I hate the "debate" over embryonic stem cells!

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why is independence a necessary condition for personhood? Should a parent be free to execute his/her child until they are about 10 years old and can fend for themselves, or are you simply discussing spatial independence?

A human life must be able to survive outside of the mother, therefore be independent. Every creature, animal or human must be outside of the womb in order to be considered an actual person or animal. I think it is pretty simple. When it is able to breath and eat and drink outside of the mother, it is independent of the mother.

Again, I'm not actually that well informed on this topic and have not paid much attention to it. I only get interested in this topic when the issue of choice of a woman or stem cell research is brought up.

 

[randym431]

Basically, some people feel that forming life with the intent of destroying it in order to save another life is morally outrageous

Do you eat meat?

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: randym431

Basically, some people feel that forming life with the intent of destroying it in order to save another life is morally outrageous

Do you eat meat?

:thumbsup:

 

[Tab]

🙂

I might be a while... Going to kill some persons... or should I say kittens 😱

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: randym431

Basically, some people feel that forming life with the intent of destroying it in order to save another life is morally outrageous

Do you eat meat?

:thumbsup:

What kind of meat? Could we be more specific? That could be a litte open to definition...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Really? How are you not aware during sleep again? (You have just degraded your argument by calling me an 'asshat', I suppose you can't defend your position so you resort to acting puerile.)

You don't have an argument for me to attack. Your entire premise in starting this thread is that religion is stupid. Thus, I find it impossible to address you as a rational person, since you're obviously not here for any real discussion. If you want a lecture on neurobiology, you can join me here next week at our world-renowned neuroscience department's lecture series on Monday afternoons. You degrade everyone here simply by posting.

Originally posted by: raildogg
A human life must be able to survive outside of the mother, therefore be independent. Every creature, animal or human must be outside of the womb in order to be considered an actual person or animal. I think it is pretty simple. When it is able to breath and eat and drink outside of the mother, it is independent of the mother.

Again, I'm not actually that well informed on this topic and have not paid much attention to it. I only get interested in this topic when the issue of choice of a woman or stem cell research is brought up.

WHY is this the case? You claim that it is so, but why?

 

[Dofuss3000]

You don't have an argument for me to attack. Your entire premise in starting this thread is that religion is stupid. Thus, I find it impossible to address you as a rational person, since you're obviously not here for any real discussion. If you want a lecture on neurobiology, you can join me here next week at our world-renowned neuroscience department's lecture series on Monday afternoons. You degrade everyone here simply by posting.

Yes, I do... The fetus is not human until he/she is aware. You haven't proved that a fetus is aware. I never said religion is stupid. I simply dislike the fact that religion always has to act as it is more knowing then science. Oh, and that it has killed more people then Hitler, Mao and Stalin combined.... by retarding the progress of science (among other things).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Yes, I do... The fetus is not human until he/she is aware. You haven't proved that a fetus is aware. I never said religion is stupid. I simply dislike the fact that religion always has to act as it is more knowing then science. Oh, and that it has killed more people then Hitler, Mao and Stalind combined.... by retarding the progress of science (among other things).

You might want to go back to college, hell even high school, and learn some basic genetics. Then you would realize that a zygote is human, thus an embryo and fetus are as well. You denigrated religion outright in your initial post, then repeatedly ignored my statements, which have been religion-free, which clearly contradict your position. Next?

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Then you would realize that a zygote is human, thus an embryo and fetus are as well.

If that is the case, then what about extra-embryonic tissues? Are those "human?" When do you draw the line that the placenta is no longer "human?"

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
My sperm is human, are they a person? All of my cells are human for that matter.... Again.... awareness is what defines humanity.... prove to me a fetus is aware. Otherwise you are wasting every rational person's time.

Prove to me that awareness is necessary for personhood. Is it less of a crime if I murder someone in their sleep than when they are awake?

You are mixing up definitons of "aware". Somebody who is asleep is still aware, as in "sentient", even if they aren't aware of their present surroundings at that precise moment. That person would still have the capability to regret dying. That human would almost definitely also be considered a significantly developed person.

When I say "significantly developed" I mean somebody who has obtained through life a large repertoire of memories that generally defines one as a logical, reasoning, feeling and generally aware human being. A fetus (assuming they are even capable of formulating thoughts and memories on that level) who has just begun to build up a database of memories such as this is not something that I would consider a person.

I suppose a proper analogy would be... building a house. You have just begun to lay the foundations, when a hurricane comes and wipes it all away. This would be nowhere approaching the tragedy or significance of having that hurricane come just as I stuck down the "For Sale" sign.

 

[Dofuss3000]

You might want to go back to college, hell even high school, and learn some basic genetics. Then you would realize that a zygote is human, thus an embryo and fetus are as well.

You miss my point completely. OF COURSE the fetus is designated a human, it is a label. I am simply saying that it isn't a person until it is aware. It isn't human. A human being is someone who is aware.

Definition of 'human'

As you can see there is a lot of different meanings to the word human. Don't play that silly game of equivocation with me.

You denigrated religion outright in your initial post, then repeatedly ignored my statements, which have been religion-free, which clearly contradict your position. Next?

