TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Politics
Reload this Page "Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
Politics Current Events, Abortion, homosexuality, gun control, public schools, welfare, taxes, government etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#496) Old
xAvarice xAvarice is offline
BANNED

 


Reputation:
xAvarice is well respected by his peersxAvarice is well respected by his peersxAvarice is well respected by his peersxAvarice is well respected by his peersxAvarice is well respected by his peersxAvarice is well respected by his peersxAvarice is well respected by his peersxAvarice is well respected by his peersxAvarice is well respected by his peersxAvarice is well respected by his peersxAvarice is well respected by his peers
March 4th, 2013, 08:33 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
Best estimate is around the 18-22 week mark.
I'd say - 26 week, but I can see why you'd say that.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#497) Old
Lighthouse Lighthouse is offline
Sha la la la
 Lighthouse's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
March 4th, 2013, 02:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
How can the method of 'killing' determine whether the 'killing' was murder if the intention is there to kill? That's bonkers. If the person is brain dead, then disconnecting the machine is just an emotional barrier. Death occurs before the machine is turned off in this case, as defined in US law.
The law is more complicated than you assume.

Quote:
It is to the patient.
  1. Do you know that for certain?
  2. Why should that matter?

Quote:
Why stick to the obvious personhood is being a person, self referential definition, and read onto the substantive ones?
"(Personality: ) the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics".
A foetus doesn't have much of that!
Personality isn't the question here, personhood is.

Quote:
I believe you are using the DNA point simply because it is a distinguishing feature, not because you really believe that DNA differences are a fundamental feature of personhood.
Individuality is the fundamental feature of personhood, and DNA is the initial indicator of an individual, as distinct from the mother in whose womb they reside. In fact, at that point it is the only indicator of individuality.

Quote:
Human parthenogenesis is a real process. Human embryos have been made from a cell from the mother. If this was implanted and established, would you reject it as a 'person' because it had the same DNA as the mother?
Not anymore than I would reject a twin as a person because they have the same DNA code as another person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
No, I’m the pro-choice one here, therefore by default, I only need to satisfy myself about “personhood” and don't seek to compel others as you seem to.
Too ignorant to understand how this is relevant in matters of life and death... no surprise there.

Quote:
You can of course try to convince me otherwise but you don’t get to impose your views on me or indeed a recently pregnant woman by use of bald assertions.
What's the point? You reject any notion that you might be incorrect as to when one becomes a person. So much so that you actually refuse to take a stand on when that point is actually reached, rather relying on the cop out of "nuance."

Quote:
No perhaps I can’t define a “person” to your satisfaction, or be clear on exactly when “personhood” begins, however I only need to conclude for myself, from the evidence, when a person clearly does not exist, just as you can too.
Not at all the issue; but I assume this is simply just more of your usual runaround as you have refused to actually just show what defines one as a person from a source outside your own opinion.

Quote:
If, as it seems, you want your views to be enforced generally by secular laws then it is plainly up to you to find better evidence and a more convincing argument than my one and the lack of a functioning CNS, not me.
That's not the point of this discussion. Wiz asked for you and your ilk to provide an argument as to why it should remain legal.

So, it is up to you to show why a functioning CNS is what defines one as a person and separates them from before they had a functioning CNS and were thus, according to you, not yet a person.

Quote:
Well, my albeit lay understanding is that the autonomic system (ANS) is one of the functions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) which in turn is connected to the CNS. However I think it’s true to say that just without the “person” element of the CNS being present it will more often than not simply “stand alone” so to speak, requiring no actual conscious input from the “person”. Typically however it will be shut down or become damaged along with the CNS imo.
In your opinion? What kind of an argument is that?

Quote:
Perhaps but not decided on by the prosecution obviously, but if they aimed too high then they would risk acquittal altogether, so they need be realistic and un-dogmatic about it and perhaps go for a lesser charge.
What do you think would lead them to lose on the charge of homicide?

Quote:
Then I can’t imagine why I would be getting involved at all , do you think that I might simply enjoy killing people or indeed the unborn for some obscure reason?
Are you seriously too stupid to understand a hypothetical?

