Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 64 of 120

Thread: The Abortion Thread

  1. #49
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,252
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    555 times in 339 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TeePee View Post
    Thoughts are electrical activity are thoughts. I do not get the distinction. You should re-read if you think I'm arguing for anything separate from the body. No electricity means no thoughts, means death. There is no magic being that swooshes into an embryo at conception.
    As I said, I know you would never desire to make that point and would reject the notion that you had made it. Nevertheless you did. That's okay though. If you're willing to accept the point that there is nothing but the physical, organic elements I'll try to clarify the distinction I made.

    All thoughts are electrical activity but not all electrical activity are thoughts. The two are not synonymous terms. Thoughts can be explained as electrical activity but electrical activity cannot be explained as thoughts. In the end thoughts are just one product of electrical activity, and that physical electrical activity has no meaning in and of itself. It is simple a bio-chemical process. Nothing more. Thoughts are an illusion of a reality which does not exist. There is no magic being. No swoosh. Just electrical activity resulting in what we call thoughts but which can only explained as the firing of electrical impulses, the reasons behind being purely physics and chemistry and having no meaning in and of themselves - meaningless.

    You haven't eased the pain of the child, you've caused it. Sick and wrong. You show a total lack of humanity. Your obsessive religion is starting to make sense. You use it as a crutch, a way of believing yourself to be a better person than you are.
    First I'll deal with the problem or moral responsibility. It is not possible to argue that I would be responsible for the suffering of that child without also stating that all parents in the world, ever, as just as responsible for bringing children their into a world where pain is inevitable. Looking further, in this scenario, I did not cause the pain. The pain came about because of some biological problem. Additionally, and more specifically, the type of pain felt described here is physical and it is pain due to an ailment. That being the case are you willing to state that all parents who bring children into the world with an ailment are "sick and wrong"? In this scenario I have not caused pain, I have honoured a societal value to try to maintain and promote life in a world where pain is not necessarily the be-all-and-end-all but which has, many times, been overcome and lead to great achievement and beauty. These aren't easy scenarios and they must not be taken lightly, but they are real scenarios in a real world where we do the best we can.

    Bringing it down to reality - would you have killed Helen Keller if you knew she would be born blind and deaf? How about Stephen Hawking knowing he would be confined to a wheel-chair not even able to speak properly? You make it seem like pain is everything and must be avoided at all costs. It is not. Pain is unpleasant, but it is a part of this world. To try to avoid it is foolishness. To start taking lives in order to keep people from it is, by our own society's definition, wrong. Where does it stop - emotional pain, mental anguish? These are often far more crippling than physical pain, and yet they are certain for every single one of us to varying degrees. No. We live in a society where we face pain every day and have learned that the best thing is to try to overcome it and to value life - which has such an incredible capacity to spring back from very little and overcome the greatest hurdles and achieve many great things. That is why we value life. It is an arrogant position that speaks for another and says I will take your life from you because I am sparing you pain. What other lives would you be willing to take by your own decision in the name freedom from pain? Because we are human beings who have decided to give each other basic rights we have a right to choose and to be supported, valued, and helped in and through that choice. The unborn have that right too. That's the point we're talking about. That all human organisms have been given basic rights. The minute we make an exception to that we devalue life.

    Now, I know the one point you're going to bring up in all of this is length of life. That the baby will only live for minutes or hours without the chance to make any choices of its own, and without any understanding as to the pain it's feeling. That is a sad and tragic circumstance, and as I briefly mentioned, not one with I am unfamiliar. You take me to be without compassion, as though I'm overjoyed at the prospect of standing on my principles and watching as a new born child squirms in pain and moves into and out of the world in only a short time. You're wrong. I am a man who values both life and compassion. I value life enough to know that we all live for different lengths of time and accomplish varying amounts in our life time having faced various challenges and trials. Someone else said that part of the beauty of human life is the ability of humans to bounce back, the ability to overcome obstacles and trials. They are right. That is part of the beauty of humanity. If life has no intrinsic meaning then would you not say we give it meaning? Can we not say that life in its existence is meaningful? That what we accomplish in life, be it much or little, does not ultimately matter. Rather, it is the difference we make in the lives of others. A small child with only hours to live might not seem like it means much, but it does. It is a life. Just as vulnerable as you and I once were only with less of a biological footing. Nevertheless he or she has as much meaning as you and I and what is more we give him or her meaning by appreciating and valuing him or her as a life, with equal value and equal meaning. Even more, that small child gives meaning to our lives, and makes an indelible impression in our lives and hearts and minds forever, as something we treasure, and even hold with us as we fight and build and live through life. That is the value of those little lives and why we should treasure and honour them as lives and people in their own right with their own rights. They are the same as us in essence and meaning. Pain cannot be avoided, not for any of us, but all of us should help one another through pain at whatever stage we face it. In the case of a little one, I still do not see the problem with using our medical capabilities to deliver palliative care to small, dying human being. We honour the child by valuing his or her life and giving them all the chances possible (and incredible things have happened), we care for them by trying to remove and ease as much pain as possible.

