pregnancy then there's no reason to for saying that it's not ok to kill for a heart; it would be inconsistent to say that it's not ok to kill for a heart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
if we need to kill the ectopic pregnancy to save mums life, we do.
Who's "we"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
if we need to kill the 3 month old baby to save mums live, we do not.
Why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
i have no problem with this. do you? if you do, why?
Yes. It's arbitrary and inconsistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
what a ridiculous waste of money. its easy to deal with an ectopic - you abort it. its not an unborn child, its a lump of cells in the wrong place.
We're all lumps of cells. Who decides that a "lump of cells" is in the wrong place, and who decided that whoever decides that a "lump of cells" is in the wrong place and what can be done to them?

I ask because how these questions are answered have consequences and implications on who gets to decide who of us "lumps of cells" gets to live or die, and I'm trying to get answers on who gets to decide that I or my family, friends, neighbors, other members of my community, etc. as "lumps of cells" gets to live or die.
Neil is offline  
Old December 4th, 2017, 09:57 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
imagine you give a blood donation. that bag of blood is living cells, living human cells. their DNA is your DNA. according to your criteria, that bag of blood is a human being. its living cells with unique human DNA.
My "criteria" is simply things like truth (as in "defending the truth"), logic, reason, understanding, etc.

When you say "bag of blood", are you referring to the small donation portion, or are you talking about me?

If you're referring to me, then yes I am a human being.

If you're referring to the small donation portion (made up of nothing more than blood cells), there's nothing in "my criteria" that says it's a complete and fully intact human being for its age (or development stage). It's the same as skin cells that have flaked off and fallen to the ground; these skin cells have my DNA, but I wouldn't call them complete and fully intact human beings for their age, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
but thats absurd.
Yes, you are correct. That's why I never said nor would say what you pretended I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
a human being is more than a lump of cells.
No, it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
a human being is also their thoughts and feelings and reactions. this requires a working brain.
No, those are simply features of a human being & they only apply when the human being has reached a certain stage of development, or are normal & healthy, etc.

All you need is for those lumps of cells to consist of the structure, framework, etc. of a organism anatomically & physiologically identifiable as a human being. If the lump of cells in question is not alive, that simply means it's a dead human being - but even then it would still be a human being (until it has decomposed & what not).

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
its not just my criteria, its the entirety of the medical profession, internationally, for generations. a human being is defined by a living, working brain. any other part of your body can be removed, destroyed, replaced, nothing else is necessary to make someone human. your brain is necessary and sufficient to define you as a human being.
Technically no - not all organisms with brain (and living and working) are human beings (cats, dogs, mice, birds, snakes, fish etc. have living working living brains, yet they're not human beings).

(Just a side note - It's not my intention to try to act like a jerk or be a troll; I have a "rule" of responding to what someone states rather than what they meant to say, but I'll try to address something if it seems obvious enough.)

Anyways, I'm going to infer that what you're driving at is that in order for a human being to be able to qualify for or claim rights (at least that's the way I would frame the argument that seems to most closely align with what you seem to be trying to say), it has to have a working, living brain. I agree with that criteria, I even like that criteria, but here's the problem: suppose I were to say "ok I'm sold, I'll go along with that criteria", and someone else then turns to me and says "yo dude, what makes that a valid criteria? (or something to that effect) Why do you get to decide that living working brain ought to be the criteria or threshold for determining that the "raw" human being (alive but brain dead, etc.) does or doesn't have a right to live or claim such a right?" What do I say to them? This is what really represents where I stand on not only this issue, but anything. I want to be able to turn around and defend a position to others before I accept a position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
nobody denies that conception creates a living human cell with its own unique DNA, that has the capacity to grow into a human being, given the right circumstances. but its not there yet. its human tissue, but like a bag of blood, it lacks the thing necessary to define a human being.
It's human tissue just like you and I are also human tissue, but how is this not merely semantics games to dodge what's really at the core of the issue?
Neil is offline  
Old December 4th, 2017, 11:19 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
if a human being is defined by their DNA then you run into problems. a dead body has its own unique human DNA, does a corpse enjoy the same rights as the living?
No; my position has always been about life, when it begins, etc. If life has ended, it no longer has the same rights (needs, etc.) that the living have. A new human being comes into existence and is alive at conception, but a dead body is not alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
conjoined twins have one body, identical DNA, but two brains. i consider them two people, but your definition would not.
What difference does it make whether or not "my definition" considers them one or two people? This quantity isn't a factor in determining whether that one human being or two people get to live or don't get to live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
if you consider a human being begins at conception, do you want a coronial inquiry and funeral for every miscarriage?
It depends on many factors, and it may even include the definition of "miscarriage."

