12 year old girl speaks against abortion, and she does it well.

[Unholyground]

One has to assume human life is more important than any other life on earth for abortions to even be a topic of importance. You don't see people flip their shit when pregnant animals in the wild are killed or abandon their young, many species in the wild if they know their food sources or environment are going to drastically change or be unstable will self abort their fetus. People just need to stop butting into others business and stop assuming human life is more important than all other life, because were not, the fact is without all these other animals and organisms we would be nothing.

[Deleted]

When I was 12 I am not sure if I knew what that was. I imagine if I did, my opinion would just be a reiteration of what someone else had taught to me...

Good on her for doing it well I guess, but I don't think a 12 year old has enough knowledge about it, and is old enough to have their own opinon on something like this

[Deleted]

Life does not start at the embryo stage. Am I to be considered a mass murderer, given the amount of sperm cells I have destroyed?

[Deleted]

Then, to be frank, you have no business whatsoever talking about the "sanctity of life", which is an inherently religious concept. "Sanctity" means "state of being holy/sacred". You can't argue sanctity without arguing for religion.

A paralysed person is surviving on their own. They aren't hooked up directly to someone else so that the other person's body is managing the basic functions of life for them. That's the point being made.

Distracting that into "oh, but he needs someone to bring him food occasionally and stuff" is grossly disingenuous, if not outright deliberate dishonesty.



My finger is human and alive, does that mean my finger is entitled to the rights of being a human? Was I guilty of some crime when I partially amputated it in an accident?

Your entire premise here is bonkers. You can't just assume personhood because it has human DNA and is alive. That definition applies to limbs, and tumors, and so on.

You cant have morals if you are atheist?.
also the notion of not killing your social group predate humanity.
yes its a sliding scale, my slider is different from yours.
It is live and its human, its entitled to protection, and if you are specific to your thumb, if I cut it of I would be committing a crime, the degree of harm to you is different but there is still harm.

when do you think personhood sets in?
thats really where the crux of this rests, i see no good arguments as to why week x is any more compelling than any other, so i go for when its life starts which is conception.

PS

If it's a threat to you, you no longer possess the ability to suffer distress at the thought of your own demise and are irrelevant.

was that the one you were referring too?.
think i replied to that one, but if i missed one feel free to tell me and il reply.

[Deleted]

Life does not start at the embryo stage. Am I to be considered a mass murderer, given the amount of sperm cells I have destroyed?

well, duh! even when you get somebody pregnant, all the other sperm cells in your semen die, so you're a mass murderer then too. you heartless bastard...

[Frogguh]

well, duh! even when you get somebody pregnant, all the other sperm cells in your semen die, so you're a mass murderer then too. you heartless bastard...

An embryo is a unique human life, at least according to science. Semen are not human life, since humans have 46 chromosomes and sperm have 23. I can't believe this very simple fact has to be explained over and over and over...

- - - Updated - - -

People just need to stop butting into others business and stop assuming human life is more important than all other life, because were not, the fact is without all these other animals and organisms we would be nothing.

So destroying an anthill has the same moral weight as a mass shooting? Gotcha. Interesting life you must lead.

[Tradewind]

An embryo is a unique human life, at least according to science. Semen are not human life, since humans have 46 chromosomes and sperm have 23. I can't believe this very simple fact has to be explained over and over and over...

It becomes a unique human life eventually. For quite some time though it's a lump of unspecific cells.

[AeneasBK]

Is it jut me or does this same 100 page thread get re-discussed under a different title every other week?

[Endus]

You cant have morals if you are atheist?.

Where did I say that?

I just said that sanctity isn't a moral concept. It's an explicitly and solely religious concept.

Secular humanism can come up with all kinds of justifications for defending human lives without resorting to words like sanctity.

also the notion of not killing your social group predate humanity.

You said this before, and it really isn't true. Yes, social cohesion is coded into humanity's drives. So is violence and murder. Murder predates humanity, too. We were never a bunch of peace-loving hippies, dude. We're alpha predators.

It is live and its human, its entitled to protection, and if you are specific to your thumb, if I cut it of I would be committing a crime, the degree of harm to you is different but there is still harm.

But the harm is not to my thumb. The harm is to me. And if I have a sixth finger, I can absolutely have it surgically removed.

when do you think personhood sets in?

When there's measurable, coherent brain activity.

Before that point, the fetus is essentially brain-dead. Even once that coherent EEG activity emerges, it isn't a given that it definitely means there's a person in there, but we can't be certain there isn't. Whereas, before that activity emerges, we can be certain there is no person there. The same way we already make that determination in cases of brain death, in actual people. The exact same measure. If we can use the lack of brain activity to determine that someone is medically dead, and cease to be a person, then surely we can use it to determine the point where they become a person.

http://www.wired.com/2011/02/baby-brain-activity-sleep/

[Tart]

A 12 year old girl shouldnt have any business discussing this.

Enjoy your childhood sweetheart.

[Pilobolus]

It is live and its human, its entitled to protection, and if you are specific to your thumb, if I cut it of I would be committing a crime, the degree of harm to you is different but there is still harm.

There is a difference between Endus cutting off his own thumb vs you cutting off his thumb. One implies bodily autonomy (He decided to do something to his own body) and the other implies force/coercion (You decided to do something to his body). If he gave you consent to chop off the thumb then that's a different story and is not morally wrong.

[xinjun]

So destroying an anthill has the same moral weight as a mass shooting?

On a plane of pure morals (aka practicality and legality don't enter into the equation) yes.

[Unholyground]

So destroying an anthill has the same moral weight as a mass shooting? Gotcha. Interesting life you must lead.

That is taking it to an unintelligent and moronic extreme to try an bolster your standpoint and it is mute. I am just trying to paint a bigger picture and humble you with my statements, soon as you assume you are the most important form of life you blind yourself to many important types of empathy between humans and other species on this planet. Life is an amazing awesome occurrence in the universe nobody will argue that but when i comes to value of life it will differ from person to person and species to species. Take my pets for example I hold them at a higher regard than many people on this planet and would rather see a horrible person die than my pet or an animal. It is all about perspective.

[xinjun]

When there's measurable, coherent brain activity.

Before that point, the fetus is essentially brain-dead. Even once that coherent EEG activity emerges, it isn't a given that it definitely means there's a person in there, but we can't be certain there isn't. Whereas, before that activity emerges, we can be certain there is no person there. The same way we already make that determination in cases of brain death, in actual people. The exact same measure. If we can use the lack of brain activity to determine that someone is medically dead, and cease to be a person, then surely we can use it to determine the point where they become a person.

This is the best line I've read to date.

[Annoying]

yeah no the scientific definition is that a zygote is alive, thanks for playing.

The scientific definition is that broccoli is alive, too. So is semen. And unfertilized eggs.

[Deleted]

Where did I say that?

I just said that sanctity isn't a moral concept. It's an explicitly and solely religious concept.

Secular humanism can come up with all kinds of justifications for defending human lives without resorting to words like sanctity.

You said this before, and it really isn't true. Yes, social cohesion is coded into humanity's drives. So is violence and murder. Murder predates humanity, too. We were never a bunch of peace-loving hippies, dude. We're alpha predators.



But the harm is not to my thumb. The harm is to me. And if I have a sixth finger, I can absolutely have it surgically removed.



When there's measurable, coherent brain activity.

Before that point, the fetus is essentially brain-dead. Even once that coherent EEG activity emerges, it isn't a given that it definitely means there's a person in there, but we can't be certain there isn't. Whereas, before that activity emerges, we can be certain there is no person there. The same way we already make that determination in cases of brain death, in actual people. The exact same measure. If we can use the lack of brain activity to determine that someone is medically dead, and cease to be a person, then surely we can use it to determine the point where they become a person.

http://www.wired.com/2011/02/baby-brain-activity-sleep/

your problem was me using sanctity instead of what`?
its not my fault the lingo on this has religious overtones, but maybe respect of human life would that settle your mind?
Yes we are predators, To other things, or even i will freely admit other human tribes, but internally, no.
as for brain activity, a reasonable line, although the brain starts working as early as 12 weeks, but any arguments here would invariably revolve around the window, not something i am interested in discussing.
As for your thumb, yes harm to you.
You are a part of society, not your thumb.

ED, also, brain death is irreversible, a foetus "brain death" is not, as the brain is not dead.

- - - Updated - - -

The scientific definition is that broccoli is alive, too. So is semen. And unfertilized eggs.

Yes, No, and No.

[Endus]

your problem was me using sanctity instead of what`?

Pretty much any secular term.

I don't have an issue with people arguing for the sanctity of life, but when you're a self-professed atheist, it's like arguing that you have "faith" that evolution is real. It's using exclusively religious terminology when it isn't relevant.

Yes we are predators, To other things, or even i will freely admit other human tribes, but internally, no.

Again, demonstrably not true. You're acting like domestic violence isn't common. It is, and always has been. And that's just dealing with immediate family, let alone expanded community.

Yes, No, and No.

Objectively wrong on the latter two. Sperm and unfertilized ovum are absolutely as alive as a fetus. Arguably more so, in certain respects, since both are expected to have a lifespan, however brief, when not being directly sustained by their producer.

[Tradewind]

ED, also, brain death is irreversible, a foetus "brain death" is not, as the brain is not dead.

It ain't alive either. So there's that.

[FlyingWoodchuck]

Pretty much any secular term.

I don't have an issue with people arguing for the sanctity of life, but when you're a self-professed atheist, it's like arguing that you have "faith" that evolution is real. It's using exclusively religious terminology when it isn't relevant.

It is not a uniquely religious term today and was exactly the correct word for him to have used.

[Tradewind]

It is not a uniquely religious term today and was exactly the correct word for him to have used.

Just because people use words wrong doesn't mean that it should just be accepted because they want it to.

Inviolability would be more appropriate if you're not speaking in terms of religion.