Political Crossfire Forums

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2243

Obilisk18 wrote: Simplistic pro-choice arguments often suggest that lacking a brain, fetuses fail to qualify as persons. While an intuitively appealing argument, it fails to withstand even minor scrutiny. Dogs have brains. Mules have brains. Brains are not unique to the human species, and thus clearly fail to endow personhood.

One point pro-lifer's love to iterate is that abortion is the debate over HUMAN life, thus I revel in pointing out that dogs and mule brains produce "dog-hood" and "mule-hood" respectively. Unlike the HUMAN brain, both lack the potential for personhood-endowment. IOW canines and asses...etc are irrelevant to the discussion and your point is thus moot.

Obilisk18 wrote: At this point, a pro-choicer may wish to clarify their argument. It is a “mind” they say, not the brain, that grants personhood and endows life with worth. While a somewhat clearer distinction, it still leaves much to be desired. The notion that one needs a mind to achieve personhood is a peculiar one, because it's extraodinarily vague and ill-defined.
Conscious, self-awareness; begins with the full development of brain/mind.

Obilisk18 wrote: Yet, individual minds are capable of very different things. Some can perform complex processes quickly, while some lack that capacity entirely. Some are capable of free, independent, and creative thought, others can do little more then absorb and parrot the ideas of others. These are distinctions which cannot be taken lightly when considering life's genesis. If a mind is what it does rather then what it is, and if the usefulness of the mind endows personhood, then some individuals are necessarily more persons than others. This is an extraordinarily dangerous and untenable position.

This is a misapplication of mind as a necessary condition of personhood:

-- "If a mind is what it does rather then what it is, and if the usefulness of the mind endows personhood, then .........." --

It seems you are ignoring consciousness and instead focusing on the cerebral attributes of the mind/brain relationship.
Intellectual ability is not a necessary condition nor a barometer of personhood.

BuzWeaver · Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Posts: 165 Location: Atlanta, GA - USA

Quote: This is not a person, it is just a cell. There is nothing diffrent about it than a period and ejaculate fluid mixed together. If these were not used for things such as stem cell resarch, then they would be thrown away.

Ask any geneticist about the beginning and development of the process, they will tell you it’s the beginning of life by definition of its purpose and function.

BuzWeaver · Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Posts: 165 Location: Atlanta, GA - USA

LostSoul3412 wrote: When the umbilical cord is cut and the (then) child is forced into sentience, and individuality.

Life is not a choice, nor a right; life is an ultimatum.

Live, or die.

Until an individual is forced to address that ultimatum, they are not a human being.

You're setting a condition to life? Scientist considers even a single cell organism as a form of life. As you may have been watching with the Mars Rover they are trying to see if there was water on Mars, where there is water there is life, according to scientific research.

If Scientist can consider a single cell organism as life, how does this ideology fit into your line of thinking that life for a human being doesn’t begin until there are sentient?

Babies in the womb respond to sounds and even music.

Green · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject:

Kamel wrote: Green wrote:
And abortion means killing babies that follow the listed criteria. Not nessacarily

Yes abortion kills people necessarily

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

BuzWeaver wrote: You're setting a condition to life? Scientist considers even a single cell organism as a form of life. As you may have been watching with the Mars Rover they are trying to see if there was water on Mars, where there is water there is life, according to scientific research.

If Scientist can consider a single cell organism as life, how does this ideology fit into your line of thinking that life for a human being doesn’t begin until there are sentient?

Babies in the womb respond to sounds and even music.

You're confusing "life", with "a life".

Vercingetorix · Joined: 04 Nov 2005 Posts: 472

Quote: When the umbilical cord is cut and the (then) child is forced into sentience, and individuality.

Life is not a choice, nor a right; life is an ultimatum.

Live, or die.

Until an individual is forced to address that ultimatum, they are not a human being.

Some topics you raise interest me.

How is a child forced into individuality and sentience when the umbilical cord is cut? A child really isn't forced into anything; it comes into being as an individual. So, though, what constitutes an individual? When a unique genetic pattern is formed. And when does sentience come into a person? By definition, sentient means that something has sense, a concious. But, by equating sentience to life, you make it seem that if something isn't not aware of itself, it is not what it is, but something different.

Well, life certainly isn't a choice, but neither is it an ultimatum. Life just is.

You seem to view life as a struggle and fight, and thus those who do not or cannot be forced into this struggle thus aren't life at all.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

I think that life begins once the baby poops its first turd. Until it has had a successful dump, it is simply not a life.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

straw man wrote: I think that life begins once the baby poops its first turd. Until it has had a successful dump, it is simply not a life.