Quote:
Unless I am somewhat mistaken you simply conclude that any abortion is murder and want that view imposed on others within secular law without exception perhaps? Imo the very rational impossibility of a “person” existing while there is a clear lack of any apparent physical means, is never considered within your thinking and dogma. You don’t want to make sometimes tough human choices, so you don’t, and then you don’t think that others should be allowed to choose either.
Is there a physical, living cell that if allowed to follow its programming with all the necessities will live and develop, eventually, into what you would consider to be a person?

Quote:
All know is what I personally might choose. Sometimes I too might well support an abortion where a “person” is likely to be present, depending on the particular circumstances. However any doctors who routinely have more interest in personal profit yes of course probably do exist, I would agree, but is also not really the point here.
You seemed to have missed the point; they all agree that it is a person, at every stage wherein an abortion might be performed. PP even put out a brochure wherein they admitted so much in print.

Quote:
Should I consider myself insulted or told off?
Not sure what you had to spell out for me exactly, but afaic even a unique DNA remains “un-personed” until the required biological parts have become assembled sufficiently.
In other words all you have is your opinion and no facts to back it up.

Quote:
So a functioning or otherwise CNS is not good enough evidence for you, while it remains pretty good and convincing evidence afaic.
However even if neither of us actually does have any evidence then what gives you the right to make others comply with your beliefs?


If the existence of the living zygote prior to an extant CNS is good enough for me then why would an extant CNS not be? Or did you just word this ambiguously?

Quote:
What exactly then makes “brand new” DNA any more “a” "person" or special over any other similar DNA, when many or none “persons” may be the result?
The fact that it is distinct from anyone else makes it a separate entity, regardless of its DNA, actually. It is simply that DNA unique from the mother's is a way to show this.

And even if its DNA code were the same as the mother's as gcthomas has suggested is possible it is still a distinct, separate entity.

Quote:
Are you actually thinking "soul" or maybe the supernatural, but would rather not say that kind of thing to a non-believer?
While I believe the spirit is present at that point I don't see the point of arguing that with someone who doesn't believe a spirit exists.

Quote:
A unique original DNA is clearly not what then defines a “person” imo, but a unique functioning CNS rather seems to.
How so? You have yet to support this argument.





   
Reply With Quote
  (#498) Old
quip quip is offline
Over 2500 post club
 quip's Avatar

 


Reputation:
quip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peers
March 4th, 2013, 02:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post

I'll give em a whirl.


Is it your position that a zygote is a human,



Sure, it's a human organism...replete with human DNA. Is that what you wanted to hear?


but we can kill it anyway because it has no value?



False dichotomy. It's value remains relative to the one who holds the right to such an evaluation. Value can run the gamut from sacredness to abhorrence. Now I know that's not what you wanted to hear.


If not, when does an organism that becomes a human achieve such?


Here's the rub. It's inherently human at conception. But the implications you're alluding to are that you attribute "human" as some magical "achievement". Actually it's blind nature which bestows this human attribute...man takes over from there. Not what you're fishing for...I predict.

Nonetheless, your baited questions are getting ahead of themselves...read below.


Is a person different from a human?


Indubitably.

Human DNA is necessary for personhood yet, not itself sufficient. I could engage in quite an interesting philosophical discussion on personhood yet, I have an odd premonition that it would fall on deaf ears.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#499) Old
Yorzhik Yorzhik is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Yorzhik's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Yorzhik is well respected by his peers
Yorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peers
March 5th, 2013, 08:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
Is it your position that a zygote is a human,



It is not A human (noun). It is a human (adjective) zygote (ie of and from a human)
Just like a human infant. Thanks for playing.

Quote:
but we can kill it anyway because it has no value?



It does not have the same value as a human being. Not zero value.
But low enough that destroying it will have emotional but not moral costs.
You don't understand why there is emotional cost. Hint: it's because of morals. Thanks for playing.

Quote:
If not, when does an organism that becomes a human achieve such?