For instance, if the mother were attacked then has a miscarriage, an examination by a physician and criminal investigation may be needed to determine whether she was inevitably going to have a miscarriage anyways, or the attack resulted in injuries or health problems that resulted in a miscarriage.

A pregnancy that comes to an end as a result of a naturally occurring miscarriage is in no need for a criminal investigation anymore than someone dying from cancer, a heart attack, old age, etc. would be in need for a criminal investigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
universally around the world, "death" means brain death. every other organ can be working fine, they are human organs with human DNA, alive and good, but there isnt a working brain so the person is considered dead.
Just a side note: I don't think it's universal; my understanding is that legally a person can be declared dead when their heart stops beating & breathing stops & as a "BTW," society generally does try to make the effort to try to resuscitate a human being that qualifies as legally dead with this criteria (and they don't have a DNR order).

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
similarly, if any other part of the person dies, its a medical problem for sure, but not a death. someones heart dies, get a transplant, or an artificial one if you are rich enough. kidneys die, we have dialysis. an arm or leg dies, we amputate. those body parts dont get a funeral, they are not considered murders, because they arent human beings. because the death of living tissue with human DNA is not necessarily the death of a human being. its only when a brain dies that it is considered the death of a human being.

my position is that the term "unborn child" applies, entirely appropirately, from about 20 weeks onwards. thats when the brain has matured to the point it is active, it is generating thoughts and emotions, and it can be considered a human being.
Before I respond - this addresses some of the questions I asked in earlier reply posts & not that I agree with the answers, but you don't need to reiterate them at this point.

One difference is that a fertilized human egg is going to have a thinking brain and a human being that has become brain dead is no longer going to have a living, thinking brain.

Let's look at it a different way. Before puberty, a person isn't able to reproduce yet. Suppose someone wanted to arbitrarily say that they're not people until they reach puberty (with some sophistry about organisms are things that can reproduce being the criteria), so it should be ok to kill a 7 or 8 year old boy or girl. Would you go along with that criteria?

What starts out as a fertilized human egg can advance towards being born, growing to become an adult, getting old, and dying, unless something comes along to prevent that by imposing death before life expectancy limit is reached (murder, manslaughter, assassination, etc.). If that something was a naturally occurring event, there's no criminal, no suspect to arrest and charge with a crime. If that something was a human being (with the murder, manslaughter, assassination, etc.), then we investigate to determine whether or not someone needs to be invetigated and charged with a crime, or that it was an accident, self defense, etc.

When one person intentionally or negligently kills another person who's innocent (someone who didn't commit any crime or didn't do anything wrong), society's policy is to make the person who intentionally killed face consequences or answer for what they did. It's not always murder, for example when someone's driving recklessly and ends up killing another person as a result of their actions, it's usually something like first or second degree manslaughter.

We ought to be consistent with that general policy of dealing with all situations where an innocent human being's life was ended prematurely due to someone else's actions by not arbitrarily excluding certain human beings because of their stage of development or abribrary criteria such as the lack of a thinking brain.

The only other option, to be consistent, is to completely do away with that policy of dealing with all situations. If someone breaks into your neighbor's house and murders them, oh well too bad for your neighbor. If a drunk driver kills a car with a mother, father, and their children, oh well too bad for that family.

If we don't have consistency, we don't have any foundation for any of this. For example what's to stop someone from saying "if it's ok to kill an unborn innocent defenseless blob of cells because they're getting in the way or inconveniencing someone else, why is it not ok for me to kill someone (like an adult) who gets in my way or inconveniences me?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
and certainly, any act that is an attempt to kill that child is no different from an act to kill a born child. or an adult for that matter. its a person, its a new human being and deserves every protection and all rights that any other person deserves.

doing this from conception is irrational. there isnt a person to protect.
Yes there is, there's a person or human being or blog of cells to protect if it is our general policy to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
its not yet a person.
"Person" is just a word with a definition. This is semantics games and that's not a valid way to make any argument.

Whether something is or isn't acceptable is not based on the definition and arbitrary labeling of things, or by changing the definition of a word, it's determined by what actions lead to what result or consequences. We're either properly labeling, desribing, defining things or we're not.

Someone shouldn't simply lose their right to live just because osmeone else decided how they wanted to use some word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
in the same way that an egg is not a chicken,
If it's a fertilized egg that came from a chicken, then it's a chicken egg and thus it is a chicken, as a species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
and a seed is not a tree,
If it's a seed that came from a tree, then it's a tree seed and thus it is a tree, as a species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
an embryo is not a human being.
If it's an embryo that came from a human being, then it is a human being, as a species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
with an egg, or a seed, or an embryo, they have potential to become something greater, given time and the right environment, but they are not there yet. the things that define a chicken are not present in an egg, it has the same DNA and it cannot possibly become anything other than a chicken, but it isnt a chicken yet. same with a seed, its got the right DNA and the potential to grow, but the things required for tree-hood are simply absent.
So what? You can say the same about an elementary school-aged child, they have potential to become something greater, given time and the right environment (an elementary school), but they are not there yet, either. Same with a college student in their first year of premed; they'e not "there" (a physician) yet, either.
Neil is offline  
Old December 4th, 2017, 11:33 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
And identical twins have the same DNA, and yet they are unique individuals.
Because DNA doesn't make the individual, it's the mind that is unique, that makes the individual.
What I wrote is based on what baloney_detector has pointed out here: Question for the Anti-Abortion Crowd

Quote:
“An estimated 10^16 cell divisions take place in a normal human body in the course of a lifetime… Even in the environment that is free of mutagens, mutations will occur spontaneously at an estimated rate of about 10^-6 mutations per gene per cell division-a value set by fundamental limitations on the accuracy of DNA replication and repair. Thus, in a lifetime, every single gene is likely to have undergone mutation on about 10^10 separate occasions in any individual human being…”

...

In fact, “in a human body with more than 10^14 cells, billions of cells experience mutations every day…”


“Molecular Biology of the Cell”, Alberts et al.
What this means is that identical twins eventually go on to have differing DNA that becomes more different as they get older. I stated, as you can see in the quote that you posted in your reply, that "you have your own unique DNA set that defines who you are (at present, historically, etc.), I have my own unique set of DNA, etc." When I say things like "at present" or "historically", that includes identical twins who now have differing DNA.

If I didn't have that, I could simply account for it by referring to each of the individual identical twins, identical triplets, etc. as separate instantiations of the shared DNA, and it would be those separate instantiations who would be unique (individuals).

Your rebuttal is nothing more than a strawman.
Neil is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 03:07 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
My answer is that I see no difference; that's why I'm asking you - show me what the difference is. If it's ok to kill in an ectopic pregnancy then there's no reason to for saying that it's not ok to kill for a heart; it would be inconsistent to say that it's not ok to kill for a heart.
an ectopic doesnt have a BRAIN. a born baby does have a BRAIN.

Quote:
Who's "we"?
"we" is the medical profession. all over the world, for ever.

Quote:
Why not?

Yes. It's arbitrary and inconsistent.
no, it isnt. we dont mind killing tissue if it doesnt include a BRAIN. its just tissue. a BRAIN is fundamentally different to other tissue because the BRAIN is where thoughts and emotions happen, and thats what defines the individual human being.

Quote:
We're all lumps of cells. Who decides that a "lump of cells" is in the wrong place, and who decided that whoever decides that a "lump of cells" is in the wrong place and what can be done to them?
again, the entirety of the medical profession, for ever. an ectopic pregnancy is a death sentence if it isnt removed.