I denigrated spirituality outright, not religion. How did I contradict my position? I will only move on until you have addressed my statement about awareness.

 

[krach]

How can we charge people like Scott Peterson for 2 counts of murder for murdering a pregnant woman if the fetus is not also a person?

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: krach
How can we charge people like Scott Peterson for 2 counts of murder for murdering a pregnant woman if the fetus is not also a person?

Yeah, I hate that law. It is a double standard all the way.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: krach
How can we charge people like Scott Peterson for 2 counts of murder for murdering a pregnant woman if the fetus is not also a person?

Yeah, I hate that law. It is a double standard all the way.

It should had been a murder and a property offenese. Like the way it is in the book of God... Right Cyclo? 😉

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: krach
How can we charge people like Scott Peterson for 2 counts of murder for murdering a pregnant woman if the fetus is not also a person?

It was a stupid law given you could have had a law formulated to make killing someone who is pregnant an "aggravating circumstances" which makes them elligable for the death penalty. Alot of these laws are supported by antiabortion advocates with an agenda.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
Wow, you're a tool. It's ambigous word. What's personhood exactly? The state of being a person? Well, everyone has there own defintion for that! It's ambigous, it's definatly open too interpertation by anyone. You pasted defintions before possibly, though that was a thread long ago and not this one. You're just pissed because you survived abortion.

Wow, you're an idiot. Adulthood. Personhood. Knighthood. What does adding -hood on the end of a word do? It alters the affixed word's definition to mean, roughly, 'the quality of being _____', where the blank is filled in by the affixed word. Knighthood - quality of being a knight. Adulthood - quality of being an adult. Personhood - quality of being a person. This isn't rocket science here. You can argue that 'person' is ambiguous, but the term 'personhood', which you specifically called out, is anything but. I'm pissed because idiots like you wax knowledge and wisdom when you have naught of either.

I didn't argue the term "person" is ambiguous. Personhood or the as the definition as you put it the "quality of being human" is abiguous and open to one's own personal defintion.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb

Please answer my questions, thanks in advance. Try to look in the bible you might find some!

I don't rely on religion to answer logical questions - why do you insist on implying that I do? I guess it's a good substitute for a complete lack of substance in your arguments. I have stated my definition of a person at least three times in this thread already. Personhood is the quality of being a person. Thus, since I have defined humanity (the quality of being human for the intellectually impaired) as sufficient cause for personhood (the quality of being a person), I already answered your question.

What kind of questions to you expect religion to answer? No, your own dumbfounded faith in Christianity is the only thing that keeps you going or your own bigotry.

You haven't stated your definition for a "person".

According to you...

humanity = the quality of being human

personhood = the quality of beign a person

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why isn't humanity sufficient for personhood?

Let's rephrase this...

Why isn't the quality of being human sufficent for the quality of being a person.

Make sense? No, it's ambigious and doesn't really have a meaning...

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb

How am I not fully developed?

Development of a human being is a continuum. If you were fully developed now, you would no longer gain new memories, new abilities, nor learn anything. Your body continues to develop until the day you die. This is obviated by my research, which is how the human eye ages and why you lose the ability to focus on near objects as you age (presbyopia - the loss of accommodative faculties). Your skin changes as you age, your brain function varies, hearing loss occurs. All of these things happen in an extremely particular order and fashion throughout life. Thus, you, nor I, are fully developed humans.

So, can I abort you then? I really wouldn't mind it. You're body doesn't constantly develop. You're explanations is just plain bias and dumb. Humans don't constantly develop. We eventually stop developing and start to decay.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb

If something is aware of the fact they exsist, beyond a involuntary reaction like blinking for example.
I'd say the for something to require the state of personhood they need to be self-aware.

This is your definition of a person? How do you propose that we test this hypothesis in utero? Are you going to interview a fetus and ask it?

We don't need to we already know they don't have any brain activity the constitues as "higher level".

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Well, Embryo's aren't fully developed humans and they're NOT self aware.

You're not a fully developed human, either. Should I have the absolute right to kill you? How about cut you up and use you for research? I could really use some 18 year old eyes for my research - what say you? How do you define self-awareness? Why is this a necessary element for personhood? Can I kill you if you slip into a coma, since I can't tell whether or not you're self-aware at this time?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
This is your definition of a person? How do you propose that we test this hypothesis in utero? Are you going to interview a fetus and ask it?

What kind of a coma did I slip into? How old am I? What are the circumstances? Did I hit my head on a rock or did you pack my fudge?

These questions are all totally irrelevant. You have lost your consciousness and are no longer a person, devoid of all rights by your own definition. Care to change your position, or should I start cutting?

I am consciousness right now as I am able to type this. I currently have a living will, we wouldn't want to invalidate that would we?

EDIT : Never spending this much time on a single ATPN thread again.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: kogase
You are mixing up definitons of "aware". Somebody who is asleep is still aware, as in "sentient", even if they aren't aware of their present surroundings at that precise moment. That person would still have the capability to regret dying. That human would almost definitely also be considered a significantly developed person.

