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 Feminism split from "Look at me" thread

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

  • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    This is pointless. Apparently a fetus is exactly the same thing as adult stem cells, and "a distinct and living human entity" is a really controversial term now, which we have no hope of defining scientifically.

    I've got things to do, and this thread is irritating me to the point that it's not really wise for me to post here anymore. I may or may not return.
    You'll find that it's necessary to very precisely define terms in philosophical discussions, especially when the concept behind the term used is the point of contention. That said, we have had no disagreement on what constitutes a "distinct and living human entity." The point of disagreement is which, if any, "distinct and living human entities" can be ascribed the property of personhood. And that's the point of frustration for some here, it seems — they are operating on a "I know what it is even if I can't precisely define it" mentality and are unwilling or unable to resolve the conflicts that arise in trying to precisely define it.

    People can be justified in arguing that personhood is an intuitive notion that necessarily escapes precise definition and I'd understand that position, though I would disagree with it. But no one really wants to do that because they also want the inalienable rights of personhood applied to their intuitive-but-not-defined notion and intuitively know that's a weak stance.
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam View Post
      Take Examples (3) and (4) — most everyone here seems to have agreed that growing a single organ in a lab from stem cells does not create a "human being" or person. Conversely, most everyone seems to agree that growing a collection of tissues and organs from stem cells, even when that collection has no chance of becoming a functional human being, is still a violation of a person. But both can't logically be true unless there's a definition that sorts them correctly into one or the other. None of the definitions given thus far, save mine, does this without creating a contradiction or absurdity in the sorting.
      Not everybody.

      If "killing a distinct and living human entity" is incredibly disturbing to you then you find stem-cell organ replacement incredibly disturbing.
      Why would we find stem-cell organ replacement distubring? The organ is being grown to do its normal job. Growing organs then squishing them would probably piss off a lot of people for the waste of human and material resources that went into making it alone.

      Likewise, you find terminating support for brain-dead patients incredibly disturbing.
      I'm not sure how finding things distubring clarifies anything regarding the original issue. The standard of behavior from the start of history until today is that persons who are a net drag on resources who provide no utility die (either on their own or via intentional termination). An inanimate undead body drooling on itself in a hospital room falls under this category, even if people don't much like to think of it in these terms.
      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        I might depart from Spart here, but what you have in #4 is a body that has been killed by destruction of the brain. It is not human and not a slave.
        Example (4) deals with a body that never developed a brain. You could say that the body was genetically prevented from developing a brain but not that the brain was destroyed. Spart's position would have to argue that a potential brain was destroyed and that gets us right back into the problem of ascribing rights to a potential being.

        From your standpoint, though, why is the lack of a brain reason to determine that the body "is not human" (by which you mean a "human being" or a person, since it's definitely a human body)?
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
          You're just asserting that a blastocyst, despite being very similar in nature and entirely similar in potential to stem cells, is "a human individual." You are still failing, however, to provide a significant distinction.
          Being part of a human's normal life cycle is a significant distinction.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
            Not everybody.



            Why would we find stem-cell organ replacement distubring? The organ is being grown to do its normal job. Growing organs then squishing them would probably piss off a lot of people for the waste of human and material resources that went into making it alone.



            I'm not sure how finding things distubring clarifies anything regarding the original issue. The standard of behavior from the start of history until today is that persons who are a net drag on resources who provide no utility die (either on their own or via intentional termination). An inanimate undead body drooling on itself in a hospital room falls under this category, even if people don't much like to think of it in these terms.
            Most everyone. You do remain unflappably coherent in your philosophy, Darth.
            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
              I'll assume you don't have a definition that you can provide.
              No Sam, you are being disingenuous. A human being is genetically a member of a specific species. A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens.


              Read my posts, I've answered this question. I'm not inclined to facilitate your habit of not reading and repeating the same question ad nauseum.
              Nonsense. Your quote is self explanatory. Unborn children do not qualify - that is why you support their murder.
              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 seer View Post
                No Sam, you are being disingenuous. A human being is genetically a member of a specific species. A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens..
                Born or unborn.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  Example (4) deals with a body that never developed a brain. You could say that the body was genetically prevented from developing a brain but not that the brain was destroyed. Spart's position would have to argue that a potential brain was destroyed and that gets us right back into the problem of ascribing rights to a potential being.

                  From your standpoint, though, why is the lack of a brain reason to determine that the body "is not human" (by which you mean a "human being" or a person, since it's definitely a human body)?
                  Sam, you are playing a stupid game. Even if you trick someone into agreeing with some point they will still disagree with the concept. You lose.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                    Sam, you are playing a stupid game. Even if you trick someone into agreeing with some point they will still disagree with the concept. You lose.
                    I don't feel I have to gain agreement to "win." The goal is to make people more precisely define what they mean by "human being" or "person" and adhere to the logic of that definition. I'd venture I've made small success in that effort. Certainly nothing that would pass for an "A" in a philosophy of mind class yet, let alone hold up against the criticism of heavyweights but I hardly expect that for myself, let alone others.
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      Born or unborn.
                      It doesn't matter. All are human beings.
                      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 Sam View Post
                        No, IVF is a very complicated procedure that just recently became technologically feasible in human history. The gap between IVF and cloning is much less drastic than the gap between insemination and IVF.

                        Not with the technology we have today. It's a very simple process.

                        "On the path" is a key term there; you're making a determination based on process, as Spart has done, but not on actual function.
                        Because the function can be artificially modified.

                        The blastocyst isn't doing anything significantly distinct from the cells dividing that will eventually be used to create a replacement organ.
                        Nor am I right now. I am just a huge clump of cells that are behaving just like any other cell does. The cellular processes are the same. The functions are different.

                        The difference is your determination of the future event.
                        One that is the natural progress of the process.

                        And that's an argument for a potential being.
                        No it isn't. Unless you consider the possibility that it could die as "potential". But from a biological standpoint, the only "potential beings" are unfertilized eggs and sperm cells that have the potential to have their genetic materials comingle.

                        That the blastocyst will form, at some future point in time, into a person is a distinct claim from the blastocyst being, presently, a person.
                        And the former is a biologically incorrect claim. There is no difference in the blastocyst and a fully formed old man except size, complexity, and location.

                        And there's no logical reason to ascribe present rights to a potential person.
                        Agreed. But the blastocyst isn't a "potential" person. It is a person.

                        Likewise, there's no logical reason that creating a blastocyst in a laboratory with no potential for that blastocyst to progress "down the path of normal species growth and development" means that a person has been created.
                        Sure there is. There is absolutely no difference in the womb-implanted blastocyst and the one in the petri dish other than one is in a proper environment and the other isn't. Swap places, and the womb-implanted blastocyst will then die while the one from the petri dish will then be able to live. Location does not change the nature of the cells.
                        Last edited by Bill the Cat; 11-06-2014, 02:48 PM.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          I don't feel I have to gain agreement to "win." The goal is to make people more precisely define what they mean by "human being" or "person" and adhere to the logic of that definition. I'd venture I've made small success in that effort. Certainly nothing that would pass for an "A" in a philosophy of mind class yet, let alone hold up against the criticism of heavyweights but I hardly expect that for myself, let alone others.
                          What are you taking about Sam? I gave you a clear definition of human being, and then quoted a dictionary source.
                          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

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                          16 responses
                          157 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post One Bad Pig  
                          Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                          53 responses
                          400 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Mountain Man  
                          Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                          25 responses
                          114 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post rogue06
                          by rogue06
                           
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                          33 responses
                          198 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Roy
                          by Roy
                           
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                          84 responses
                          373 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post JimL
                          by JimL
                           
                          Working...
                          X