Yes, and I stand by my amazement that you see no difference between a zygote, a child, and an adult in that context.
OK. Define human in a way that differentiates.
Iāve actually had some very interesting conversations on these topics in my personal life, and the debates/arguments/conversations on here have helped me understand the point of view of both sides when it is a reasonable debate. Ironically, quite a few people have pushed me away from their point of view as they made arguments for it because there were either being dishonest or not able to defend themselves.
This discussion doesnāt appear to be that case, but there are certainly some in previous threads. It also helped inform me on how people who post around here approach arguments.
1 Like
Are you talking about a person or the species?
I see you are trying to make things black and white, but thatās not how it is. One example is I see a difference between a person who is brain-dead and cannot breathe on their own and a fully functioning child. Without āthe lights onā there is a big difference in the morality. Iām more about the fulfillment of conscious creatures in this world than protecting my sperm, even if it happened to touch an egg .01 seconds ago.
1 Like
FTR Iām genuinely curious. Itās a real question and Iām open to hearing responses.
Are you arguing that murder isnāt black and white? If it isnāt, how should/could laws about it be written?
Should stabbing to death a brain dead human not be legally murder?
I can buy into the idea that certain types of murder are worse than others. Quickly and painlessly murdering a guy in his sleep is āless badā than painfully beating a guy to death, but that doesnāt make one not murder.
I also do know of arguments you seem to be hinting at that consciousness and autonomy are defining factors, but that definition doesnāt cleanly separate fetuses from children or adults.
1 Like
Re-read your post. You did not use the word human as a noun. You may have intended to but you didnāt use proper grammar if that was the case. In human species, human is an adjective. The problem is not mine but yours as you use, deliberately or not, vague language.
You have yet to hear a definition that is reasonable to you.
So you have no problem with the initial post you started the argument about? And while human is an adjective there, the phrase human species is not subjective and was used deliberately, exactly and appropriately.
Again, you use adjectives when we are talking about human being/person. The issue isnāt a fetusesā āhumannessā but whether or not it is a human being. It isnāt about how human it is but if it is A human/human being. Note the use of the indefinite article which avoids ambiguity.
But that has nothing to do with anything as no one claims a zygote is not human life.
I also started no argument. Pat started it when he made the false claim that it is a scientific fact that a zygote is A human being. You canāt have an intellectually honest discussion when someone does not understand basic facts.
This is not the argument I made at all that you responded to. And again human species is unequivocally non-subjective.
Yes it does. There are different parts of the brain that enable thoughts that I would consider necessary for consciousness. If those are not developed, there is clearly a difference.
Iām not sure what you mean by murder, as murder is very specific in how it classifies killing. I do believe something ādyingā (I use dying here for clarity as it applies to the analogy, but I donāt think it applies to the abortion discussion in the same way) as the cause of an act of another is very gray, and the law treats it as such. Iām reading you as saying that everything is murder, which is clearly not the case legally or morally.
I donāt think you even know what you are arguing about.
OK, murder depends on the presence of brain structures regardless of actual consciousness? Which ones?
Not everything. Iāve been very explicit about what is murder. Murder the crime is black and white. convicted or not. could you outline a law based on your above definition for what should get someone convicted of murder or not when they kill another human?
Why would anyone choose to argue about this subject?
I feel like you are being intentionally obtuse, which makes me again want to leave this discussion as its going nowhere but Iāll entertain this real quick.
Lets go with assisted suicide. Is that murder?
Pulling the plug on a brain-dead person with no will. Is that murder?
If you cannot draw any distinction between those two acts and first degree murder, we have no common ground to build from. Just the fact that there are different degrees of murder CLEARLY show that it is not black and white.
really? I can quote the statement to took up argument against again: āAny intellectually honest person has to either admit that it is murder (with all the bad morality that entails) or that humans are not innately valuable.ā
Who hits the button?
Not directly causing death. Allowing to die and killing arenāt the same.
Same questions to you. Iām not hearing a reason why killing a fetus intentionally isnāt murder.
Your assertion proceeds from your personal assumption of when human life is actually a human being and not from a legal or dictionary definition of it. Thus, your statement of what is intellectually honest is your opinion and not fact although you posit your opinion as fact.
No. I made no such reference to human being or human the adjective. I specifically and exclusively referred to human life.