Best estimate is around the 18-22 week mark.
Biology fail. Thanks for playing.

Quote:
Is a person different from a human?



A person has the attributes and capabilities required for personhood. It is possible for a human not to have those, eg it is in a permanent, unconscious vegetative state.
That's why it's easy for you to decide which humans to kill, and it has nothing to do with innocents. Thanks for playing.

I can't stop you from believing what you do, but it is good to know which people will follow the next Hitler.





Good things come to those who shoot straight.

Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
   
Reply With Quote
  (#500) Old
Yorzhik Yorzhik is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Yorzhik's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Yorzhik is well respected by his peers
Yorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peers
March 5th, 2013, 09:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by quip View Post
Sure, it's a human organism...replete with human DNA.
You are correct so far. Perhaps you should watch out for that gcthomas guy?

Quote:
False dichotomy. It's value remains relative to the one who holds the right to such an evaluation. Value can run the gamut from sacredness to abhorrence. Now I know that's not what you wanted to hear.
Thank you for the correction. I did mean relative value. You are wrong that it isn't what I want to hear. Seeing as what I wanted to hear was the exposition of your worldview.

What you've done is exposed your worldview as one that does not set God as the one that holds the right to such an evaluation.

Quote:
Here's the rub. It's inherently human at conception. But the implications you're alluding to are that you attribute "human" as some magical "achievement". Actually it's blind nature which bestows this human attribute...man takes over from there. Not what you're fishing for...I predict.
Your prediction is wrong. I was fishing for the coherence, or lack thereof, of your worldview. That I have.

Of course it is blind nature that bestows the human attribute. Otherwise it is capricious humans that do it. And what capricious humans grant, they have proven to remove as well.

I'll sum up your view in a moment.

Quote:
Indubitably.

Human DNA is necessary for personhood yet, not itself sufficient. I could engage in quite an interesting philosophical discussion on personhood yet, I have an odd premonition that it would fall on deaf ears.
And thus, you reject universal human rights, and reduce them to human rights granted by the government (or the strongest person at the moment, whichever the case may be).

You and gcthomas will get along swimmingly.





Good things come to those who shoot straight.

Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
   
Reply With Quote
  (#501) Old
gcthomas gcthomas is offline
Over 4000 post club
 gcthomas's Avatar

 


Reputation:
gcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peers
March 5th, 2013, 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
Just like a human infant. Thanks for playing.


You don't understand why there is emotional cost. Hint: it's because of morals. Thanks for playing.


Biology fail. Thanks for playing.


That's why it's easy for you to decide which humans to kill, and it has nothing to do with innocents. Thanks for playing.

I can't stop you from believing what you do, but it is good to know which people will follow the next Hitler.

I am shocked that you think that a human infant is OF a human but NOT human. Are you suggesting we can morally kill infants? really? Unlike you, I believe that infants are human and deserve the full protection of the law. How can you misread what I said without deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote? English comprehension fail.

Emotions are not all related directly caused by morals. I can have an emotional response that would be immoral if played out, and moral behaviour that don't elicit emotions. Surely you could work that out for yourself? Philosophy fail.

Biology fail? You need to explain which bit of biology I got wrong. I am confident I am right on the biology. Science fail.

If you think that a lack of god in my life means I have no morals then your understanding is so limited that I must feel sorry for your restricted and limited life experience. Life fail.





“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Send complaints to /dev/null.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#502) Old
quip quip is offline
Over 2500 post club
 quip's Avatar

 


Reputation:
quip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peers
March 5th, 2013, 01:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
And thus, you reject universal human rights, and reduce them to human rights granted by the government (or the strongest person at the moment, whichever the case may be).

Yet you'd no doubt support this same government in establishing laws restricting the reproductive liberties of women. A classic black-kettle/pot tale.
-------------------------------------------------


I'm not rejecting human rights on two counts.

1. I don't grant the unborn unimpeded equality of human rights because.....

2. ...no human-being (post or pre-born) has any right to another person's DNA, blood, organs, womb...etc. without explicit consent or due process.

