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 December 5th, 2017, 03:53 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
What I wrote is based on what baloney_detector has pointed out here: Question for the Anti-Abortion Crowd



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.
Identical twins have the same DNA, they may possess lines of mutated DNA somewhere in their bodies, but then again the embryo will not develop into an adult with the exact same DNA, so there goes your DNA theory.

If you cloned a human, each clone would be a unique individual, even though there was only one "moment of conception".
If you assembled the DNA in a lab and injected it into an egg cell, it would develop into an individual, even though there was no "moment of conception"..
Your silly superstition does does not have the ring of truth.
goober is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 04:10 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
an ectopic doesnt have a BRAIN. a born baby does have a BRAIN.
An ectopic baby does not have a BRAIN YET, BUT CAN HAVE ONE IF LEFT UNDISTURBED, so how is having a brain relevant to deciding who gets to live or die?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
"we" is the medical profession. all over the world, for ever.
If your answer was abortionists who say "if we need to kill the ectopic pregnancy to save mums life, we do", then I would have bought it since that's what they do for profit.

Killing is not medically profesisonal, only saving and protecting lives is medically professional, but I'm curious to see some sources from you to back up your claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
Saying "having a brain is the criteria" is arbitrary and inconsistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
again, the entirety of the medical profession, for ever. an ectopic pregnancy is a death sentence if it isnt removed.
Yes, but it would be medically unprofessional if they make decisions based on arbitrary and inconsistent policy rather than saving and protecting lives.

It is medically unprofessional to do something harmful (from "first do no harm" - Hippocratic Oath), and it is harmful to an embryo to remove it in an ectopic pregnancy by destroying it, so it is medically unprofessional to remove an embryo in an ectopic embryo by destroying it.

In other words, for the "AAA-1 syllogistic form":
All harmful actions are medically unprofessional.
Removal of an ectopic pregnancy by destroying it is harmful.
Therefore, removal of an ectopic pregnancy by destroying it is medically unprofessional.
Q.E.D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
This won't do the trick, because saying it isn't a human yet because it doesn't have a brain is no different from saying a child before puberty isn't an adult (or unable to reproduce) and if it's not an adult (or unable to reproduce) then it isn't human on the grounds that humans can reproduce. There's a fallacy embedded in there somewhere.
Neil is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 05:01 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
why not? what is missing from a bag of blood or skin that means it isnt a human being?
If you're referring to a full human being as a "bag of blood", then nothing's missing; if you're referring to the small donation portion, then what's missing from that and skin is that they cannot form into full human beings on their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
At this point there's nothing more than a strawman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
you said a human being is no more than a lump of cells. thats absurd, a human being is so much more than that.
What makes a lump of cells what they are is both what it has, what it does, and what it can do. That doesn't make them more than what they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
This seems like the same kind of sophistry used to say that a slave is 3/5ths of a person, so I don't think "personhood" or "human person" is going to work. It's certainly not going to alter reality. A human being at any stage of development is still a human being; this cannot be changed by playing labeling or definition tricks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
we are discussing human beings. this is trolling.
I'm discussing human beings, but you want to impose a different definition of "human beings", which means we're not necessarily discussing human beings. We have to be in complete agreement in order for your assertion to be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
There's nothing here I disagree with, but it did not answer my question. Please address my question. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The point of contention is not someone who's brain dead, it's someone who hasn't formed a brain yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
the core of the issue is that human beings are defined by our BRAINS.
Humans are not defined by their brains (or just their brains), they're defined by their anatomy and physiology, or having human DNA, etc. All you're doing is trying to arbitrarily make up rules that fit your agenda.
Neil is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 05:25 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
I don't dispute anything here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
i am asking, does your definition call conjoined twins one or two people? thats the question. please answer it.
You're asking me to answer an unanswerable question. That's not going to prove a thing.

I've replied with a respone that's sufficient. The question is not relevant to the discussion.

If you want me to respond with either "1" or "2" as an answer, let's start with this: what's your context? Do that and tell me why it's relevant, like I asked, and maybe then you'll have an answerable question.

It can depend (which is why it's unanswerable and needs context), for example the driving license requirements may necessitate defining conjoined twins (with separate full brains) as two people, because each brain needs to go through the driving test. On the other hand, when it comes to paying taxes, the tax laws might only require a conjoined twin to file one tax return. Even then, it might continue to depend on what kind of jobs they do. If they do manual labor, for example, they might only be able to do the manual labor of one person, since they can only be in one place at a time like driving a truck or operating a crane, but if they're working jobs that involve mental rather than physical labor, such as being a programmer or accountant, they can do the work of 2 people and thus be taxed as 2 people.

None of this speaks to who gets to live or die, only how many driver's licenses to issue or taxes to file.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
Not every miscarriage is necessarily an unexplained death, just like not every death from cancer, a heart attack, or old age is necessarily an unexplained death. Consistency simply entails that the medical examination process that someone who dies from cancer, a heart attack, old age, etc. is the same one that's used in a miscarriage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
Not according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_death

It's called cardiopulmonary death, and it is a legally recognized criteria.

Yes it may or may not have any bearing on the debate, but it was brought up anyways.
Neil is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 05:53 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
So what is that then we end up back with the kind of argument that a child that can't reproduce is not a human being based on the criteria that human beings can reproduce; that's also about potential, about what might happen one day given enough time, and what we are dealing with right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
but thats not arbitrary, its very specific.


again, thats not arbitrary, its specific, and there is reasoning behind it. its unethical reasoning, but its reasoning none the less.