    The meaning in life is not in how long we live or how much we achieve but in how we treat and care for other human beings. It gives us meaning. Philosophically speaking, the dark alternative to this is to say that life is meaningless and so, therefore is pain. That neither pleasure nor pain, achievement nor failure, joy nor suffering are important. If we do not value life, then what does it matter if someone lives or dies, suffers or prospers? Pain is unpleasant and even hateful at times, but it is not the end of the story, valuing life is.
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

  2. #50
    Hexus.Jet TeePee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gallup, NM
    Posts
    5,367
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked
    746 times in 442 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Steven Hawking was able-bodied into his 20's.

    Pain can be avoided. It cannot be felt without that electrical activity. By forcing that child to continue it's development, develop the ability to feel every bit of that pain and nothing else before it dies, you are causing it. You are not a compassionate person.

  3. #51
    Gentoo Ricer
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Galway
    Posts
    11,048
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    944 times in 704 posts
    • aidanjt's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Strix Z370-G
      • CPU:
      • Intel i7-8700K
      • Memory:
      • 2x8GB Corsiar LPX 3000C15
      • Storage:
      • 500GB Samsung 960 EVO
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0
      • PSU:
      • EVGA G3 750W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define C Mini
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Asus MG279Q
      • Internet:
      • 240mbps Virgin Cable

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    See my previous post. You're not actually making a progression with this point you're only adding another step to the same path. The point of the argument is that there is no 'soul' as separate from the body.
    So, what you're saying is, all organisms with a brain, actually do all their processing in some spooky distant supernatural place? Is that seriously what you're suggesting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    The electrical impulses might seem to be something more than they are but they are not. It's just your perception.
    No, it's not just my perception, it's a well studied fact of neurology. Your personality is contained within your brain, when you're brain dead, your personality is lost, you're a permanent vegetable. That, which makes you human, is gone. And the same applies for any animal with a brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    Electrical impulses aren't emotions or souls, rather it is souls and emotions that are really electrical impulses.
    Wrong, emotions are exactly that. We know from experimentation that introducing emotion hormones alters moods and behaviour in a wide range of animals, including humans, lighting up regions of the brain which act as receptor switches for those hormones. And as above, we know personhood is contained within the brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    What else is there to explain it? You might think you have some sort of spiritual worth, but in fact, you're just a physical entity that is biological deceived into thinking it is more than it is, and then degrades and dies.
    Where did I say otherwise? In fact, that's precisely what I'm trying to explain to you. Except I'm not drawing an imaginary line and saying my personhood is exempt from physical laws of decay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    This is for two possible reasons or a combination of both. First, it could be because the electrical impulses aren't all that matters - if the biological channel, or wiring, for the impulses degrades, no amount of bio-electric charge will change that. Alternatively, it could be because we just don't have the tech for it yet. We didn't used to be able to restart a heart but now we can, precisely by the application of high tech jump leads. Either way, bio-electrical impulses are just bio-electrical impulses.
    Except the sinoatrial node isn't a human brain. The former is a battery connected to a lightbulb, the latter is Cray Jaguar XT with each transistor having its own power generator, all running off a mere 100W of energy. And yes, the network starts collapsing rapidly when brain activity ceases. Hence why you can't just zap it with juice and reboot it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    First, Billy's idea of removing equal human rights notwithstanding, either we all have rights or we don't It's useless to talk about saving the rights of one person by taking away the rights of another. It's self-contradictory. Second, if you wish to talk about reasons (overpopulation being one) for killing people then you return to Billy's proposition of eliminating human rights as they now stand and instead making relative judgement calls about who gets to live and who gets to die - without even a choice. By that argument it would be just as plausible to decide that if the world is overpopulated we should just kill all the older people (desirous or not) since they're taking up space, and wasting money, time and energy on housing and medical care. Some of them aren't even making a proper contribution to society but are just living in retirement. We could 'retire' them entirely? Again, see the above post for more examples. Besides all this, I don't believe anyone was, or has been, arguing for abortion as population control (except possibly Billy by extension of logic). We were talking about the rights of suffering or inconvenienced women. About the challenging problem of the right to life versus the right to freedom. How did we even get onto this notion of killing people for other reasons? Third, turning all women into breeding vessels beyond their choice is both an overstatement and also isn't at all the argument against abortion. As mentioned before, there are a number of very important related concerns attached to the question of abortion - the reasons why a woman might want an abortion, the challenges and problems she might face, the help and compassion a suffering pregnant woman might and does need. These are serious and urgent issues that need addressing. The argument against abortion simply states that the answer to these problems does not, and must not, be found in the taking of another human life but rather should be sought in the further investment of society into advanced, effective care, of all types, encouraging compassion towards those who are in need and responsibility among those who are not in that position, as well as addressing the societal problems that even lead a woman to consider such an operation, all with them aim of seeking to honour and value every human life, and never seeing any human being as expendable.
    The key word in all that is 'person'. First trimester foetuses are not people, they have no brain, they have no person, they can't even perceive pain, which makes them even less developed than the common house fly.

    Again, we're brought back the conclusion that religious objection to abortions is solely yet another indoctrination tool designed to bolster their ranks, regardless to the cost and suffering it brings.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent View Post
    ...every time Creative bring out a new card range their advertising makes it sound like they have discovered a way to insert a thousand Chuck Norris super dwarfs in your ears...

  4. #52
    Seething Cauldron of Hatred TheAnimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    17,168
    Thanks
    803
    Thanked
    2,152 times in 1,408 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    The only reason we consider humans to be special is because we are humans. So we give ourselves rights that we don't give to others. It's survival of the fittest. Now, if society has given those rights to human beings, then we, as our own moral authority, have made a declaration. Who are you to take away those rights from another human being just the same as you, only younger?
    You talk about rights again, but have ignored my suggestion that you don't actually put your money where you mouth is, that your idea of rights is just all talk, hyperbole.

    You consider a zygote to be a human, rather than a potential to be a human which is how most of us would see it, as it can not think or dream yet.

    But its not a human. It could easily be two humans, heck maybe more!

    There fore you can't even call it 'a' life, it could well be more than one. Its all about the potential.
    throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)

  5. #53
    Pork & Beans Powerup Phage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    6,260
    Thanks
    1,618
    Thanked
    608 times in 518 posts
    • Phage's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Crosshair VIII
      • CPU:
      • 3800x
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb @ 3600Mhz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 960 512Gb + 2Tb Samsung 860
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080ti
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet 850w
      • Case:
      • Fractal Define 7
      • Operating System:
      • W10 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Iiyama GB3461WQSU-B1

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    As that potential is contained in every cell of your body, should I be 'saving' the contents of my vacuum cleaner ?
    Society's to blame,
    Or possibly Atari.

  6. #54
    Seething Cauldron of Hatred TheAnimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    17,168
    Thanks
    803
    Thanked
    2,152 times in 1,408 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by aidanjt View Post
    No, it's not just my perception, it's a well studied fact of neurology. Your personality is contained within your brain, when you're brain dead, your personality is lost, you're a permanent vegetable. That, which makes you human, is gone. And the same applies for any animal with a brain.
    Whilst I agree with most of what your saying, and have sadly studied so little Neuroscience (my biology is ropy!) I was lucky to be taught by a researcher who by his own humble admission liked to bung people in an MRI and ask them not to think about been a guinea pig in an MRI, they could see certain parts of the brain generally respond to certain situations and things.

    The point is we don't really know the facts about it. All we know is there is an amazing complex structure there, which is more than capable of explaining all the questions of "how" we can think and be, feel and love.

    The other thing I find about the brain, is just what a peice of engineering it is, it is enough for me as an engineer, as someone who has studied AI, and made plenty of them to know this, its crap.

    There is no elegance to it, it is incredibly inefficient, and fragile. For me it is enough evidence that there is no creator god right there. Because I would guess anyone capable of designing something like the brain, would have done a better job, it is however entirely the kind of solution that would appear by chance over many itterations.
    throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)

  7. #55
    Pork & Beans Powerup Phage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    6,260
    Thanks
    1,618
    Thanked
    608 times in 518 posts
    • Phage's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Crosshair VIII
      • CPU:
      • 3800x
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb @ 3600Mhz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 960 512Gb + 2Tb Samsung 860
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080ti
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet 850w
      • Case:
      • Fractal Define 7
      • Operating System:
      • W10 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Iiyama GB3461WQSU-B1

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    A very old quote.
    "If the brain was simple enough for us to understand it, we'd be so simple we couldn't."
    What's really interesting is how plastic the network is, with the ability to re-route, and re-learn. Like the hydocephalus patients with very little brain matter at all.
    http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/scienc..._necessary.htm
    Society's to blame,
    Or possibly Atari.

  8. #56
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,252
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    555 times in 339 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by aidanjt View Post
    So, what you're saying is, all organisms with a brain, actually do all their processing in some spooky distant supernatural place? Is that seriously what you're suggesting?
    No. I'm saying the opposite, as you managed to catch on a bit later. Re-read it and you'll see.

    It is you would be saying that every single time you attempt to state that emotions or personality is anything other than the firing of physical matter. The point of this being that you are arguing humanity is personality as though it is something special that comes to the human being, it isn't. Personality is just one repercussion of the processing and growth of a physical organism. It is the physical organism itself that is pertinent and real, not the differing perceptions that come from it.


    The key word in all that is 'person'. First trimester foetuses are not people, they have no brain, they have no person, they can't even perceive pain, which makes them even less developed than the common house fly.
    The perception of pain cannot be a measure of humanity because there are human beings with congenital analgesia who cannot and never have felt any pain. Are they less developed than a house fly?

    Please go back and review my arguments above as to why brain activity is not necessarily the best definition of human life.

    Steven Hawking was able-bodied into his 20's.
    So his pain doesn't count?

    Pain can be avoided.
    Show me a human being who has managed to live their lives without experiencing any sort of pain? Stop ignoring my arguments. By continuing on about culpability in uncaused pain aren't you in fact saying that all parents are guilty because they are allowing their children to continue into development where they will eventually feel much pain? By saying that pain is a just cause to end a life without consent aren't you potentially advocating the unwilling death of all sorts of humans - to save them from pain? Are you in agreement that at least all abortion after the beginning of electrical activity or full brain development should be ended - because every single abortion from that point on will cause felt pain to the child being killed?

    The key question in this debate is what entitles us to basic human rights, what is human life. I am trying to come to a reasoned, logical assessment of that question that answers all of the knowledge and understanding and information we have. If you want to argue for some sort of humanity beyond the physical organism then fine, go ahead, but know that it is you yourselves that are taking this debate into religious territory. I am stating that from a purely naturalistic perspective no argument can be made for electrical impulses in the brain being special as opposed to any other or the overall biological process. If you start to argue that personality matters - how does it matter? What type of personality? The capacity to reason? To what extent? Not every human has the same capacity of thought or reason nor even the same level of personality - what about personality disorders or ailments that remove personality. Do those people cease to be human, or are they a lower form of humanity? Humanity can only be defined, in natural terms, as the human organism, the whole human organism, in the stages and phases through which it passes. That is what the human is, and it is to that human that rights are given. Therefore they should be defended.

    And please stop insulting me.
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

  9. #57
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,252
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    555 times in 339 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TheAnimus View Post
    You talk about rights again, but have ignored my suggestion that you don't actually put your money where you mouth is
    Who are you to know what I do or do not do? You make completely unfounded assumptions that I sit here and do nothing. If I told you I have spent much time in my life helping others, visiting the elderly, serving different people in different ways would you believe it? It's just a straight ad hominem attack and a weak one in its unfounded nature.


    that your idea of rights is just all talk, hyperbole.
    If this mean you're another one for the removal of human rights then go and see my replies to billythewiz on it and then come back.

    You consider a zygote to be a human, rather than a potential to be a human which is how most of us would see it, as it can not think or dream yet.
    Either this is circular reasoning - A zygote is not a human because you've already decided it's not a human - or you're stating that personhood is based upon mental capacity. Please be very careful. Once you base the definition of humanity on a quantifiable variable, a capacity, it will almost certainly find an equivalent in the adult world. It cannot be done this way.