This does not imply that I approve of (morally) or desire the act of every abortion, it simply means that I support the right to retain this very option for female American citizens.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#503) Old
Angel4Truth Angel4Truth is online now
~Peace if possible, but truth at any rate~
 Angel4Truth's Avatar

 





Reputation:
Angel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peers
Angel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peers
March 5th, 2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by xAvarice View Post
Evidence? Or is that a silly question here?
Which is what i asking for too, since they made the claim the "fetus" feels no pain.

Evidence on how they would know they feel no pain.

No response yet.





"Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation" - BHO

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.


   
Reply With Quote
  (#504) Old
gcthomas gcthomas is offline
Over 4000 post club
 gcthomas's Avatar

 


Reputation:
gcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peers
March 5th, 2013, 02:10 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel4Truth View Post
Which is what i asking for too, since they made the claim the "fetus" feels no pain.

Evidence on how they would know they feel no pain.

No response yet.
No response? There has been endless responses on the question. We KNOW how people feel pain, we know the physiology and psychology of pain. That knowledge, along with a knowledge of an early foetus's nervous system (non-existent to incomplete) and psychology (none), leads us to a conclusion that an early foetus can feel no pain.

The question returns to you. Since there is physical mechanism for a foetus to feel pain, WHY DO YOU think that one can?





“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Send complaints to /dev/null.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#505) Old
Angel4Truth Angel4Truth is online now
~Peace if possible, but truth at any rate~
 Angel4Truth's Avatar

 





Reputation:
Angel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peers
Angel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peersAngel4Truth is well respected by his peers
March 5th, 2013, 03:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
No response? There has been endless responses on the question. We KNOW how people feel pain, we know the physiology and psychology of pain. That knowledge, along with a knowledge of an early foetus's nervous system (non-existent to incomplete) and psychology (none), leads us to a conclusion that an early foetus can feel no pain.

The question returns to you. Since there is physical mechanism for a foetus to feel pain, WHY DO YOU think that one can?
In other words, you do not know if they feel pain or not, you assume. They have a nervous system and brain pretty early on.





"Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation" - BHO

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.


   
Reply With Quote
  (#506) Old
alwight alwight is offline
TOL Subscriber
 alwight's Avatar

 


Reputation:
alwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peersalwight is well respected by his peers
March 5th, 2013, 04:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
No, I’m the pro-choice one here, therefore by default, I only need to satisfy myself about “personhood” and don't seek to compel others as you seem to.
Too ignorant to understand how this is relevant in matters of life and death... no surprise there.
I seem to be more concerned with the lives of extant persons rather than of potential ones than you are apparently. I also don’t require that others adhere to my thinking if they don’t want to, as you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
You can of course try to convince me otherwise but you don’t get to impose your views on me or indeed a recently pregnant woman by use of bald assertions.
What's the point? You reject any notion that you might be incorrect as to when one becomes a person. So much so that you actually refuse to take a stand on when that point is actually reached, rather relying on the cop out of "nuance."
I’ve given you my reasoning based in actual evidence of the CNS but you seem to think that your assertions carry more weight for no apparent reason. Why should I change my thinking based on your beliefs and assertions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
No perhaps I can’t define a “person” to your satisfaction, or be clear on exactly when “personhood” begins, however I only need to conclude for myself, from the evidence, when a person clearly does not exist, just as you can too.
Not at all the issue; but I assume this is simply just more of your usual runaround as you have refused to actually just show what defines one as a person from a source outside your own opinion.
I’ve already given you my reasoning for a “person” based on a reasonably functioning CNS and that DNA is not the “person” factor that you seem to think it is, while you otoh have nothing but bald assertion with which you seem to expect civil law to be founded on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
If, as it seems, you want your views to be enforced generally by secular laws then it is plainly up to you to find better evidence and a more convincing argument than my one and the lack of a functioning CNS, not me.
That's not the point of this discussion. Wiz asked for you and your ilk to provide an argument as to why it should remain legal.