Quote:
I ask because how these questions are answered have consequences and implications on who gets to decide who of us "lumps of cells" gets to live or die, and I'm trying to get answers on who gets to decide that I or my family, friends, neighbors, other members of my community, etc. as "lumps of cells" gets to live or die.
its easy: do they have a BRAIN? if the lump of cells includes a BRAIN then its a human being. if the BRAIN is alive its a living human being. if there is a lump of cells so immature it hasnt yet grown a BRAIN then it isnt a human yet. are any of your relatives so tiny and undeveloped that they dont have a BRAIN yet? in that case there is no ethical dilemma in killing that particular lump of cells.
hot dragon is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 03:26 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
My "criteria" is simply things like truth (as in "defending the truth"), logic, reason, understanding, etc.
good.

Quote:
When you say "bag of blood", are you referring to the small donation portion, or are you talking about me?

If you're referring to me, then yes I am a human being.

If you're referring to the small donation portion (made up of nothing more than blood cells), there's nothing in "my criteria" that says it's a complete and fully intact human being for its age (or development stage). It's the same as skin cells that have flaked off and fallen to the ground; these skin cells have my DNA, but I wouldn't call them complete and fully intact human beings for their age, either.
why not? what is missing from a bag of blood or skin that means it isnt a human being? the answer of course is a BRAIN. in fact, i can remove any part of you, your limbs, some of your internal organs that you dont really need, and you are still you, because i have not affected your BRAIN. i could theoretically remove every single part of you and replace it with a transplant or a synthetic device, and you would still be you if your BRAIN was unaltered. but if i remove your BRAIN, i remove you. your BRAIN is the necessary thing that defines what is and isnt a human being.


Quote:
Yes, you are correct. That's why I never said nor would say what you pretended I said.
you said a human being is no more than a lump of cells. thats absurd, a human being is so much more than that.

Quote:
No, it isn't.
yes it is.

Quote:
No, those are simply features of a human being & they only apply when the human being has reached a certain stage of development, or are normal & healthy, etc.

All you need is for those lumps of cells to consist of the structure, framework, etc. of a organism anatomically & physiologically identifiable as a human being. If the lump of cells in question is not alive, that simply means it's a dead human being - but even then it would still be a human being (until it has decomposed & what not).
sure humans go through all kinds of stages of developement, the last stage being a dead human being. perhaps we should be using the term personhood, or something similar. i dont disagree that a dead human corpse is a human corpse. i dont disagree that a human embryo is a human embryo. i do disagree that those two are fundamentally different to a human person. and the difference that matters is that a human person has a functioning BRAIN.

Quote:
Technically no - not all organisms with brain (and living and working) are human beings (cats, dogs, mice, birds, snakes, fish etc. have living working living brains, yet they're not human beings).

(Just a side note - It's not my intention to try to act like a jerk or be a troll; I have a "rule" of responding to what someone states rather than what they meant to say, but I'll try to address something if it seems obvious enough.)
we are discussing human beings. this is trolling.

Quote:
Anyways, I'm going to infer that what you're driving at is that in order for a human being to be able to qualify for or claim rights (at least that's the way I would frame the argument that seems to most closely align with what you seem to be trying to say), it has to have a working, living brain. I agree with that criteria, I even like that criteria, but here's the problem: suppose I were to say "ok I'm sold, I'll go along with that criteria", and someone else then turns to me and says "yo dude, what makes that a valid criteria? (or something to that effect) Why do you get to decide that living working brain ought to be the criteria or threshold for determining that the "raw" human being (alive but brain dead, etc.) does or doesn't have a right to live or claim such a right?" What do I say to them? This is what really represents where I stand on not only this issue, but anything. I want to be able to turn around and defend a position to others before I accept a position.
this isnt just my criteria, its the criteria that is used all over the world by everybody. once you are dead, you no longer have rights. there is no 'you', if you are dead. and dead means BRAIN dead. there is no other criteria for death other than death of your BRAIN. and given that all your thoughts, emotions, memories, judgments, happen in your BRAIN, its your BRAIN that allows those things to exist, its entirely reasonable that BRAIN death is the measure for the death of that particular human being. human beings effectively are our BRAINS. the rest is supporting cast to keep our BRAIN alive.

Quote:
It's human tissue just like you and I are also human tissue, but how is this not merely semantics games to dodge what's really at the core of the issue?
the core of the issue is that human beings are defined by our BRAINS.
hot dragon is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 04:09 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
No; my position has always been about life, when it begins, etc. If life has ended, it no longer has the same rights (needs, etc.) that the living have. A new human being comes into existence and is alive at conception, but a dead body is not alive.
a dead BRAIN is a dead person. if all their other organs are alive and working well, they are still dead. there is a working, pumping heart, ventilating lungs, kidneys doing fine, all this is alive. there is a living human body, full of living human organs. but it is a dead person because the BRAIN is dead. only the BRAIN. nothing else. everything else is as alive as it was yesterday, and will continue to live as long as food goes in.

Quote:
What difference does it make whether or not "my definition" considers them one or two people? This quantity isn't a factor in determining whether that one human being or two people get to live or don't get to live.
i am asking, does your definition call conjoined twins one or two people? thats the question. please answer it.

Quote:
It depends on many factors, and it may even include the definition of "miscarriage."

For instance, if the mother were attacked then has a miscarriage, an examination by a physician and criminal investigation may be needed to determine whether she was inevitably going to have a miscarriage anyways, or the attack resulted in injuries or health problems that resulted in a miscarriage.

A pregnancy that comes to an end as a result of a naturally occurring miscarriage is in no need for a criminal investigation anymore than someone dying from cancer, a heart attack, old age, etc. would be in need for a criminal investigation.
it is impossible to tell either way. but, if an embryo is a person, every miscarriage is the death of a person, and should be investigated like any other unexplained death. unless embryos are not entitled to the same rights as born people.

Quote:
Just a side note: I don't think it's universal; my understanding is that legally a person can be declared dead when their heart stops beating & breathing stops & as a "BTW," society generally does try to make the effort to try to resuscitate a human being that qualifies as legally dead with this criteria (and they don't have a DNR order).
death is a medical diagnosis made by assessing whether their BRAIN is functioning. a heart beat and breathing arent relevant, dead people can have beating hearts, living people can have no beating heart in some situations. and sure we try to get dead people back to life, but that doesnt have any bearing on the debate.
hot dragon is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 04:34 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
One difference is that a fertilized human egg is going to have a thinking brain and a human being that has become brain dead is no longer going to have a living, thinking brain.
thats true, but so what? we need to deal with what is here now. arguments about potential, about what might happen one day given enough time are not meaningful, we are dealing with right now.

Quote:
Let's look at it a different way. Before puberty, a person isn't able to reproduce yet. Suppose someone wanted to arbitrarily say that they're not people until they reach puberty
but thats not arbitrary, its very specific.

Quote:
with some sophistry about organisms are things that can reproduce being the criteria
again, thats not arbitrary, its specific, and there is reasoning behind it. its unethical reasoning, but its reasoning none the less.

Quote:
so it should be ok to kill a 7 or 8 year old boy or girl. Would you go along with that criteria?
it would be perfectly consistent with that argument. it would also be consistent to say its ok to kill a post menopausal woman, and to kill anyone who has medical conditions that make it impossible for them to reproduce. that would all be consistent with the initial assumption. it would be unethical in extremes.

i have said human beings are defined by our BRAIN. this is not an arbitrary statement. our BRAIN is where our thoughts and emotions happen. our BRAINS are absolutely necessary for us to feel, think, imagine, dream, if there is a BRAIN present there are human thoughts and feelings, if there isnt a BRAIN present, there cannot be human thoughts and feelings. in your scenario, you would be killing people who would be crying and begging to be allowed to live, you would be causing enormous suffering and pain to occur inside human brains. and you would be arguing that the pain and misery those children go through is of no consequence.

Quote:
What starts out as a fertilized human egg can advance towards being born, growing to become an adult, getting old, and dying, unless something comes along to prevent that by imposing death before life expectancy limit is reached (murder, manslaughter, assassination, etc.). If that something was a naturally occurring event, there's no criminal, no suspect to arrest and charge with a crime. If that something was a human being (with the murder, manslaughter, assassination, etc.), then we investigate to determine whether or not someone needs to be invetigated and charged with a crime, or that it was an accident, self defense, etc.
stopping something coming into existence is totally different to destroying it once it already exists.

