Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Abortion and Bodily Autonomy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by machinist
    At some point in the development of the human in utero, the first spark of the experience of undifferentiated existence emerges.
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    It was not clear to me if he was saying that one had to be born, or if it was in utero...
    It would have been clear if you had bothered to read the post you were replying to.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

      So now you have to have at one point in time experienced 'consciousness' to be a being? What an absurd game of twister to try to justify dehumanizing a human being.

      BTW, by your absurd standard, 3 month old born infants are not beings:
      https://www.science.org/content/arti...come-conscious
      I am not trying to justify dehumanizing a human being, nor do I have a standard. I don't believe I could care any less as to when life begins. Some philosophical notions I want to be true, some I don't, some I don't care. This is one is one where I simply don't care. If a fertilized egg is actually a human being, then i'm, perfectly fine with that. If it's not, then whatever. I'm just wanting to know how it is said that it's a human being, and why it's immoral for a woman to take a morning after pill. Seer said that ontologically, the zygote and the human being are the same thing. I get that A=A, a thing is what it is. But in this case, is the fertilized egg ontologically the same as a human being, or is it what it is: a fertilized egg?

      Is an acorn ontologically an oak tree, or is an acorn ontologically an acorn?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

        Descartes seemed to define it so. I don't agree. For instance, I don't believe it morally permissible to terminate, either actively or by, e.g., starvation, someone in a PVS.
        Something along these lines is what I've been thinking. I think therefore I am. I think (I have consciousness) therefore, I am (a being).

        I do think there is something to be said for an entity to have had experienced consciousness though, even though it has been put out, by say, an accident (coma). Once consciousness has been formed into existence, it has a metaphysical place in time, even though it may never revive. A zygote has not reached that point.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Alien View Post

          I think you're barking up the wrong tree with "being", which just means something that exists. "Human being" is a human thing that exists, that's all and you're not going to hang some kind of "personhood" meaning on it. A "canine being" would be a dog, in a general sense, for example. I applaud your efforts to find a word to describe the point where a fetus becomes a person, but that's not it.
          Yes, a dog-being is a being. It is a conscious being.

          If to be simply means to exist, then is a sperm a being? It doesn't have consciousness, no(as far as we know), but it definitely exists.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Machinist View Post



            Question: In Human Being: is being dependent upon consciousness?
            No. 'Being' is just a word meaning 'existing' and is used as a synonym for an organism. You are trying to play with words. Even without a brain, the fetus is a human being at that stage of life. If you destroy it, you destroy the human being, and all of the potential that human being has in the future. If your mother destroyed the fetus that become you, she would have killed YOU. You would never have grown up to ask silly questions on tweb. You would never have any friends, never have any relationships, never have been loved or loved others, never have any children or friends. Everything you are and can be will have been snuffed out. And no, it's not the same as if your mother never conceived you in the first place, because you were conceived and you do exist, even as a single celled organism at one point in time. So if she had snuffed you out as a single celled organism, you would be just as dead now as if she snuffed you out as a 6 year old. That single celled organism with your DNA was YOU. The same you as you are now.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Alien View Post

              Not by the definition I found for "organism", which was the word MM retreated to when I challenged "life". Among other things it has to be able to reproduce itself.
              By that definition you are not an organism. You can't reproduce yourself. Not without the help of another organism (a woman). And a fetus is just as able to reproduce itself as you are, just not at that moment in time. Even a baby is not able to reproduce itself any more than a fetus. Nor is a child under the age of puberty. I suppose they aren't organisms either? What about someone who is sterile? Or a woman past menopause?








              Comment


              • Originally posted by Alien View Post

                Wouldn't mind. New Zealand is a beautiful place to visit, I believe.
                He has stated that he would allow infanticide up to around 6 months of age.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                  Yes, a dog-being is a being. It is a conscious being.

                  If to be simply means to exist, then is a sperm a being? It doesn't have consciousness, no(as far as we know), but it definitely exists.
                  "being" is just a colloquial term, you are trying to make it some sort of scientific term that we need to use to determine if something deserves life.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Alien View Post

                    Not by the definition I found for "organism", which was the word MM retreated to when I challenged "life". Among other things it has to be able to reproduce itself. Rogue said that the definition of an organism (or was it life) was fuzzy, and quoted viruses as an example. OK, lets ignore viruses. All you can say about a fertilized human egg is that it is alive, as all cells are, and that it has a complete set of human DNA, as all other cells, apart from sperm and the unfertilized egg, have which makes it human. Therefore, it's a human cell. Not an organism. Of course it will become an organism with time and the right environment ...
                    It was the definition of life.

                    As a total aside, one thing about biology in general is that virtually all boundaries are pretty fuzzy. I can't think of anything offhand that is neat and tidy.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                      He has stated that he would allow infanticide up to around 6 months of age.
                      Really? Could you point me to where he has said that? Obviously I can't (won't!) search the whole site myself, and I guess you have a specific post in mind.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        It was the definition of life.

                        As a total aside, one thing about biology in general is that virtually all boundaries are pretty fuzzy. I can't think of anything offhand that is neat and tidy.
                        Certainly not my desk!

                        Thanks.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          By that definition you are not an organism. You can't reproduce yourself. Not without the help of another organism (a woman). And a fetus is just as able to reproduce itself as you are, just not at that moment in time. Even a baby is not able to reproduce itself any more than a fetus. Nor is a child under the age of puberty. I suppose they aren't organisms either? What about someone who is sterile? Or a woman past menopause?
                          If you want to take it to ridiculous lengths, then yes. But that's not how the word is used. First it isn't the only criterion, and second the definition applies to a species (?) in general and reproduction would apply to an adult member of the species. Your sentence I have bolded has internal contradictions. First you say that the fetus "is able" (present tense) then say it can't do it yet. The question then remains, is a fetus (actually I was talking about the "single cell" stage) an organism or a potential organism?

                          You do have a point though, intended or otherwise, and it's something I've been trying to get at. All this quibbling over words and supposed science is never going to get us anywhere nearer a resolution on something that threatens to tear this country even further apart. I'm thinking of starting a new thread that introduces a different approach, which I believe more truly reflects the real world. I want to introduce something I may (still working on it) call "comparative perceived value". I'm still deciding if I prefer doing that to continuing my search for a video game to replace Far Cry 6 which I've almost finished.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            It would have been clear if you had bothered to read the post you were replying to.
                            But our discussion was not limited to that one post. I posted what he said earlier - so I wasn't sure.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              So if she had snuffed you out as a single celled organism, you would be just as dead now as if she snuffed you out as a 6 year old.
                              Is this not merely a religious belief? It seems that you are invoking a 4D block universe perspective here. I remember our discussion on that a while back.

                              Comment




                              • Another thing about this that makes me question as to whether the fertilized egg is a human being, is that I have read that 50% to 80 % of fertilized eggs never get implanted, and are effectively miscarried. I understand the implications of the fall in the garden, and mankind is cursed with pain and suffering for it, but this is just over the top ridiculous to me. Why would God create these Souls only to have most of them come right back to Him? God is a reasonable God, a God of Logic. This does not make any sense at all. These are lives, that had they lived, they would have loved and been loved, and had kids and enjoyed life. Instead Trillions upon Trillions of these lives never make it. The implications of this are too silly. I also can accept the mass killings that God ordered in OT times. At least there was some reason as to why... some rationale. There is no reason, however, for ending untold trillions of innocent lives by way of miscarriage, and is exponentially worse than any genocide imaginable. It's all too cartoony and leaves itself wide open for jokes. I can't take it seriously.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                289 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X