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.
Yes, it opens cans of worms such as saying it's ok to kill a post menopausal woman or anyone who has medical conditions that make it impossible for them to reproduce. That's just bonus stuff that supports my point.

I don't know what unethical in extremes means. Who gets to decide what's ethical (or moral, or virtuous) is just the same kind of question when I ask who gets to decide who lives or dies? Morals, ethics, virtue criteria all seem religious to me, and I'm non religious; I prefer logic, consistency, science, the scientific method, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
I don't know how you could possible get that from what I've said, especially at this point.

If it's not clear that I'm taking the position against killing innocent & defenseless human beings, then let me make it perfectly clear now: I take the position against killing innocent & defenseless human beings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
stopping something coming into existence is totally different to destroying it once it already exists.
Of course. What is the relevance to the preceding quote of mine, in your reply?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
I do not agree with your assertion that a human being is defined by their brain; that's just a claim, not an argument. It's a disagreement, not an inconsistency. Consistency only comes into play after we've agreed on definitions or what to label things. These things are necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, for making arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
No. Either you will or won't answer the question; that's on you, not me.
Neil is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 06:12 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
It's not complicated but it's still just your own assertions; it's how you wish things to be for whatever reasons you have. Unless you're dictator of the entire world, you don't get to dictate world policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
then lets stop using it and start using BRAIN.
If I'm talking about the brain I will; if I need to talk about something else I'll use the necessary wording. You're not going to make the sun or moon disappear from existence by merely stopping yourself from using the words "sun" and "moon". Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
It's still arbitrary and lacks consistency. Even if you are correct that that's the world we live in, that doesn't prove anything other than that the world we live in has a problem and that problem has consequences. Saying we live in a world where 2+2=5 isn't going to cause reality to now have 2+2 result in 5 (4 with an additional 1 magically appearing out of nowhere).

That's not how reality works. That's not how logic or science works.

If that is the world we live in, then we live in a world where anyone can just decide that it's ok to kill anyone, because after all, that's the world we live in.

When we lived in a world where the state said that a slave was 3/5ths of a person, that doesn't actually make them 3/5ths of a person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
(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:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
adding "as a species" is a perfect example of a semantic game that is an invalid way of arguing.
It's called clarification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
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.
A zygote has the capability to make a brain, and that also counts. I've already addressed the brain & here and now sophistry in earlier posts.
Neil is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 06:21 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,970
So you are saying a zygote is a human being?

So the frozen zygotes in an IVF clinic, are human beings? With Rights?
goober is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 06:34 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Identical twins have the same DNA, they may possess lines of mutated DNA somewhere in their bodies, but then again the embryo will not develop into an adult with the exact same DNA, so there goes your DNA theory.
What you're describing here about DNA mutation is in agreement with what I have stated, so I don't get why you're saying "there goes [my] DNA theory." I can only suspect that you have misread what I wrote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
If you cloned a human, each clone would be a unique individual, even though there was only one "moment of conception".
One "moment of conception" is fine. Who said it wasn't? Who said anything about a limit of one "moment of conception" per individual or clone? I never did. I never said a "moment of conception" can only be claimed by one individual or clone. This "moment of conception" applies to all its clones. Identical twins, triplets, etc. also originated form the same "moment of conception".

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
If you assembled the DNA in a lab and injected it into an egg cell, it would develop into an individual, even though there was no "moment of conception"..
Has this ever been achieved, or is it just a hypothetical?

Words or expressions don't make something what it is; it's the other way around. When something new comes along then we have to update or develop the language to describe it or label it, and define words to communicate about it.

Playing these semantics and mind games isn't going to change reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Your silly superstition does does not have the ring of truth.
Science is not silly superstition.
Neil is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2018, 08:59 AM   #49
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: In your head...rent free
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Source: https://twitter.com/stealthygeek

I personally see this as genius.
I have long thought that the embryo implantation process is the point that exposes the vast majority of anti-abortionists as frauds. While they are happy to yell at women who walk into an abortion clinic or obvious attempts to shut down abortion clinics, there is not one iota of condemnation or legal attempt I have seen to shut down in vitro fertilization clinics.

And make no mistake. In vitro fertilization clinics habitually destroy MOST of the embryos they create. One study demonstrates just 7% of embryos created for in vitro fertilization lead to pregnancy.

There are some rare groups that do speak with open condemnation.
But they are not the norm. And the anti-abortion crowd that often claims "life begins at abortion" is typically silent on the subject...
Here's a question for YOU. I doubt you can answer it.
Two women got pregnant at the same time. At 28 weeks, one woman has a premature birth. She then kills her baby and goes to prison for murder. The other women kills her baby while it's still in the womb. No one says anything about it. No charges are filed. Once again, the babies are the same age. Should the woman who had the abortion also be charged with murder?
Mr Bombastic is offline  
Old April 5th, 2018, 09:11 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
seamanstaines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: U K
Posts: 180
if I was the first woman brief I would plead infanticide, then take her out on a date! Do I win?
seamanstaines 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 08:06 AM
Abortion Rights Leader Nails Hypocrisy Of Anti-Abortion Activists LongWinded Abortion 3 December 14th, 2015 03:06 PM
Finally... A Good Idea By The Anti-War Crowd! Jefferson Warfare 2 November 21st, 2006 05:20 AM
Anti-War Crowd and Fascist Islam In Bed Together alias Warfare 37 September 6th, 2006 12:15 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



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