Quote:
When one person intentionally or negligently kills another person who's innocent (someone who didn't commit any crime or didn't do anything wrong), society's policy is to make the person who intentionally killed face consequences or answer for what they did. It's not always murder, for example when someone's driving recklessly and ends up killing another person as a result of their actions, it's usually something like first or second degree manslaughter.

We ought to be consistent with that general policy of dealing with all situations where an innocent human being's life was ended prematurely due to someone else's actions by not arbitrarily excluding certain human beings because of their stage of development or abribrary criteria such as the lack of a thinking brain.
i agree, we need to be consistent. and in fact we are consistent. and the way we are consistent is to stick to the argument that a human being is defined by their BRAIN. if someone ends the life of a human BRAIN, thats killing someone, and there needs to be consequences.

and because we are being consistent if there isnt a human BRAIN, right now, not a maybe brain that could happen in the future, i mean right now, if there is no BRAIN thats going to die then there is no person going to die.

Quote:
The only other option, to be consistent, is to completely do away with that policy of dealing with all situations. If someone breaks into your neighbor's house and murders them, oh well too bad for your neighbor. If a drunk driver kills a car with a mother, father, and their children, oh well too bad for that family.

If we don't have consistency, we don't have any foundation for any of this. For example what's to stop someone from saying "if it's ok to kill an unborn innocent defenseless blob of cells because they're getting in the way or inconveniencing someone else, why is it not ok for me to kill someone (like an adult) who gets in my way or inconveniences me?"
you have lost it, none of this makes any sense, and none of it is relevant to the discussion we have been having. try again.
hot dragon is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 04:44 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Yes there is, there's a person or human being or blog of cells to protect if it is our general policy to do so.
it is our general policy to protect human beings, or persons if you prefer. and they are defined as someone with a functioning BRAIN. a blob of cells fails this test and therefore the procedures that protect human beings, or persons if you prefer, do not apply to blobs of cells. this isnt very complicated.

Quote:
"Person" is just a word with a definition. This is semantics games and that's not a valid way to make any argument.
then lets stop using it and start using BRAIN.

Quote:
Whether something is or isn't acceptable is not based on the definition and arbitrary labeling of things, or by changing the definition of a word, it's determined by what actions lead to what result or consequences. We're either properly labeling, desribing, defining things or we're not.

Someone shouldn't simply lose their right to live just because someone else decided how they wanted to use some word.
thankfully, thats not the world we live in. the world we live in determines that someone has the right to live if they have a functioning BRAIN. indeed without a functioning BRAIN they arent a person.

(for the record, the immoral practice of very late term abortions, even so called 'partial birth abortions' is legal in some places. this violates my position and i call it murder)

Quote:
If it's a fertilized egg that came from a chicken, then it's a chicken egg and thus it is a chicken, as a species.


If it's a seed that came from a tree, then it's a tree seed and thus it is a tree, as a species.


If it's an embryo that came from a human being, then it is a human being, as a species.
adding "as a species" is a perfect example of a semantic game that is an invalid way of arguing.

Quote:
So what? You can say the same about an elementary school-aged child, they have potential to become something greater, given time and the right environment (an elementary school), but they are not there yet, either. Same with a college student in their first year of premed; they'e not "there" (a physician) yet, either.
yes, thats obvious. but an elementary schooler already has a BRAIN right now, and thats what counts. the BRAIN will learn more as it grows and matures, but its already a BRAIN here and now.
hot dragon is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Tags
antiabortion, crowd, question



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Time for the Anti-Gay Marriage crowd to give up RNG Political Humor 4 June 30th, 2016 09:06 AM
Abortion Rights Leader Nails Hypocrisy Of Anti-Abortion Activists LongWinded Abortion 3 December 14th, 2015 04:06 PM
Finally... A Good Idea By The Anti-War Crowd! Jefferson Warfare 2 November 21st, 2006 06:20 AM
Anti-War Crowd and Fascist Islam In Bed Together alias Warfare 37 September 6th, 2006 01:15 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.