Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ...
13
21
22
23
  1. #441
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    this is trivially stupid.
    http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/sja...ages/52.20.gif
    human development has done what the last thousand years ?
    more humans are inherently good for that.
    you have a better argument that we will run out of space, but more people is inherently good.
    WTF does the exponential human population growth have to do with humans being 'inherently good' ?

    Due to the advances of technology, medicine and agriculture we eat more and die less, therefore we are inherently good?

    human development has done what the last thousand years ?
    more humans are inherently good for that.
    This, especially the second line makes no sense at all.

    is reprehensible.
    even Nixx thinks the foetus has value (which was the person i was replying too) even if she is firmly on the mothers side.
    Right, so... what exactly is that value newborns (and unborn fetuses) hold?
    Try to answer this question without appealing to emotion or invoking religious talking points.

    Because a grown-up woman, especially if she lives in a developed country, has had a large amount of resources thrown at hear from the day she was born. She's gone through 12+ years of education and is a fully functional adult. She's most likely a contributing and productive member of society either through work or as a homekeeper. She's been collecting and assessing information in her brain for decades. She's biologically fully developed and is able to procreate.

    What does a newborn have/do?

  2. #442
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    is reprehensible.
    even Nixx thinks the foetus has value (which was the person i was replying too) even if she is firmly on the mothers side.
    Wait, I what?

  3. #443
    What it boils down to, since GoblinPaladin seems intent on avoiding this point, is that the only thing special about humans is our mind. When that isn't present we're nothing more than sacks of meat. A fetus or a vegetable is still a human, but its asinine to call it a person.

  4. #444
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Is-ought problem.
    Nope.
    Human disinclination to kill each other and the universal rule against killing people (of your own society) are observable fucking reality.
    Have you ever taken a polysci class or pretty much any biology with any evolution in it?.
    Just because there are ingrained tools to encourage group cohesion doesn't mean that is moral.
    That is the definition.
    concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong
    society frowns upon killing people.
    but just because that is the case doesn't mean it ought to be.
    as i said, its a moot point, It is observable reality.
    you may freely argue for your other society that since by virtue of letting people kill each other is sure to be a festive and nice place, are you in Syria by any chance?.
    No, there is no "to a degree" here. It's either universal or it isn't.
    Problem is, Species = is not society.
    hopefully you understand the difference.
    Nobody cares about your personal opinion.
    stop it with this, its not a personal oppinion, (its only shared with a majority of people), and more importantly, its not an argument.
    Your entire argument, which is essentially "human DNA, therefore human" is abysmal and would prevent anyone from removing a cancerous tumor as well.
    No.
    You are your cancer.
    You are not your foetus.
    the foetus is not in any way shape or form a part of the mother, do i need to start in on this again?.
    Furthermore, if you're going to use this argument, you need to present a compelling case as to why only humans are worthy of such protection, since it's apparently something special about the genetic structure of human DNA.
    for the same reason we can eat and kill other animals.
    We are human, ergo, we care about humans.
    Ever? Go reread any post you have ever made. Your reasoning is awful and your definition of what a person is doesn't work in the slightest. You seem to be personally incapable of recognizing good reasoning though, which is both why your reasoning sucks and why you think it doesn't.
    and you have as of yet supplied nothing but nonsense and a bad argument debunked 15 times.

  5. #445
    Human disinclination to kill each other and the universal rule against killing people (of your own society) are observable fucking reality.

    society frowns upon killing people.
    Society frowns upon killing people yet it makes special distinctions when it's OK to kill someone.
    War (sending your 'own' to die and to kill others), death penalty, etc.
    People can easily turn against their own, they just have to paint them as 'others' first. It's a logical hoop that we jump through in order to make ourselves feel better.

    the foetus is not in any way shape or form a part of the mother
    I think at this point it's obvious that you can not be convinced by reason.
    Did your eyes twitch when you typed this sentence, cause it's so blatantly wrong?

  6. #446
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by nevermore View Post
    WTF does the exponential human population growth have to do with humans being 'inherently good' ?
    For progress.
    Three reasons.
    One more geniuses.
    Two, more combined brain power.
    Three, Greater critical mass, you need a society of 5000 people to support a school system, 10 000 to support a hospital and a 100 000 million to support a space programme.
    Due to the advances of technology, medicine and agriculture we eat more and die less, therefore we are inherently good?
    this is nonsense.
    This, especially the second line makes no sense at all.
    this argument is predicated on the notion that homo sapiens has been in development for about 2.5 million years.
    as you saw of the graph, most of this time population was very steady.
    technological advancement was near zero.
    as population increased technological advancement was not near zero.
    its not a perfect argument to be sure, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but it should be obvious what was meant at least.

    Right, so... what exactly is that value newborns (and unborn fetuses) hold?
    Non zero.
    Try to answer this question without appealing to emotion or invoking religious talking points.
    Don't have to.
    Non zero.
    You said Zero, i say Non zero.

    Because a grown-up woman, especially if she lives in a developed country, has had a large amount of resources thrown at hear from the day she was born. She's gone through 12+ years of education and is a fully functional adult. She's most likely a contributing and productive member of society either through work or as a homekeeper. She's been collecting and assessing information in her brain for decades. She's biologically fully developed and is able to procreate.

    What does a newborn have/do?
    Societal value of a person is not contingent on its societal output.
    simple analogy, is a person with downs syndrome less valuable than another person?.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Wait, I what?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    A corpse is always nobody.
    I mean, I'm all for legalizing competitive sport abortion, or asportion for short, but squeamishness and respect for a person that no longer exists is not a great reason.
    did i misunderstand that?.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by nevermore View Post
    Society frowns upon killing people yet it makes special distinctions when it's OK to kill someone.
    Yes.
    War (sending your 'own' to die and to kill others), death penalty, etc.
    death penalty is the punishment for what crime again? im hazy on that detail. (also i am not a supporter of the death penalty).
    Also war involve dehumanising the enemy.
    Abortions involve dehumanising the foetus.
    Is there a comparison here?.

    People can easily turn against their own, they just have to paint them as 'others' first. It's a logical hoop that we jump through in order to make ourselves feel better.
    Yes, my point exactly mister "zero worth", ever heard the phrase parasite?.


    I think at this point it's obvious that you can not be convinced by reason.
    You mean a slogan relating to no medical reality whatsoever?.
    parroting a slogan sure beats medical facts.
    Did your eyes twitch when you typed this sentence, cause it's so blatantly wrong?
    it twitches when i read that particular piece of nonsense from someone.
    it has no relation to reality whatsoever.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    What it boils down to, since GoblinPaladin seems intent on avoiding this point, is that the only thing special about humans is our mind. When that isn't present we're nothing more than sacks of meat. A fetus or a vegetable is still a human, but its asinine to call it a person.
    a foetus is not comparable to a vegetable.
    Also a vegetable is a person, if not the word you are looking for is brain dead.
    A foetus is not, nor can they be compared too, brain dead people.
    but im glad to see you have stopped to argue about bodily autonomy.

  7. #447
    Deleted

    G

    Quote Originally Posted by pateuvasiliu View Post
    A toe isn't an organism.



    Don't fucking strawman me.

    I said the analogy is bad because the fetus is the result of the woman's actions. It's not something that happened while she was doing nothing unless her name's Mary.
    What is the relevance of this fact?Just because the mother gave life to the fetus ,she is not obligated to continue the existence of the fetus.

  8. #448
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    60,238
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    a foetus is not comparable to a vegetable.
    Also a vegetable is a person, if not the word you are looking for is brain dead.
    A foetus is not, nor can they be compared too, brain dead people.
    Prior to about Week 21, they fit the same terms we use to define people as brain-dead. So no. You're just wrong on the facts, again. Unless the fetus' brain is managing its own breathing and circulation (and it is not), it is effectively brain-dead. It has not become a person, yet.

    This isn't a difficult concept, and you keep avoiding it. At what point, to you, does a developing human embryo/fetus become a person? There has to be a point where this event occurs. If you're going to claim it's at conception, then I'm going to point out that you're talking about something that is not only brain-dead, but which has no brain at all, because it's a single undistinguished cell. If you're not setting that point at conception, you need actual, objectively determinative reasons to declare that it has entered personhood. Reasons that aren't just based on feelings. Which is basically all you've provided thus far.

    but im glad to see you have stopped to argue about bodily autonomy.
    Bodily autonomy is still the trump card in play. We're just humoring you on the personhood thing.

  9. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    a foetus is not comparable to a vegetable.
    Also a vegetable is a person, if not the word you are looking for is brain dead.
    A foetus is not, nor can they be compared too, brain dead people.
    but im glad to see you have stopped to argue about bodily autonomy.
    Brain death is the end of personhood in literally every developed jurisdiction. Much like viability is the beginning.

  10. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Nope.
    Human disinclination to kill each other and the universal rule against killing people (of your own society) are observable fucking reality.
    Have you ever taken a polysci class or pretty much any biology with any evolution in it?.
    You clearly don't understand what the is-ought problem is. I posted a nice link and everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    That is the definition.
    Now you're just making shit up. "Moral" is "right conduct" or "that which is right to do."

    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    society frowns upon killing people.
    Society is fucking irrelevant unless you want to espouse the especially weak view of ethical relativism.

    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    as i said, its a moot point, It is observable reality.
    It's observable that people are opposed to it. That isn't the same as moral. Is there a reason you decided to chop up every fucking clause of my post into the most obnoxious series of replies ever?
    [QUOTE=goblinpaladin;31514082]you may freely argue for your other society that since by virtue of letting people kill each other is sure to be a festive and nice place, are you in Syria by any chance?.

    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Problem is, Species = is not society.
    hopefully you understand the difference.
    Problem is you're making up definitions as you go and expecting us to use these over the accepted English definitions, as well as pulling shit out of your ass. Societies don't matter. They just represent whoever has the most power. Universal is universal; it's an absolute. One exception disproves an absolute.

    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    stop it with this, its not a personal oppinion, (its only shared with a majority of people), and more importantly, its not an argument.
    This is definitely just your shitfuck opinion. You're making up words and just telling me what it is. You've made zero argument for why it ought to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    No.
    You are your cancer.
    You are not your foetus.
    the foetus is not in any way shape or form a part of the mother, do i need to start in on this again?.
    I'd rather if you didn't waste my time doing so and I'm not going to indulge you if you do. Your argument has been shit on repeatedly. It is only your own stubbornness that keeps you from realizing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    for the same reason we can eat and kill other animals.
    We are human, ergo, we care about humans.
    That doesn't mean it's moral. It's a description of what we do.

    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    and you have as of yet supplied nothing but nonsense and a bad argument debunked 15 times.
    The argument hasn't been debunked. You're just literally the worst ethics debater on this forum.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post

    did i misunderstand that?.
    I'm done. If you somehow think that post translates into respect for the fetus, then you are the single most incompetent person on this forum and there is absolutely nothing of value to be gained from engaging you over anything.

  11. #451
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Prior to about Week 21, they fit the same terms we use to define people as brain-dead.
    Nope.
    A brain-dead individual has no clinical evidence of brain function upon physical examination. This includes no response to pain and no cranial nerve reflexes. Reflexes include pupillary response (fixed pupils), oculocephalic reflex, corneal reflex, no response to the caloric reflex test, and no spontaneous respirations.
    it meets some of these as early as week 12 to begin with, but its not my primary problem.
    It is important to distinguish between brain death and states that may be difficult to differentiate from brain death
    Yes.
    Now this is the important kicker that really ends this discussion:
    The diagnosis of brain death needs to be rigorous, in order to be certain that the condition is irreversible
    the foetus at no point what-so-fucking ever meets that standard, So, No you are wrong.
    Unless the fetus' brain is managing its own breathing and circulation (and it is not)
    it is managing its own circulation, and its breathing is around Way WAY earlier than week 21 (in potentia).
    At what point, to you, does a developing human embryo/fetus become a person?
    person hood is a legal concept relating to the entrenchment of rights.
    i dont care about it.
    Bodily autonomy is still the trump card in play. We're just humoring you on the personhood thing.
    You didn't read the link i provided like five times?.
    Kennedy: "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off."
    if there is a person (legal concept) inside there, then no abortions.
    They don't have bodily autonomy if there is a person inside.
    Do you understand now?.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Brain death is the end of personhood in literally every developed jurisdiction. Much like viability is the beginning.
    Well Except viability relates in practically no way to brain power what so ever.
    and the definition of brain death cannot be applied to foetuses as i already said.

  12. #452
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Well Except viability relates in practically no way to brain power what so ever.
    and the definition of brain death cannot be applied to foetuses as i already said.
    Except in terms of personhood, it is. That's the legal and rational way of it.

  13. #453
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    You clearly don't understand what the is-ought problem is. I posted a nice link and everything.
    i know what the problem is.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
    The emerging fields of evolutionary biology and in particular sociobiology have argued that, though human social behaviors are complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals
    See its an Is-Is problem.
    Now you're just making shit up. "Moral" is "right conduct" or "that which is right to do."
    See prior link.
    Society is fucking irrelevant unless you want to espouse the especially weak view of ethical relativism.
    you are confusing yourself, i said all societies have a prohibition on killing people in the group in question (ignoring the similar general disinclination)
    universal refers to all societies, not all members of homo sapiens which should be trivial to consider as there exists sociopaths.
    It's observable that people are opposed to it. That isn't the same as moral.
    See the prior link.
    Is there a reason you decided to chop up every fucking clause of my post into the most obnoxious series of replies ever?
    This is the way i like to respond to things.
    Problem is you're making up definitions as you go and expecting us to use these over the accepted English definitions, as well as pulling shit out of your ass.
    Societies don't matter. They just represent whoever has the most power. Universal is universal; it's an absolute. One exception disproves an absolute.
    Yeah fine then there is no universal morality because socio paths exists, so end of discussion, but i am fairly certain moral universalism is still a concept.
    This is definitely just your shitfuck opinion. You're making up words and just telling me what it is. You've made zero argument for why it ought to be.
    id link some polls putting abortions as something most people think is immoral (not meaning they are in favour of banning it).
    but whatever, regardless the statement "This is definitely just your shitfuck opinion"
    Is not an argument.
    I'd rather if you didn't waste my time doing so and I'm not going to indulge you if you do. Your argument has been shit on repeatedly. It is only your own stubbornness that keeps you from realizing it.
    Not an argument, not in any way a refuting of my dismissal of your statement.
    That doesn't mean it's moral. It's a description of what we do.
    Ok i have no moral justification for treating people different than animals, i just do, i suppose this is a shared delusion with 90% of the world.
    The argument hasn't been debunked. You're just literally the worst ethics debater on this forum.
    You are your cancer.
    You are not your foetus.
    the foetus is not in any way shape or form a part of the mother, do i need to start in on this again?.
    this is not an ethical argument.
    its medical one.
    and as yet, nobody has remotely come close to do that.
    i supose i will try again.
    Your cancer is a part of you, sharing your DNA, circulatory system and your immune system will often have trouble combating it, because it reads as "you".
    Your foetus is not a part of you, not sharing your DNA, circulatory system and your immune system have to be manipulated to not attack the foetus because it reads as Not you.
    Do i need to go on?.

    I'm done. If you somehow think that post translates into respect for the fetus, then you are the single most incompetent person on this forum and there is absolutely nothing of value to be gained from engaging you over anything.
    Oh im sorry i understood valuing the foetus over the dead person, (thereby granting it non zero worth) was supposed to be taken as you valuing the foetus as a non zero entity.
    but fine, You define the foetus as, in a absolute sense not relative, Zero value.
    please elucidate me if that is not your position.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Except in terms of personhood, it is. That's the legal and rational way of it.
    viability as Planed parenthood V Casey defined it, related to the foetus ability to survive in the "real" world.
    to do that the foetus needs to be able to breathe and that's pretty much it, as far as brain power goes.

  14. #454
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Non zero.
    Try to answer this question without appealing to emotion or invoking religious talking points.
    Don't have to.
    Non zero.
    You said Zero, i say Non zero.
    I'm glad to see your 'arguments' have now devolved into incoherent rambling. Makes it that much easier for me and others.

    simple analogy, is a person with downs syndrome less valuable than another person?.
    Objectively, yes. Downs is probably not a good condition to use for comparison, but a mentally disabled person is objectively less valuable than a healthy grown-up.
    From a legal standpoint, in our contemporary Western societies we do not differentiate in order to maintain an egalitarian spirit and to uphold certain relative-moral obligations. Plus we live in a welfare society, there's really no point.
    If we were starved for resources and lived in an every-man-for-himself world, I'm sure people with disabilities would be seen in a much different light.

    Are you familiar with the lore of Spartans in Ancient Greece, and what they usually did to newborn babies they deemed unfit?

  15. #455
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Everything with blood dies by bleeding when it's torn apart. Are cows people? They die just like any adult human would.
    The matter asserted wasn't "abortions are wrong because we tear them apart"
    The matter asserted was some abortions tear the foetus apart as the way of performing the abortion, which someone said no too, and then i pointed out that said person was wrong.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by nevermore View Post
    I'm glad to see your 'arguments' have now devolved into incoherent rambling. Makes it that much easier for me and others.
    Its not.
    i dont have to define its value:
    From a legal standpoint, in our contemporary Western societies we do not differentiate in order to maintain an egalitarian spirit
    We dont do it for moral reasons too, definition some people as worth less is typically frowned upon societally speaking, understand my point about "non-zero" now?

    Objectively, yes.
    objectively men, amongst others, are worth more than females, amongst others, there is a reason we have abandoned this particular line of reasoning.
    Downs is probably not a good condition to use for comparison, but a mentally disabled person is objectively less valuable than a healthy grown-up.
    And this is why.
    Are you familiar with the lore of Spartans in Ancient Greece, and what they usually did to newborn babies they deemed unfit?
    Yes.
    most of us left these particular lines of reasoning behind us oh, about 70 years ago, the general Line is: Everyone have the same equal worth.

  16. #456
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Line is: Everyone have the same equal worth.
    I'm glad you have conveniently ignored the objective VS legal argument. But anyway...

    objectively men, amongst others, are worth more than females
    Wow ok. Objectively you're sexist?

    Just to reiterate: your argument essentially is that an unborn fetus is worth just as much as a grown-up woman, correct?

  17. #457
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    a foetus is not comparable to a vegetable.
    Also a vegetable is a person, if not the word you are looking for is brain dead.
    A foetus is not, nor can they be compared too, brain dead people.
    but im glad to see you have stopped to argue about bodily autonomy.
    There's nothing different between a vegetable and any other form of life we hold with no particular value. Without our sentience we're nothing special. Any other argument relies on a tautology.

  18. #458
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    60,238
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Nope.

    it meets some of these as early as week 12 to begin with, but its not my primary problem.
    Even if you want to go by the first-trimester rule, all you've done is state that first-trimester abortions are totally fine.

    the foetus at no point what-so-fucking ever meets that standard, So, No you are wrong.
    You're technically correct.

    The fetus' brain is not brain-dead, because it was never independently alive in the first place. A brain-death is the ending of a life. We're trying to establish the point where a life begins. It can't "die" before it's ever lived.

    That's the only real distinction.

    it is managing its own circulation, and its breathing is around Way WAY earlier than week 21 (in potentia).
    By week 21, maybe, but not in the first trimester. I usually don't take a firm stand on dating outside of the first trimester for this reason; it gets fuzzy.

    person hood is a legal concept relating to the entrenchment of rights.
    i dont care about it.
    Literally all of your posting in this thread has been about legal personhood. That's all you've wanted to discuss.

    Otherwise, we'll stick with the current definitions, by which a fetus is objectively not a person, at these stages.

  19. #459
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by nevermore View Post
    I'm glad you have conveniently ignored the objective VS legal argument. But anyway...
    The link is a moral statement more than legal one.
    Wow ok. Objectively you're sexist?
    Men on average produce more, and as you just established that is the definition of "value".
    Just to reiterate: your argument essentially is that an unborn fetus is worth just as much as a grown-up woman, correct?
    No, Foetus = people.
    Age, gender, race, religion, insert anything, is encompassed in people, that is my argument.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    There's nothing different between a vegetable and any other form of life we hold with no particular value. Without our sentience we're nothing special. Any other argument relies on a tautology.
    No, with our sentience we are capable of expressing these thoughts.
    prior to sentience, we still held murder to be wrong, also know as prior to the construct of personality derived from sentience.
    A more valid argument would be the, possible, archaeological evidence of abortifacients.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Even if you want to go by the first-trimester rule, all you've done is state that first-trimester abortions are totally fine.
    No i said that you were wrong, not that it was the standard i held too.
    You're technically correct.
    No entirely.

    The fetus' brain is not brain-dead, because it was never independently alive in the first place. A brain-death is the ending of a life. We're trying to establish the point where a life begins. It can't "die" before it's ever lived.
    When is the magic point when something Not-alive becomes alive?
    That's the only real distinction.
    Not really.

    By week 21, maybe, but not in the first trimester
    the heart and circulatory system is up and running after 3 weeks of gestational pregnancy.


    Literally all of your posting in this thread has been about legal personhood. That's all you've wanted to discuss.

    Otherwise, we'll stick with the current definitions, by which a fetus is objectively not a person, at these stages.
    No i have made three points in this thread:
    #1 The foetus is not a part of the mother.
    #2 A more accurate representation of Roe.
    #3 And the argument that a Foetus is just as much a person (morally speaking) as another person.

    #3 the definition of person i use is one that is as inclusive as possible, which is the whole reason for my position in addition to medical facts (that there is no cut off point that can be argued with any sort of logical or medical reasons, merely practical).
    as a final note, as i have said before, i don't actually think it should be banned as that would have unfortunate consequences no matter the intended good.

    Oh and #4 the rejection of the notion that to have gender equality one must have the right to an abortion, as that is a ludicrous statement.

  20. #460
    prior to sentience, we still held murder to be wrong, also know as prior to the construct of personality derived from sentience.
    Not liking it when members of your pack is killed isn't special to humans.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •