41% of Births end in Abortion...100%

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, I can only violate the rights of what I consider to be a person.

Since the mother most definitely is one and it is debatable whether the embryo is , I think we shall err on the side of prudence.
[/quote]

Oh give me a break. You don’t care if it’s a human life, period. Why be so cowardly in your position? [/quote]

Yep.[/quote]

Don’t know if anyone remembers, but a while back when we were in a different thread about the exact same topic, only this time we were discussing the ethics of abortion with respect to property rights. For some reason, when it came to his religion, Orion was fundamentalist, idealistic, black-and-white,unwavering.Now that we come into another angle that isn’t nearly so malleable as Property Rights (PBUT), he’s all like, practical, and stuff.[/quote]

Property rights come from a human’s right to their fundamental piece of property: themselves.
The natural human right to property is an extension of your right to: voluntary exchange ← your labor ← self-ownership ← life.

322

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

These ‘what if?’ scenarios are boring D.

“With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being.” means that the dead do not apply.[/quote]

But they have previously established person hood.

I’m only pointing out how convoluted your definition is. You are doing mental contortions to define human life in such a way as to support your previous belief that women should be allowed to kill human embryos.

So far your definition is “With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being, but not when it applies to being asleep or in a coma because they are previously established, unless maybe its a currently irreversible coma and technology hasn’t gotten that good yet, and the previous personhood thing doesn’t apply to the dead because I say so.”

That about sum it up?[/quote]

There’s nothing convoluted about it, lol. A sleeping person is something entirely different from a corpse. I’m amazed you’re actually trying to compare the two.

Even a sleeping brain has brainfunction, and plenty of it. A dead brain has none.

So no, that does not sum it up, not by a long shot.

323

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

These ‘what if?’ scenarios are boring D.

“With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being.” means that the dead do not apply.[/quote]

But they have previously established person hood.

I’m only pointing out how convoluted your definition is. You are doing mental contortions to define human life in such a way as to support your previous belief that women should be allowed to kill human embryos.

So far your definition is “With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being, but not when it applies to being asleep or in a coma because they are previously established, unless maybe its a currently irreversible coma and technology hasn’t gotten that good yet, and the previous personhood thing doesn’t apply to the dead because I say so.”

That about sum it up?[/quote]

There’s nothing convoluted about it, lol. A sleeping person is something entirely different from a corpse. I’m amazed you’re actually trying to compare the two.

[/quote]
I am not comparing the 2, I am applying your standard to both. Why in hell would they have to be the same to apply your standard?

Great, but that wasn’t your criteria though.

[quote]

So no, that does not sum it up, not by a long shot.[/quote]

Well how about you right me a complete definition then?

324

In my opinion, self-awareness, whether current or prior, isn’t a requirement for personhood. If someone was born with severe mental retardation, they might be utterly unself-aware, but I would still consider them to be a person.

325

[quote]forlife wrote:
In my opinion, self-awareness, whether current or prior, isn’t a requirement for personhood. If someone was born with severe mental retardation, they might be utterly unself-aware, but I would still consider them to be a person.[/quote]

Everyone knows. Some people just refuse to acknowledge their own position.

326

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, I can only violate the rights of what I consider to be a person.

Since the mother most definitely is one and it is debatable whether the embryo is , I think we shall err on the side of prudence.
[/quote]

Oh give me a break. You don’t care if it’s a human life, period. Why be so cowardly in your position? [/quote]

Yep.[/quote]

Don’t know if anyone remembers, but a while back when we were in a different thread about the exact same topic, only this time we were discussing the ethics of abortion with respect to property rights. For some reason, when it came to his religion, Orion was fundamentalist, idealistic, black-and-white,unwavering.Now that we come into another angle that isn’t nearly so malleable as Property Rights (PBUT), he’s all like, practical, and stuff.[/quote]

There is such a thing as a principle and there is the application of said principle in an imperfect world.

While I do think that property rights are absolute, I also think that such questions like light or noise emissions need to be dealt with in some way.

327

[quote]
Like I said before, there is no criteria that disqualifies a human inside the womb from personhood that doesn’t also disqualify many other humans.[/quote]

and that doesn’t also qualify many non-human animals.

if we took the self-awareness criteria, then it’s ok to kill a 5 month old but killing a magpie is murder.

328

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

These ‘what if?’ scenarios are boring D.

“With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being.” means that the dead do not apply.[/quote]

But they have previously established person hood.

I’m only pointing out how convoluted your definition is. You are doing mental contortions to define human life in such a way as to support your previous belief that women should be allowed to kill human embryos.

So far your definition is “With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being, but not when it applies to being asleep or in a coma because they are previously established, unless maybe its a currently irreversible coma and technology hasn’t gotten that good yet, and the previous personhood thing doesn’t apply to the dead because I say so.”

That about sum it up?[/quote]

There’s nothing convoluted about it, lol. A sleeping person is something entirely different from a corpse. I’m amazed you’re actually trying to compare the two.

[/quote]
I am not comparing the 2, I am applying your standard to both. Why in hell would they have to be the same to apply your standard?

Great, but that wasn’t your criteria though.

[quote]

So no, that does not sum it up, not by a long shot.[/quote]

Well how about you right me a complete definition then?[/quote]

I talked about brainfunction as an indication for personhood and life, yet you seem to think that dead people have brainfunction?

I know you’re not this dense, so why are you acting like you are?

329

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

My personhood has been previously established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Being asleep does not invalidate that personhood.
[/quote]

When does one acquire personhood?

Do you have any empirical guides that show that self awareness equals human life? A dog has self awareness and is not actually a person.

There is actually no way to determine that even a born baby has ‘self awareness’, it’s mostly responding to stimuli like hunger or exhaustion. So if it were found that a born baby was not self aware, would it be permissible to kill them?[/quote]

Asked and answered pat.

Are you selfaware? Do you see yourself as equal to [having] human life? If you answer “yes”, ask the same question to a zygote.

A new born may not be self aware as we are since the mental constructs that make us a person aren’t made/learned yet, that’s true. To kill a baby that’s been brought to full term is an awful waste of investment, don’t you think?

But you’d have to make these assinine comparisons in order to maintain the illusion that a clump of cells should have the same rights a fully grown woman has. That a clump of cells superceeds the rights of a fully grown woman, even.

We could discuss the philosophical nature of being a human. I think that’s much more interesting that yet another abortion thread.

Don’t you?
[/quote]

You are a clump of cells, just a bigger clump. Assigning brain function as the end all be all to human existence is the asinine stance. A zygote an autonomous living being has the same unique DNA structure as it will have through out it’s life, if you destroy that zygote it cannot be replace. Do you deny any of this? Anything you kill will not have consciousness. Further, consciousness is not really well understood anyway. There is no way to tell if something has it, or does not. Communication is not consciousness it’s one indication that it may be there.

Second of all, being an empiricist where is the scientific proof that brain function equal humanness? Is this your view or is there a shared hard line stance that at point ‘X’ of gestation, the ‘thing’ is now human?

We’re talking about life or death here, it cannot be arbitrary.

Sure we can discuss what ‘humanness’ is, but you willingly jumped into to this debate accusing us (prolife) folks of hating women and that’s why we’re against abortion.[/quote]

A zygote is autonomous? Since when?[/quote]

Since it became a separate living entity with it’s own unique DNA separate from the mother’s, which all happens shortly after the 23 from the father connects with the 23 from the mother. Right before that process completes, it is not a human life yet.

330

[quote]orion wrote:
…I do think that property rights are absolute, [/quote]

Unless they belong to a clump of cells, no?

331

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Also, I can only violate the rights of what I consider to be a person.

Since the mother most definitely is one and it is debatable whether the embryo is , I think we shall err on the side of prudence.
[/quote]

Oh give me a break. You don’t care if it’s a human life, period. Why be so cowardly in your position? [/quote]

Yep.[/quote]

Don’t know if anyone remembers, but a while back when we were in a different thread about the exact same topic, only this time we were discussing the ethics of abortion with respect to property rights. For some reason, when it came to his religion, Orion was fundamentalist, idealistic, black-and-white,unwavering.Now that we come into another angle that isn’t nearly so malleable as Property Rights (PBUT), he’s all like, practical, and stuff.[/quote]

Property rights come from a human’s right to their fundamental piece of property: themselves.
The natural human right to property is an extension of your right to: voluntary exchange ← your labor ← self-ownership ← life.
[/quote]

I think he’s referring to this:

A mother has decided she will no longer feed, clothe, or keep clean her 1 month old infant. She is not actively doing it harm. That is, she is not smothering it, shooting it, or etc. Somehow word gets out to some good-hearted folk in town. Immediately they rush over to this woman’s residence to remove the child and get it medical help. At first they merely call to her from the edge of the property, begging her to turn the child over. She informs them that no one will raise her flesh and blood, even in the face of her own negligence. Oh, and that they do not have permission to set one foot on her property, trespassing, much less take the child.

Which is the moral good? To trespass upon sacred private property (aggression)? To right some ‘wrong’ transpiring absent aggression (negligence)? Or to possibly even shoot one of the home invaders (rescuers) in defense of property?

332

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

A zygote is autonomous? Since when?[/quote]

Since it became a separate living entity with it’s own unique DNA separate from the mother’s, which all happens shortly after the 23 from the father connects with the 23 from the mother. Right before that process completes, it is not a human life yet.
[/quote]

As soon as a zygote can survive outside a womb without aid, then it’s become autonomous.

333

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…I do think that property rights are absolute, [/quote]

Unless they belong to a clump of cells, no?[/quote]

I ignore them, just like I ignore the property rights of rocks, daisies and livestock.

334

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

These ‘what if?’ scenarios are boring D.

“With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being.” means that the dead do not apply.[/quote]

But they have previously established person hood.

I’m only pointing out how convoluted your definition is. You are doing mental contortions to define human life in such a way as to support your previous belief that women should be allowed to kill human embryos.

So far your definition is “With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being, but not when it applies to being asleep or in a coma because they are previously established, unless maybe its a currently irreversible coma and technology hasn’t gotten that good yet, and the previous personhood thing doesn’t apply to the dead because I say so.”

That about sum it up?[/quote]

There’s nothing convoluted about it, lol. A sleeping person is something entirely different from a corpse. I’m amazed you’re actually trying to compare the two.

[/quote]
I am not comparing the 2, I am applying your standard to both. Why in hell would they have to be the same to apply your standard?

Great, but that wasn’t your criteria though.

No, you said “With a level of brainfunction that indicates awareness of being”. So now you are changing that to any amount of brain function?

Write me a complete definition.

335

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

A zygote is autonomous? Since when?[/quote]

Since it became a separate living entity with it’s own unique DNA separate from the mother’s, which all happens shortly after the 23 from the father connects with the 23 from the mother. Right before that process completes, it is not a human life yet.
[/quote]

As soon as a zygote can survive outside a womb without aid, then it’s become autonomous.[/quote]

So when a kid hit about 3 years old, it’s no longer a zygote?

The ‘zygote’ it a separate living entity from the host, like a parasite. It is not the same as the host. Just because it require a host, doesn’t mean it’s the same living organism.
If a tape worm crawls up your ass, are you and the tape worm one and the same?

336

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…I do think that property rights are absolute, [/quote]

Unless they belong to a clump of cells, no?[/quote]

I ignore them, just like I ignore the property rights of rocks, daisies and livestock.[/quote]

You sure know how to stretch the definition of the word “absolute.”

337

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
As soon as a zygote can survive outside a womb without aid, then it’s become autonomous.[/quote]

So when a kid hit about 3 years old, it’s no longer a zygote?

The ‘zygote’ it a separate living entity from the host, like a parasite. It is not the same as the host. Just because it require a host, doesn’t mean it’s the same living organism.
If a tape worm crawls up your ass, are you and the tape worm one and the same?[/quote]

Every cell in your body is replaced during a seven year cycle. So no, the three year old is no longer the zygote.

I know you think you have the rational approach here, and i understand why you maintain the position. But this discussion will have no resolution because i do not acknowledge the rights of a zygote as equal to that of a adult human being.

338

[quote]ephrem wrote:
But this discussion will have no resolution because i do not acknowledge the rights of a zygote as equal to that of a adult human being.

[/quote]

Of course not. You’re already free of the danger yourself. Meh, I’m on ignore, why did I bother?

339

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Every cell in your body is replaced during a seven year cycle. So no, the three year old is no longer the zygote.

[/quote]

say what?

340

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Every cell in your body is replaced during a seven year cycle. So no, the three year old is no longer the zygote.

[/quote]

say what?[/quote]

Yeah, apparently that idea is nonsense; most cells die and are replaced quicker and more often than once every seven years. Brain cells however last a lifetime. I’m glad you caught that in time!