No, I simply applied the term supplied by someone else. You are confusing 'sentient' and 'aware'. I agree that 'sentient' is a much better selection, as it's obvious that 'awareness' is a trivial criterion to negate. As for sentience, how would you define it such that it becomes a measurable quantity on which we can bestow rights?

When I say "significantly developed" I mean somebody who has obtained through life a large repertoire of memories that generally defines one as a logical, reasoning, feeling and generally aware human being. A fetus (assuming they are even capable of formulating thoughts and memories on that level) who has just begun to build up a database of memories such as this is not something that I would consider a person.

Then would you allow infanticide? You define your absolute definition in terms of a floating variable. This cannot logically stand, as you say 'through life' - an inherently arbitrary term - as your absolute standard for the deprivation of rights. Further, one may have memories but be illogical, just as one may be perfectly logical after suffering total amnesia. 'Logical' in and of itself is an arbitrary term, as is well demonstrated by this forum. What you might call a logical being, I might call a fool. I think you're generally heading in the right direction, but need to clarify a bit.

I suppose a proper analogy would be... building a house. You have just begun to lay the foundations, when a hurricane comes and wipes it all away. This would be nowhere approaching the tragedy or significance of having that hurricane come just as I stuck down the "For Sale" sign.

Well, if you want to apply this analogy, then consider the following: if the embryo is the foundation, then is it logically or legally appropriate for me to have free reign to destroy the foundation of your house simply for a good time? What if you were to build a foundation, then destroy it simply because you no longer wanted to finish the house? I submit that this behavior is unethical because you just wasted a large sum of time, effort, and money that could have been better spent elsewhere. Further, by actually destroying the foundation rather than simply leaving it as-is in case someone else might get motivated and finish the job, you have destroyed something that was useful.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
You miss my point completely. OF COURSE the fetus is designated a human, it is a label. I am simply saying that it isn't a person until it is aware. It isn't human. A human being is someone who is aware.

As you can see there is a lot of different meanings to the word human. Don't play that silly game of equivocation with me.

No, I knew exactly what your point was. The failing was in your conveying your own point. The point that you actually put forth was incorrect, as I aptly demonstrated. You have just contradicted yourself in this post by stating that it is a human, then that it isn't human. Let me lay it out for you: human is a taxonomic term, defining a species. Person is an entity which has rights. You'll note that these are the definitions as supplied by the USSC in Roe v. Wade, paraphrased for brevity. I wish they weren't necessary in such discussions, but they really are. My argument is that personhood should be extended to all humans. You can call it equivocation, but it is nothing but your own ignorance of the diction necessary to hold this discussion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
I didn't argue the term "person" is ambiguous. Personhood or the as the definition as you put it the "quality of being human" is abiguous and open to one's own personal defintion.

Wow. You really can't read, can you? Either that, or you're intentionally misstating my clearly laid out position to make me look foolish. In either case, you are an asshat.

What kind of questions to you expect religion to answer? No, your own dumbfounded faith in Christianity is the only thing that keeps you going or your own bigotry.

As I stated already in this thread, I arrived at my conclusions on this issue before becoming Christian. Thus, your argument paints you as the bigot, not the other way around. for your troubles, however.

You haven't stated your definition for a "person".

I have done so, at least a dozen times in this very thread.

Why isn't the quality of being human sufficent for the quality of being a person.

Make sense? No, it's ambigious and doesn't really have a meaning...

Unless you're not an obtuse, argumentative jackass. Done with you.

 

[Tab]

Avioding the agruement as usual, typical catholic.

 

[krach]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: krach
How can we charge people like Scott Peterson for 2 counts of murder for murdering a pregnant woman if the fetus is not also a person?

It was a stupid law given you could have had a law formulated to make killing someone who is pregnant an "aggravating circumstances" which makes them elligable for the death penalty. Alot of these laws are supported by antiabortion advocates with an agenda.

So according to the prochoice crowd, I can stab a pregnant woman in the stomach, kill the fetus, and it would just be assault?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Avioding the agruement as usual, typical catholic.

Pretending you have it all figured out when, in reality, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Typical atheist.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000
Yes, I do... The fetus is not human until he/she is aware. You haven't proved that a fetus is aware. I never said religion is stupid. I simply dislike the fact that religion always has to act as it is more knowing then science. Oh, and that it has killed more people then Hitler, Mao and Stalind combined.... by retarding the progress of science (among other things).

You might want to go back to college, hell even high school, and learn some basic genetics. Then you would realize that a zygote is human, thus an embryo and fetus are as well. You denigrated religion outright in your initial post, then repeatedly ignored my statements, which have been religion-free, which clearly contradict your position. Next?

Somewhere, in a parallel universe near you, people read books, scientists are treated like rock stars, and beer is not sold in 30 can value packs.

At least you are being honest about your Anti-Science "values" in your sig.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
At least you are being honest about your Anti-Science "values" in your sig.

Try reading that again, genius. Accompany it with your own credentials with respect to science if you want to compare.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tabb
Avioding the agruement as usual, typical catholic.

Pretending you have it all figured out when, in reality, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Typical atheist.

Who said I don't beileve in god? You're the one pretending that a embryo should somehow be granted "personhood". Great logical agruement you have!