    But its not a human. It could easily be two humans, heck maybe more! There fore you can't even call it 'a' life, it could well be more than one. Its all about the potential.
    That only makes the case for abortion even worse. You're multiplying lives now.

    As that potential is contained in every cell of your body, should I be 'saving' the contents of my vacuum cleaner ?
    No, because we're talking about living cells that have the real potential to grow.
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

  10. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    points down
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    467
    Thanked
    132 times in 111 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    First I'll deal with the problem or moral responsibility. It is not possible to argue that I would be responsible for the suffering of that child without also stating that all parents in the world, ever, as just as responsible for bringing children their into a world where pain is inevitable.
    Rubbish- if a child is born a certain way their life will already be defined for them by that event even before their first word - they have no say or chance to determine their own outcome - unless theirs a cure for those who dont want it.

    Of course many times there isnt , so by default youve already made that choice for them.

    Trying to compare that to general life or fate because its inevitable is like allowing criminals to go unpunished because theirs always someone whose going to do something bad,

    m

  11. #59
    Pork & Beans Powerup Phage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    6,260
    Thanks
    1,618
    Thanked
    608 times in 518 posts
    • Phage's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Crosshair VIII
      • CPU:
      • 3800x
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb @ 3600Mhz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 960 512Gb + 2Tb Samsung 860
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080ti
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet 850w
      • Case:
      • Fractal Define 7
      • Operating System:
      • W10 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Iiyama GB3461WQSU-B1

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    OK. A bit hyperbolic on my part. Apologies for that.
    My point stands however. Every living cell of your body has the potential to become a another human as it contains the DNA code. Surely you cannot state that every cell is therefore to be given human rights ?

    To which you may respond that those cells cannot do this without the aid of technology and 'interference' and is therefore unnatural. In my eyes, that would just be another way of saying that it is against supernatural 'laws' and therefore has no meaning. Potential exists in every cell howsoever realised.
    Society's to blame,
    Or possibly Atari.

  12. #60
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,252
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    555 times in 339 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by melon View Post
    Rubbish- if a child is born a certain way their life will already be defined for them by that event even before their first word - they have no say or chance to determine their own outcome - unless theirs a cure for those who dont want it.

    Of course many times there isnt , so by default youve already made that choice for them.

    Trying to compare that to general life or fate because its inevitable is like allowing criminals to go unpunished because theirs always someone whose going to do something bad,

    m
    I don't follow all of your points but if you're saying that what's rubbish is the idea that all parents are responsible for wrongdoing because their children have experienced pain, then I agree. That was the point I was trying to make.
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

  13. #61
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,252
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    555 times in 339 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Phage View Post
    OK. A bit hyperbolic on my part. Apologies for that.
    My point stands however. Every living cell of your body has the potential to become a another human as it contains the DNA code. Surely you cannot state that every cell is therefore to be given human rights ?

    To which you may respond that those cells cannot do this without the aid of technology and 'interference' and is therefore unnatural. In my eyes, that would just be another way of saying that it is against supernatural 'laws' and therefore has no meaning. Potential exists in every cell howsoever realised.
    I think it is important to differentiate between actual or real potential and information in this case the cells can be said to have all necessary information which could, theoretically, be used to 'make' a new human being, the fact remains that developed cells do not have the real potential to become a human being, they are skin cells or whatever other type of cell. The cells even at the very beginning of human development are unique, live cells who have begun the process of human development which will then continue - if uninterrupted - until old age and death. That is the definition of human life. It is what it is to be human and in each case where those cells come to exist and function it is something real and actual, not potential.

    The argument concerning potential is actually made irrelevant because the human foetus is not to be afforded human rights due to potential (because it holds the information to be a human being) but because it is already a human being.
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

  14. #62
    Pork & Beans Powerup Phage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    6,260
    Thanks
    1,618
    Thanked
    608 times in 518 posts
    • Phage's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Crosshair VIII
      • CPU:
      • 3800x
      • Memory:
      • 16Gb @ 3600Mhz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 960 512Gb + 2Tb Samsung 860
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080ti
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet 850w
      • Case:
      • Fractal Define 7
      • Operating System:
      • W10 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Iiyama GB3461WQSU-B1

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    the fact remains that developed cells do not have the real potential to become a human being, they are skin cells or whatever other type of cell.
    Yes they do. Dolly the sheep came from a mammary cell I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    The cells even at the very beginning of human development are unique,
    Why ? All cells, given the right stimulus, have this potential.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    The argument concerning potential is actually made irrelevant because the human foetus is not to be afforded human rights due to potential (because it holds the information to be a human being) but because it is already a human being.
    In your eyes it seems, a human being == gamete, but I really can't see how you come to that conclusion whilst staying in the material. We've rules out potential/genetics, we've ruled out thought, pain and even electrical activity. What do you use as your defining characteristic between a gamete and any other cell ?
    Society's to blame,
    Or possibly Atari.