So, it is up to you to show why a functioning CNS is what defines one as a person and separates them from before they had a functioning CNS and were thus, according to you, not yet a person.
Why, when I have already done this many times? You simply won’t accept the physical evidence that a CNS is where the person exists and does not exist when it stops functioning. What evidence have you got that it is otherwise?
It’s a moral choice, and without evidence even either way then civil laws have no place imposing a particular morality on those who disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
Well, my albeit lay understanding is that the autonomic system (ANS) is one of the functions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) which in turn is connected to the CNS. However I think it’s true to say that just without the “person” element of the CNS being present it will more often than not simply “stand alone” so to speak, requiring no actual conscious input from the “person”. Typically however it will be shut down or become damaged along with the CNS imo.
In your opinion? What kind of an argument is that?
I simply presented my understanding of the evidence and that my conclusions are based on it. I’ll await any evidence from you of why or how a “person” could exist outside of a functioning CNS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
Perhaps but not decided on by the prosecution obviously, but if they aimed too high then they would risk acquittal altogether, so they need be realistic and un-dogmatic about it and perhaps go for a lesser charge.
What do you think would lead them to lose on the charge of homicide?
The law tries hard to consider the relevant facts when passing appropriate judgment while your dogma doesn’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
Then I can’t imagine why I would be getting involved at all , do you think that I might simply enjoy killing people or indeed the unborn for some obscure reason?
Are you seriously too stupid to understand a hypothetical?
Red herring more like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
Unless I am somewhat mistaken you simply conclude that any abortion is murder and want that view imposed on others within secular law without exception perhaps? Imo the very rational impossibility of a “person” existing while there is a clear lack of any apparent physical means, is never considered within your thinking and dogma. You don’t want to make sometimes tough human choices, so you don’t, and then you don’t think that others should be allowed to choose either.
Is there a physical, living cell that if allowed to follow its programming with all the necessities will live and develop, eventually, into what you would consider to be a person?
A potential person is has some value perhaps but I see no reason not to consider the whole specific situation and let the woman choose at least until a “person” might reasonably exist in the foetus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
All know is what I personally might choose. Sometimes I too might well support an abortion where a “person” is likely to be present, depending on the particular circumstances. However any doctors who routinely have more interest in personal profit yes of course probably do exist, I would agree, but is also not really the point here.
You seemed to have missed the point; they all agree that it is a person, at every stage wherein an abortion might be performed. PP even put out a brochure wherein they admitted so much in print.
I’d need to know the specific details first whether I would agree with what they do in each case. I may not agree sometimes, but it is the woman’s choice in the end afaic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
So a functioning or otherwise CNS is not good enough evidence for you, while it remains pretty good and convincing evidence afaic.
However even if neither of us actually does have any evidence then what gives you the right to make others comply with your beliefs?


If the existence of the living zygote prior to an extant CNS is good enough for me then why would an extant CNS not be? Or did you just word this ambiguously?
I have offered you my reasoning based on at least some evidence, if you don’t like it that’s fine but imo you shouldn’t seek to impose your morality on those who may disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
What exactly then makes “brand new” DNA any more “a” "person" or special over any other similar DNA, when many or none “persons” may be the result?
The fact that it is distinct from anyone else makes it a separate entity, regardless of its DNA, actually. It is simply that DNA unique from the mother's is a way to show this.

And even if its DNA code were the same as the mother's as gcthomas has suggested is possible it is still a distinct, separate entity.
As we’ve already discussed a unique DNA does not necessarily mean a unique person, a unique CNS seems to have that honour, and do you really think that most “persons” that have ever been have only existed for a few short hours and never get past the zygote stage? I don’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
Are you actually thinking "soul" or maybe the supernatural, but would rather not say that kind of thing to a non-believer?
While I believe the spirit is present at that point I don't see the point of arguing that with someone who doesn't believe a spirit exists.
If you simply want to wave your faith at me then perhaps you could be rather more honest here and not even try to bring in physical facts at all since you will probably never accept any I nor anyone else could offer should it contradict your beliefs. Instead you would need to convince me and others of your God’s existence and that your God’s morality is true and absolute, good luck with that btw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwight View Post
A unique original DNA is clearly not what then defines a “person” imo, but a unique functioning CNS rather seems to.
How so? You have yet to support this argument.
The same DNA does produce different "persons" (monozygotic twins).
But again you simply don’t want to see even the rather clear evidence from a previously functioning CNS that a person existed in it and that when damaged or worse that person is also damaged or worse similarly. It should indicate something to you LH about when a CNS is yet to develop, but apparently it doesn’t perhaps because you don’t want it to.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#507) Old
gcthomas gcthomas is offline
Over 4000 post club
 gcthomas's Avatar

 


Reputation:
gcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peers
March 6th, 2013, 12:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel4Truth View Post
In other words, you do not know if they feel pain or not, you assume. They have a nervous system and brain pretty early on.
Not functioning ones. It is known, not unknown. The pain responses of organisms are well understood.

You are assuming a lot here, with no vidence or reason even offered for consideration. Just assertion that since no one knows, then assume day one for safety?





“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Send complaints to /dev/null.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#508) Old
Yorzhik Yorzhik is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Yorzhik's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Yorzhik is well respected by his peers
Yorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peers
March 6th, 2013, 08:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by quip View Post
Yet you'd no doubt support this same government in establishing laws restricting the reproductive liberties of women. A classic black-kettle/pot tale.
-------------------------------------------------
But the opposing view isn't a matter of which might makes right, but if might makes makes right or if right and wrong exist because of God.

I'll only continued spending time on your posts if you show improved ability to comprehend what is being said.

Quote:
I'm not rejecting human rights on two counts.
Ok. Let's look at your reasons:

Quote:
1. I don't grant the unborn unimpeded equality of human rights because.....
This isn't a reason.

Quote:
2. ...no human-being (post or pre-born) has any right to another person's DNA, blood, organs, womb...etc. without explicit consent or due process.
This can only be a reason if you support universal human rights.

Figure out which one is true, and stick with it.

Quote:
This does not imply that I approve of (morally) or desire the act of every abortion, it simply means that I support the right to retain this very option for female American citizens.
Ok. Which abortions are wrong? The ones where it isn't an option for females?





Good things come to those who shoot straight.

Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
   
Reply With Quote
  (#509) Old
Yorzhik Yorzhik is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Yorzhik's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Yorzhik is well respected by his peers
Yorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peers
March 6th, 2013, 08:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by gcthomas View Post
I am shocked that you think that a human infant is OF a human but NOT human. Are you suggesting we can morally kill infants? really? Unlike you, I believe that infants are human and deserve the full protection of the law. How can you misread what I said without deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote? English comprehension fail.
LOL. Dude, you sure know how to double-down on your mistakes.

Quote:
Emotions are not all related directly caused by morals. I can have an emotional response that would be immoral if played out, and moral behaviour that don't elicit emotions. Surely you could work that out for yourself? Philosophy fail.
You aren't even answering my quote.

Quote:
Biology fail? You need to explain which bit of biology I got wrong. I am confident I am right on the biology. Science fail.
Yes. Biology fail. Start with Wiki!

Quote:
If you think that a lack of god in my life means I have no morals then your understanding is so limited that I must feel sorry for your restricted and limited life experience. Life fail.
Your sorrow for me makes me feel so much better. Thank you. Life is worth living again.





Good things come to those who shoot straight.

Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
   
Reply With Quote
  (#510) Old
gcthomas gcthomas is offline
Over 4000 post club
 gcthomas's Avatar

 


Reputation:
gcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peersgcthomas is well respected by his peers
March 6th, 2013, 09:02 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
You aren't even answering my quote.

Yes. Biology fail. Start with Wiki!
You will need to explain, then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
Your sorrow for me makes me feel so much better. Thank you. Life is worth living again.
You are welcome.





“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Send complaints to /dev/null.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
a person vs a human, abortion, fetus, personhood, personhood fallacy, sanctity of life


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.