I know you're being sarcastic, but it's a good point...

It isn't human until it proves that it's full of crap. :wink: :lol:

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

Vercingetorix wrote: How is a child forced into individuality and sentience when the umbilical cord is cut?

Because now it is forced to breath, feed, and feel. Before that moment, none of those things are required of it for survival.

Vercingetorix wrote: A child really isn't forced into anything; it comes into being as an individual.

Because it addresses the ultimatum and chooses life.

Vercingetorix wrote: So, though, what constitutes an individual? When a unique genetic pattern is formed.

Are tumors as individuals, since they have a unique genetic code?

Vercingetorix wrote: And when does sentience come into a person? By definition, sentient means that something has sense, a concious. But, by equating sentience to life, you make it seem that if something isn't not aware of itself, it is not what it is, but something different.

Sentience is acquired when it is forced through the severing of the physical connection with the mother. That is the moment that the "being" becomes "a being".

Vercingetorix wrote: Well, life certainly isn't a choice, but neither is it an ultimatum. Life just is.

Life is always a choice because death is always an option.

Vercingetorix wrote: You seem to view life as a struggle and fight, and thus those who do not or cannot be forced into this struggle thus aren't life at all.

You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Life is a struggle, but that isn't the point of the issue. The point is life, sentience, emotion, hunger, pain, thought, touch, breath... all of these things are imposed upon the individual. They are never acquired through choice, never attained through goals, they are forced upon every single individual at the moment the cord is cut. Before that moment, there was no need for such things, and so unborn persons fail to have them. However, when the physical connection is cut, all of these requirements to sovereign life are imposed upon the unborn person, thus turning them from the potential, into the actual.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

LostSoul3412 wrote: straw man wrote: I think that life begins once the baby poops its first turd. Until it has had a successful dump, it is simply not a life.

I know you're being sarcastic, but it's a good point...

It isn't human until it proves that it's full of crap. :wink: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

LostSoul3412 wrote: Vercingetorix wrote: So, though, what constitutes an individual? When a unique genetic pattern is formed.

Are tumors as individuals, since they have a unique genetic code?

I think it's a little more than that.. A unique genetic code which is currently developing into a fully sentient human being. An embryo is growing more into a fully formed human being each day, and on its way towards becoming a "person", wheras a tumor is not developing into a conscious "person". They aren't even close to the same thing.

Quote: Sentience is acquired when it is forced through the severing of the physical connection with the mother. That is the moment that the "being" becomes "a being".

What happens if you don't cut the cord? Have they tried this experiment?

Also, what is the difference between a "being" and "a being" ?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

straw man wrote: I think it's a little more than that.. A unique genetic code which is currently developing into a fully sentient human being. An embryo is growing more into a fully formed human being each day, and on its way towards becoming a "person", wheras a tumor is not developing into a conscious "person". They aren't even close to the same thing.

That's my point, and that a unique genetic code is not enough to determine if something is a being.

Also, that's the same argument I make for why unborn persons are potential human beings, not actual human beings.

straw man wrote: What happens if you don't cut the cord? Have they tried this experiment?

I honestly don't know.

straw man wrote: Also, what is the difference between a "being" and "a being" ?

"I think, therefore I am." - Descartes

BuzWeaver · Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Posts: 165 Location: Atlanta, GA - USA

LostSoul3412 wrote: BuzWeaver wrote: You're setting a condition to life? Scientist considers even a single cell organism as a form of life. As you may have been watching with the Mars Rover they are trying to see if there was water on Mars, where there is water there is life, according to scientific research.

If Scientist can consider a single cell organism as life, how does this ideology fit into your line of thinking that life for a human being doesn’t begin until there are sentient?

Babies in the womb respond to sounds and even music.

You're confusing "life", with "a life".

The two have a unique distinction, one is not typically confused with the other.

Quote: "I think, therefore I am." - Descartes

There is a little more to it than philosophical existentialism.

Vercingetorix · Joined: 04 Nov 2005 Posts: 472

Quote: Because now it is forced to breath, feed, and feel. Before that moment, none of those things are required of it for survival.

A baby is "forced" to feel? A baby could feel before the umbilical cord was cut. Unless, of course, you have evidence that suggests that a baby starts feeling immediatley after the cord is cut. Second, I don't see how being dependent on an umbilical cord makes someone to be able to be killed. Following your logic, we should kill all those who are on life support.

Quote: Because it addresses the ultimatum and chooses life.

I'm trying to get a across a rather difficult concept, I now see. If something comes into being, it can't choose or address what it is, since it is. Something that comes into being as it is isn't forced to be anything, since it just is. Now, please don't ask me to explain what the definition of is is.