  15. #63
    Seething Cauldron of Hatred TheAnimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    17,168
    Thanks
    803
    Thanked
    2,152 times in 1,408 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    Who are you to know what I do or do not do? You make completely unfounded assumptions that I sit here and do nothing. If I told you I have spent much time in my life helping others, visiting the elderly, serving different people in different ways would you believe it? It's just a straight ad hominem attack and a weak one in its unfounded nature.
    Because there are still people who with the simplest action will have their lifes saved. My point is that ANY action we take that is something un-nesecerry could have been an action that would have saved lives right?

    A cinema in London frequently costs £8 per ticket, a room full of people all of whom are effectively opting to watch something rather than save a live, if only for a month.

    My assertion is that is the value of human life realised. Not what someone says they think, but what they actually do.

    You can't say "oh yes I value the human life, I give to charity that saves lives" if you really valued it, you wouldn't spend money on anything non-essential until those lifes were saved. Obviously, this would involve internet forums, as such I can easily conclude, that you are being hypocritical with this.

    Why build a fancy church instead of a lighthouse, or feeding people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    If this mean you're another one for the removal of human rights then go and see my replies to billythewiz on it and then come back.
    But you don't like human rights, you only like your idea of human rights, that is not the same, that is why you can't bully gay people. We've been over this, society at large thankfully says your idea of human rights are not what we consider them to be, which is good, as I think yours are particularly evil.
    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    Either this is circular reasoning - A zygote is not a human because you've already decided it's not a human - or you're stating that personhood is based upon mental capacity. Please be very careful. Once you base the definition of humanity on a quantifiable variable, a capacity, it will almost certainly find an equivalent in the adult world. It cannot be done this way.
    There is nothing circular there. A Zygote is potential in my definition, that is all. You say its 'human' but you can't even know if its going to be one human or two human?

    Where do you put your line?
    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    No, because we're talking about living cells that have the real potential to grow.
    So where is the 'real' potential to grow? Plenty of zygotes will fail naturally! What about a sperm and an egg. They mearly need to be brought together for a good chance of a zygote. Is that not real potential in a living organism?

    I don't understand why you would say a zygote is a human, but egg n sperm, been almost brought together is not.

    I'd still also love to know why its OK to kill a living monkey say, that shows emotion, but not a zygote.
    throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)

  16. #64
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,252
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    555 times in 339 posts

    Re: The Abortion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Phage View Post
    Yes they do. Dolly the sheep came from a mammary cell I think.
    Okay, correction to that sentence - they do not have the intrinsic, independent potential to do so. Talking about how the human organic process comes into being does not affect the status of it once it is in process.



    Why ? All cells, given the right stimulus, have this potential.
    Not true, hence the difference in embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Adult stem cells can only be used to reproduce like organs. Embryonic stem cells, it is argued, have the potential to become any type of cell. They are unique. However, as with my point above, all of this talk of potential is irrelevant to the main point that the origin of the human development process does not matter. It is the living biological process itself with which we are concerned.



    In your eyes it seems, a human being == gamete, but I really can't see how you come to that conclusion whilst staying in the material. We've rules out potential/genetics, we've ruled out thought, pain and even electrical activity. What do you use as your defining characteristic between a gamete and any other cell ?
    No, gametes are the cellular building blocks of a human being. In my eyes a somatic cell is a human being. As I have said before, the defining characteristic of a human being is the unique biological organism which goes through various stage in the process of its life as a cellular being. Cells which drop or are cut off a human being are not a human being in themselves they are simply a part of that human being. I do believe it is quite possible to list and describe all the component parts of what make up a human being at each and every stage of existence, and their function, but hopefully you don't expect me to do that because I have neither the time nor the ability to do so without research.
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •