[quote]Sloth wrote:
So the human organism is switched for a human-being organism at some point?[/quote]
???
I assume you’re talking to me.
An organism becomes human when it gains “mind”. Mind is the product of a highly-developed and sophisticated brain. So sophisticated in fact, only one species in the known universe has one.
An undeveloped homo-sapien (an early stage fetus), has no brain, therefore no mind, therefore is not human.[/quote]
You talk as if one individual organism is spontaneously becoming another. You are the same individual organism that was once called an embryo. The same organism. There is no getting around it.[/quote]
Mmmm no.
The organism stays the same. Again, for the umpteenth time. Human is an adjective. Just as you wouldn’t call a two year old boy a man (because he’s not), you wouldn’t call a collection of cells human (because it’s not).
You wouldn’t call a caterpillar a butterfly, it’s not, despite the fact that at one point all butterfly were caterpillars: they were the same organism. The two have distinctly different qualities: they are different things.[/quote]
So you’re the same individual organism as was in the womb. So killing you today, or while in the womb, is killing the same individual. And knowing your species, we know a human has been killed.
So you’re the same individual organism as was in the womb. So killing you today, or while in the womb, is killing the same individual. And knowing your species, we know a human has been killed. [/quote]
I’m a homo-sapien. That’s my species. When I was just conceived, I was not human. I became human when I grew my brain and it started functioning.
A potential human would have been killed. But a potential human is killed every time you jerk off, or get in a hot-tub that’s too hot as well.
Do you admit that your stance on this issue is based on your belief that humanness is biologically based in the brain, and not the result of something extra-material, like a soul?
[/quote]
Absolutely.
And my belief that what limited government we ought to have, should deal with the world as if the material world is all that there is, and base its laws and judgments accordingly, based on the best knowledge of that material world available.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So the human organism is switched for a human-being organism at some point?[/quote]
???
I assume you’re talking to me.
An organism becomes human when it gains “mind”…[/quote]
Why do you get to determine this? What if I disagree?[/quote]
Then you can make up your own language where different words have different meanings. In English, that’s what the adjective human means.[/quote]
You intentionally missed my point. Why do YOU get to determine when a human gains “mind” and why does this “gaining” determine humanness?[/quote]
I don’t get to determine. It’s not arbitrary. At some point in the development of a fetus there’s no brain present, and therefore no mind. By the time its born, there is. Somewhere along the line, it was gained. I’m sure someone smarter than myself, and more knowledgeable in these areas could give you a more exact time frame about when the brain develops. But before it does, the fetus is not human.
So you’re the same individual organism as was in the womb. So killing you today, or while in the womb, is killing the same individual. And knowing your species, we know a human has been killed. [/quote]
I’m a homo-sapien. That’s my species. When I was just conceived, I was not human. I became human when I grew my brain and it started functioning.
A potential human would have been killed. But a potential human is killed every time you jerk off, or get in a hot-tub that’s too hot as well.[/quote]
Sperm is haploid. It is not a stage in life of an individual human. Drop that nonsense already. We know the embryo is diploid. We can test the DNA and know it is human and individual from the parents. We know it is the same individual organism as the one sitting behind a computer in the future saying it would not have been killed, had it been killed in the womb.
Pro-choice arguments always sound like they’re just shy of arguing that the soul has yet to descend from the human soul waiting room. It’s just funny, since I keep my own arguments secular.
Do you admit that your stance on this issue is based on your belief that humanness is biologically based in the brain, and not the result of something extra-material, like a soul?
[/quote]
Absolutely.
And my belief that what limited government we ought to have, should deal with the world as if the material world is all that there is, and base its laws and judgments accordingly, based on the best knowledge of that material world available.
Now you’re turn to answer.[/quote]
My answer is you’re wrong and I’ve spent the last couple hours explaining why.
Why did you edit my post and single out just part of it for reply? Can’t handle the tough stuff, huh?[/quote]
How about this, you respond to my post, and I’ll respond to the rest of yours.
Or we can drop it, and try and get this thread back on track.
Let’s take the ‘not knowing when a human is human’ argument for a second.
The pro-choicer risks the killing of innocent humans, since he can’t provide an answer to the above. And, without even the defense of unintentionally killing an innocent while attempting to punish/apprehend the wicked.
In the abortion debate, the pro-lifer defends the life of innocent humans, regardless of the question above. After all, barring disease or some such, the embryo will be an infant at some some point.
So, only one position is justified.
Also, if a chimp a couple years old displays more intelligence and self-awareness then a newborn infant, is the chimp the human between the two, at that point? Is the infant’s life of less value than the chimp’s?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let’s take the ‘not knowing when a human is human’ argument for a second.
The pro-choicer risks the killing of innocent humans, since he can’t provide an answer to the above. And, without even the defense of unintentionally killing an innocent while attempting to punish/apprehend the wicked.
In the abortion debate, the pro-lifer defends the life of innocent humans, regardless of the question above. After all, barring disease or some such, the embryo will be an infant at some some point.
So, only one position is justified.
Also, if a chimp a couple years old displays more intelligence and self-awareness then a newborn infant, is the chimp the human between the two, at that point? Is the infant’s life of less value than the chimp’s?[/quote]
From a non-religious point of view, neither of them matters at all.
From a christian point of view, the human is always more valuable than any animal, being held as a unique creation of God.
This is honestly one of the dumbest arguments for pro-death…oops I mean choice…that I’ve ever heard.
…But in the case of abortion I think that where the family is not yet bonded to the clump of cells; where there is no central nervous system yet developed capable of suffering; and where a child will be an unwanted burden on the mother/father I say abort freely…[/quote]
Wow.
So the mother of 2 year old may legally murder her child in your perfect world if she hasn’t bonded with him and if he is an unwanted burden on her and his dad?[/quote]
Yeah, and somehow has survived two years lacking a central-nervous system.[/quote]
So the two year old fell out of his crib and suffered a serious spinal injury. NOWWWWWWWWWWW it’s OK to execute him, huh?[/quote]
[quote]Eli B wrote:
You all may have missed my post clarifying that I’m against the murder of two year olds. Even against killing viable un-born babies.
[/quote]
Of course…now back up, second by second, minute by minute, day by day until you feel the murder of that exact same child CAN be justified. When you get to that precise point in time tell us why we can then snuff out with impunity.[/quote]
Conception to roughly seven weeks. Because they are a handful of cells with no brain.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I am the same individual organism as the one which was once an embryo. There’s no getting around it. Killing an embryo is killing a human being. Own it and defend it for what is, the taking of a human life.[/quote]
I agree, this is why I’m pro-death penalty & pro-choice.[/quote]
Oh the irony.[/quote]
You’re the ironic one. I think I’m pretty clear cut.[/quote]
You: “Execute unborn children, execute murderers. It’s all the same to me.”
Me: “Preserve the life of the innocent. Take the life of him who has willfully taken the life of the innocent.”[/quote]
I like how you changed the wording around so when I do it, I “execute” them but when you do it you “take the life”. Nice.
I still don’t buy this bullshit though about how I don’t understand scripture. One of your commandments is “thou shall not kill”/“thou shall not murder”. Of course, it makes sense to for you to be picky and choosey with how you interpret your holy book’s application in the real world. But it is still bullshit that it can apply to one instance where someone is guilty of a crime punishable by death, but in today’s crimes, it’s okay to murder them.