Opposition to abortion doesn't necessarily make someone a bigot.

[Endus]

You can safely tell that some organism that eventually will grown into "YOU" exists. Does "YOU" exist at that moment? I don't think so. If "YOU" can't observe the world around you, then are you really "YOU"?

Heck, once ejaculation has occurred and the little swimmers are heading for the ovum, you can safely say that some organism that will likely grow into "you" is going to exist, too. Why is ejaculation not the arbitrary point we pick?

Sure, stuff can happen that prevents that pregnancy, but stuff can happen post-conception, too.

It's an entirely arbitrary point at which to draw the line, based on pseudo-scientific religious arguments.

[May90]

Observing the world around you is meaningless. Newborn puppies can't really observe the world around them because they are born blind and death. Does that mean killing them because you don't want more dogs is perfectly fine?

They can still feel things. Some sort of awareness is required, IMO (note, not self-awareness). If you aren't aware of anything, then are you really a human/animal? You might as well just be a plant then.

Heck, once ejaculation has occurred and the little swimmers are heading for the ovum, you can safely say that some organism that will likely grow into "you" is going to exist, too. Why is ejaculation not the arbitrary point we pick?

Sure, stuff can happen that prevents that pregnancy, but stuff can happen post-conception, too.

It's an entirely arbitrary point at which to draw the line, based on pseudo-scientific religious arguments.

It is surely arbitrary. I think there could be some objective debate on at which point an organism grows into a conscious intelligent person, but as to "where life starts" is a very subjective question. Some would say that life starts with the Big Bang, because, the way it happened, it irreversible leads to appearance of life.

[Theodarzna]

You can safely tell that some organism that eventually will grown into "YOU" exists. Does "YOU" exist at that moment? I don't think so. If "YOU" can't observe the world around you, then are you really "YOU"?

As far as I am concerned, yes, YOU exist in your most primal and beginning stages. Heck a baby can't even pass the mirror self awareness test. So your standard is both arbitrary but also one you probably are not about to defend.

The point is there is nothing biologically or scientifically invalid about the "At conception," point pro-lifers make. If anything you are now going into a philosophical debate about Self-Awareness.

[Deleted]

Very sure.

My blood has DNA, but if I cut myself I'm not committing genocide upon the platelets since nothing there is self-aware.

That analogy is incorrect though.

[Jotaux]

They can still feel things. Some sort of awareness is required, IMO (note, not self-awareness). If you aren't aware of anything, then are you really a human/animal? You might as well just be a plant then.

Babies in the womb can respond to music and other stimuli.

[Endus]

As far as I am concerned, yes, YOU exist in your most primal and beginning stages.

Kindly provide your objectively-definitive principles which you rely on to make that determination, in a way that could convince others.

No fair relying on emotion or religious precepts.

The point is there is nothing biologically or scientifically invalid about the "At conception," point pro-lifers make.

Because it isn't a biological or scientific argument. It's a religious argument.

[Deleted]

You can safely tell that some organism that eventually will grown into "YOU" exists. Does "YOU" exist at that moment? I don't think so. If "YOU" can't observe the world around you, then are you really "YOU"?

That organism carries YOUR DNA. how more YOU can he get?

[Theodarzna]

Because an individual organism's life doesn't "begin". It was created from living gametes created by living progenitors, and at no stage was it "not alive", such that life could begin.

Okay mr. Semantics, ugh, much like your might makes right philosophy I guess its whatever way makes a point for you.

Nobody is saying it spawns into existence from nothing, Way to make a strawman of point. I am saying X is now distinct from Y, I can with great certainty know that X is not Y and Y is not X.

What we call a "person" is not an independently unique strand of DNA. That's a nonsensical measure.
1> It means miscarriages are potential homicides. I've pointed out how silly that is before.
2> It means identical twins are the same "person", because they share the same DNA, and that's how you're determining whether a single entity exists. They cannot be considered separate entities, by your argument, because their DNA is the same.

It means none of that and I've not argued that is the case, Again nice strawman. For twins it means two clones have started their life. I am not saying each human has unique DNA and thus a separate entity. I am saying the strand(s) of DNA that are separate from that which created it and will become a fully formed person in a great many months is a unique person.

You are engaging in the worst sort of strawmaning.