Quote: Are tumors as individuals, since they have a unique genetic code?

Are tumor cells specifically the species Homo Sapiens? Now, this isn't just a question of philosophy, it's a question of scientific fact. The answer, of course, is no. Ergo, it's not.

Quote: You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Life is a struggle, but that isn't the point of the issue. The point is life, sentience, emotion, hunger, pain, thought, touch, breath... all of these things are imposed upon the individual. They are never acquired through choice, never attained through goals, they are forced upon every single individual at the moment the cord is cut. Before that moment, there was no need for such things, and so unborn persons fail to have them. However, when the physical connection is cut, all of these requirements to sovereign life are imposed upon the unborn person, thus turning them from the potential, into the actual.

Ah, the crux of the problem! I've finally realized you're just a nihilist. And, since arguing with crazy people gets nowhere, I've realized why you just can't understand the truth.

We'll get nowhere with this debate, since we're of differing idealogies. Even if I tried to explain my point to you (or you your point to me) we'll get nowhere. Besides, you've turned this into a game of semantics, which also leads to dead ends.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

Vercingetorix wrote: Following your logic, we should kill all those who are on life support.

Nice try, but the difference in-lies that individuals upon life support have the ability to think and feel, but lack only the capacity to do so. Also, you're associating possible abortion with mass executions, when this is not the case.

Vercingetorix wrote: I'm trying to get a across a rather difficult concept, I now see. If something comes into being, it can't choose or address what it is, since it is. Something that comes into being as it is isn't forced to be anything, since it just is. Now, please don't ask me to explain what the definition of is is.

Life is absolutely a choice because death is always an option. Because of our ability to take our own lives, every moment we do not, we choose to live, and thus choose to continue our existence. As such, nothing with the power to terminate itself is forced into existence.

Vercingetorix wrote: Are tumor cells specifically the species Homo Sapiens?

Ah, now you're adding conditions to the genetic code.

Vercingetorix wrote: Ah, the crux of the problem! I've finally realized you're just a nihilist. And, since arguing with crazy people gets nowhere, I've realized why you just can't understand the truth.

:rotf:

Cute, really.

Vercingetorix wrote: We'll get nowhere with this debate, since we're of differing idealogies. Even if I tried to explain my point to you (or you your point to me) we'll get nowhere. Besides, you've turned this into a game of semantics, which also leads to dead ends.

If we were of the same ideology, would we be debating in the first place? Don't act so surprised to find that not everyone agrees with you.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

BuzWeaver wrote: The two have a unique distinction, one is not typically confused with the other.

And yet you've managed to do exactly that.

BuzWeaver wrote: There is a little more to it than philosophical existentialism.

Please explain.

private_citizen · Joined: 27 Aug 2006 Posts: 575 Location: New Hampshire

You know what I find ironic? Liberal Scientists say they found "Life" on a martian rock, because it had fossilized bacteria. Yet the same Liberal scientific community classifies a fetus as "clumps of tissue"

Go figure, I guess if you are 1,000,000 yr old bacteria, you are more alive than a unborn child with a heartbeat....

weird eh?

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2243

private_citizen wrote:

Go figure, I guess if you are 1,000,000 yr old bacteria, you are more alive than a unborn child with a heartbeat....

weird eh?

No, hyperbolic!

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

private_citizen wrote: You know what I find ironic? Liberal Scientists say they found "Life" on a martian rock, because it had fossilized bacteria. Yet the same Liberal scientific community classifies a fetus as "clumps of tissue"

Go figure, I guess if you are 1,000,000 yr old bacteria, you are more alive than a unborn child with a heartbeat....

weird eh?

They claimed they found life on Mars!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

No, they claimed they found EVIDENCE for life on Mars that existed at some point. They're not calling that evidence itself "life". (fossiles obviously are not alive).

private_citizen · Joined: 27 Aug 2006 Posts: 575 Location: New Hampshire

straw man wrote: private_citizen wrote: You know what I find ironic? Liberal Scientists say they found "Life" on a martian rock, because it had fossilized bacteria. Yet the same Liberal scientific community classifies a fetus as "clumps of tissue"

Go figure, I guess if you are 1,000,000 yr old bacteria, you are more alive than a unborn child with a heartbeat....

weird eh?

They claimed they found life on Mars!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

No, they claimed they found EVIDENCE for life on Mars that existed at some point. They're not calling that evidence itself "life". (fossiles obviously are not alive).

so... if bacteria is evidence of life.... what is a fetus?