- - - Updated - - -

Kindly provide your objectively-definitive principles which you rely on to make that determination, in a way that could convince others.

No fair relying on emotion or religious precepts.



Because it isn't a biological or scientific argument. It's a religious argument.

There is no sense trying to convince you, you've already picked strawman arguments to create, say I made and then knock down.

Plus you are never going to change your mind, NOBODY changes their mind on a forum debate, so its an impossible standard. Plus this isn't even a fair debate.

It is absolutely a biological argument as I am not depending on the existence of a soul, Or some nebulous idea of consciousness, only that....

"This thing has the DNA of a new human, separate from the Humans that made it. It is thus not that which created it but now its own organism."

If you could cease strawmaning me that would be great, which I know is probably physically impossible for you to do but I think its worth asking.

[Endus]

Okay mr. Semantics, ugh, much like your might makes right philosophy I guess its whatever way makes a point for you.

Nobody is saying it spawns into existence from nothing, Way to make a strawman of point. I am saying X is now distinct from Y, I can with great certainty know that X is not Y and Y is not X.

So what about cancers, where DNA gets corrupted? We can just as easily see that as a distinct iteration of DNA. Does that mean cancer should be granted separate personhood?

The point is that your metric is silly and inconsistently applied.

It means none of that and I've not argued that is the case, Again nice strawman.

Pointing out the ridiculous conclusions of an argument is a logically valid counter-argument. Not a straw man, at all.

For twins it means two clones have started their life.

What about if those twins have sex and have a child with the same DNA as its parents? Is that child also a "clone"? Is it not a person?

You keep making up special new rules because your base principle can't be defended on its own merit.

I am not saying each human has unique DNA and thus a separate entity. I am saying the strand(s) of DNA that are separate from that which created it and will become a fully formed person in a great many months is a unique person.

The first part, as we've already gone over, is irrelevant. The latter part, that's using a hypothetical future you've made up as a justification for decisions in the real world.

That organism carries YOUR DNA. how more YOU can he get?

My eventual corpse also carries my DNA. Does that mean it's still "me", in the sense of being a living person? What if it's being kept "alive" on life support, even though I'm brain-dead?

Medical science is pretty universally clear that in that case, I'm dead, and gone, and you're just keeping my corpse warm and limber.

[May90]

As far as I am concerned, yes, YOU exist in your most primal and beginning stages. Heck a baby can't even pass the mirror self awareness test. So your standard is both arbitrary but also one you probably are not about to defend.

The point is there is nothing biologically or scientifically invalid about the "At conception," point pro-lifers make. If anything you are now going into a philosophical debate about Self-Awareness.

That's your perspective though. Personally, I think I only was me after being born; before that there was just a proto-organism growing into me. There really is no objective way to establish that.

Babies in the womb can respond to music and other stimuli.

It is just reflex though, isn't it?

That organism carries YOUR DNA. how more YOU can he get?

One can extract my DNA right now and sew it into a horse... Won't make the horse me.

[nextormento]

Because it isn't a biological or scientific argument. It's a religious argument.

It's a philosophical one. That some religions happen to adopt into their philosophical corpus.
Exactly like the person-hood angle is a philosophical question.

The act of framing that philosophical point as a religious one is an appeal to emotion. To anti-religious sentiments, specifically.

[Endus]

There is no sense trying to convince you, you've already picked strawman arguments to create, say I made and then knock down.

Plus you are never going to change your mind, NOBODY changes their mind on a forum debate, so its an impossible standard. Plus this isn't even a fair debate.

Asking you to clearly state your argument without resorting to subjective, personal defenses is hardly an unreasonable request.

It is absolutely a biological argument as I am not depending on the existence of a soul, Or some nebulous idea of consciousness, only that....

"This thing has the DNA of a new human, separate from the Humans that made it. It is thus not that which created it but now its own organism."

If we exclude the circular argument in the first clause (that it will create a new human, which is the very thing you're trying to define), then this applies to some cancerous tumours.

Also, this is simply arguing that a zygote has unique DNA. It hasn't established anything else. You haven't made an argument for personhood here, at all.

[Jotaux]

Why do people argue about when life begins. What is a human baby and all that shit. If you are pro-life then you do not have to get an abortion. Pro-choice it is up to you. Keep it simple.

Thats a laughable sentiment. Should we not care when a stranger is killed? Or a child on the other side of the country is raped? The argument over when life begins is important because that establishes when it becomes murder. Is is at contraception? birth? When they are aware at 1-2 years old (yeah some sick person was advocating this)?

I am pro choice and don't see how someone could be forced to carry a baby to term. That doesn't mean I hand wave the moral questions of it away.

[Endus]

It's a philosophical one. That some religions happen to adopt into their philosophical corpus.
Exactly like the person-hood angle is a philosophical question.

The act of framing that philosophical point as a religious one is an appeal to emotion. To anti-religious sentiments, specifically.

Philosophy fundamentally relies on logic, and can be broken down such that anyone else can understand the path of reasoning involved. Even religious philosophy. Though religious philosophy will rely on premises based on faith, which cannot be presumed correct by those who don't share that faith.

[Paranoid Android]

Thats a laughable sentiment. Should we not care when a stranger is killed? Or a child on the other side of the country is raped? The argument over when life begins is important because that establishes when it becomes murder. Is is at contraception? birth? When they are aware at 1-2 years old (yeah some sick person was advocating this)?

I am pro choice and don't see how someone could be forced to carry a baby to term. That doesn't mean I hand wave the moral questions of it away.

For the last how many pages and this thread. There is no clear cut when life begins. So keep it simple. If you are pro-choice you would actually agree with my argument. Pro-choice is not forcing people to have abortions. Pro-life people do not give a shit what happens to the child once born.

[Deleted]

By which they either mean "personhood", or they should've flunked high school biology.

Because an individual organism's life doesn't "begin". It was created from living gametes created by living progenitors, and at no stage was it "not alive", such that life could begin.



What we call a "person" is not an independently unique strand of DNA. That's a nonsensical measure.
1> It means miscarriages are potential homicides. I've pointed out how silly that is before.
2> It means identical twins are the same "person", because they share the same DNA, and that's how you're determining whether a single entity exists. They cannot be considered separate entities, by your argument, because their DNA is the same.



Yes, the existence of an individual sentient being is what we're talking about.

And that's personhood. Not "life". It's an entirely appropriate point to bring up, because the idea that "life begins at conception" is a religious argument, not a biological one. Biologically speaking, it's just wrong.

That is absolute rubbish Endus. Once again, you have serious problems when it comes down to interacting with someone else. Here we have science LITERALLY telling us that conception creates a new form of human life with its own DNA, and yet here you are talking about religion.

[araine]

Speaking of, the Democrats go after minorities and are majorly pro-abortion. You have to wonder if there's something intentionally sinister going on there.

Pro abortion is the right way to be, we need a lot less of religious nutcases creating laws. I am concerned with christian nutcases creating what basically is sharia law in the country when they look to implement religious laws. Thats the major difference between a conservative crying sharia law blah blah blah so bad and a liberal that sees the christian version for what it is, namely the exact same thing just a different religion doing it.

[Deleted]

One can extract my DNA right now and sew it into a horse... Won't make the horse me.

Might want to sharpen up on those analogies May90. Otherwise there's no point in continuing.

[Endus]

That is absolute rubbish Endus. Once again, you have serious problems when it comes down to interacting with someone else. Here we have science LITERALLY telling us that conception creates a new form of human life with its own DNA, and yet here you are talking about religion.

What science tells you is that human parents produce human gametes that combine to form a human zygote, with changes to the DNA structures at all three stages. That zygote will eventually, given proper support, develop into a human infant.

Science does not tell us that the zygote is magically empowered with personhood at conception, which is the argument you folks are trying to make, which is not a scientific one in the least. And thus far, the only reason you've given for why you want to set that point at conception is "there's a new unique strand of DNA". And my response has been to ask you why that matters, and to point out the many ways that argument is inconsistently applied (tumors are also unique DNA, identical twins share the same DNA but are separate people, etc).

[nextormento]

Philosophy fundamentally relies on logic

Logic is a branch of philosophy.
I can into semantics too.

Let's ignore that potential detour, which I'm not very interested in. You're still not addressing my post. At all.
Go over the argument all you want. It's as valid as they're capable of supporting it. If they can't, too bad for them.
What I'm taking issue with is you framing a philosophical question as a religious one. It is not.