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

Trump Tax derail - Abortion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    No - it is not. It is a potential human or humans. If it was 'an individual human being' as it was, it could not then become and direct the formation of two DIFFERENT human beings. It can't be 'an individual' but 'not an individual' at the same time Sparko. Why the obstinance - it's a fairly obvious conclusion?


    Jim
    It is a potential adult human being, but so is an infant, a toddler and a teenager. But a zygote is a complete individual human being at the beginning of its life. If it splits then it becomes two individual human beings at the beginning of their lives (or three or etc).

    It's not that difficult to comprehend. If you had a machine that could duplicate yourself into two Jims, would that mean that you are not an individual now before you split yourself into two individuals?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      BTC is saying the zygote is the embodiment of the final baby, that the zygote is for all practical purposes the same as the final baby. Clearly , it is not, as it can produce >1 baby. And those two babies are NOT identical in every way. They are individuals plural. So the zygote is a potential human being, but not a human being yet. And in fact, it can - under the right circumstances - produce more than 1 human being, which is why clearly more than just the zygote is required to determine it's final product, which is why one can't say it IS the individual. More than the zygote is required to create the baby, and variations along the way can and will produce different babies.

      Jim
      I answered that above, but you still have not defined want you mean by "individual"

      Do you mean an organism?

      Comment


      • #78
        TWEB: Where every thread has the potential to become an extensive battle over abortion or gun control.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          In the zygote are MANY potential individuals, only one of which will be realized.
          Jim
          Seems to me that is even a better reason not to abort it. You would be potentially killing several people instead of just one.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            That does appear in this case to be not far from the truth.

            Jim
            Jim, when you and Mr. Infanticide start agreeing in a debate about abortion and human life, you know you have already lost.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              You clearly have no clue what my argument is either.

              Try reading real slow here Bill. Look at each word. See if you can get the difference. A zygote is the fertilized egg. It can produce a unique individual, but it is not yet a unique individual.
              I am reading real slow. And you are still wrong. A zygote is a unique individual.


              There are many things that happen during the gestation perioed that affect the development of that baby, and those things can determine physical characteristics, mental capacity and personality.
              Again, so what? Traits don't create anything nor do they magically make a developing fetus into an individual.

              In the zygote are MANY potential individuals, only one of which will be realized.
              That's not what I meant about being an individual member of our species.

              But it does not yet have human form,
              So what? "Human form" can mean a number of things. None of them means the human isn't a human.

              it cannot think or feel, it has no heart, no blood, no brain, no arms, no legs.
              So what? Biologically, it is a unique member of our species on the normal path of human growth and development.

              Only the raw materials and instructions that will allow the development of the same. It is human life, but it is not a human being. Yet.
              False. It has everything it will ever need in that first primitive cell.

              Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672893/

              Its cells constitute a human organism, for they form a stable body and act together in a coordinated manner, which contributes to regular, predictable and determinate development toward the mature stage of a human being. That is, from the zygote stage onward, the human embryo has within it all of the internal information needed—including chiefly its genetic and epigenetic constitution—and the active disposition to develop itself to the mature stage of a human organism. As long as the embryo is reasonably healthy and is not denied or deprived of a suitable environment and adequate nutrition, it will actively develop itself along the species-specific trajectory of development. This means that the embryo has the same nature—in other words, it is the same kind of entity—from fertilization onward; there is only a difference in degree of maturation, not in kind, between any of the stages from embryo, to fetus, infant and so on.

              The human embryo is the same individual as the human organism at subsequent stages of development. The evidence for this is the genetic and epigenetic composition of this being—that is, the embryo's molecular composition is such that he or she has the internal resources to develop actively himself or herself to the next mature stage—and the typical embryo's regular, predictable and observable behaviour—that is, the embryo's actual progression through an internally coordinated and complex sequence of development to his or her mature stage.

              It is important to note that embryological evidence shows that the human embryo is a whole, although obviously immature, human being; it is not a mere part. This is a crucial point: human tissues or human cells, whether body cells or gametes, are indeed human—that is, genetically human—but are not whole human organisms. Neither of these has the active disposition to develop itself to the mature stage of a human being. By contrast, the human embryo, from fertilization onward, is fully programmed to actively develop himself or herself to the next mature stage along the path of human development.

              © Copyright Original Source





              No - it is not a member of our species. It is the first step in creating another member of our species.
              That's biological ignorance.


              There is a LOT more required than the uniting of a sperm and an egg to make a baby. If you are unaware of that fact, then it is not I that is expressing biological ignorance.
              False. There is only a difference in degree of maturation, not in kind, between any of the stages from embryo, to fetus, infant and so on. Again, the human embryo, from fertilization forward, develops in a single direction by an internally directed process: the developmental trajectory of this entity is determined from within, not by extrinsic factors, and always toward the same mature state, from the earliest stage of embryonic development onward. This means that the embryo has the same nature—it is the same kind of entity, a whole human organism—from fertilization forward; there is only a difference in degree of maturation between any of the stages in the development of the living being.
              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


              • #82
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                It is a potential adult human being, but so is an infant, a toddler and a teenager. But a zygote is a complete individual human being at the beginning of its life. If it splits then it becomes two individual human beings at the beginning of their lives (or three or etc).

                It's not that difficult to comprehend. If you had a machine that could duplicate yourself into two Jims, would that mean that you are not an individual now before you split yourself into two individuals?
                That is insane. And that is not my argument as it relates to twins. And I don't think my argument relating to twins is very hard to follow, so I'm going to go with you are just being stubborn and playing debating games rather than actually trying to understand.

                First, I am not talking about adults. I'm talking about a single cell that has nothing more than DNA and protoplasm and which can become a human baby. Nothing to sneeze at, but also not (yet) a human individual. As the zygote develops eventually it takes on recognizable human form. This would have been what was observed in the septuagint translation, differentiating formed and unformed. They didn't have microscopes back then, so there wouldn't have been much knowledge of the early stages are are discussing.

                So looking at the endpoints of gestation: zygote -> fully formed baby ready to be born. On one end a zygote is a cell. There is no human form. There is no mind, no blood, no heart, just a cell and DNA, not a human individual yet, but it IS a zygote, it will BECOME a human baby ready to be born if all goes well. At the other end is the fully formed human baby ready to be born. This is indistinguishable from the baby that is born, except it is out of the womb and disconnected from the mothers blood supply. As we move from there towards the middle there is a point when brain activity starts. Before that there is no brain activity. There are points where arms and legs form, where the heart forms and starts beating. Where a nervous system forms and the developing baby can feel.

                Clearly, at any point after the point where the baby can be born and live, we are talking about a child. a baby. This is where the pro-choice arguments walk into absolute territory where almost anyone can recognize (that is given the actual information) this is a baby. They want to be able to abort after this point and that is dead wrong if one values human life. The earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks, 5 days, but he had handicaps. Generally, we are talking 22 to 24 weeks. After that, this developing child can survive outside the womb on its own. So there is no excuse for anyone advocating abortion after 22 weeks. Period. This is a child, and they are killing it.

                But then it gets unclear, unless one approaches it from a religious perspective that regards the human individual as being a human individual from conception. In that middle ground is where progress could be made if we were willing to accept we can't win in the entirety of the issue. We will never be able to convince the secular public the earliest stages are a human individual scientifically, because scientifically they aren't - yet.

                Jim
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Jim, when you and Mr. Infanticide start agreeing in a debate about abortion and human life, you know you have already lost.
                  I'm not agreeing with him on abortion Sparko. You know this so I have no idea why you said that, other than to score points with others. I'm agreeing only in that a lot of you are just shouting out emotion based arguments that have no objective basis in truth. There is a difference.



                  Jim
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    That is insane. And that is not my argument as it relates to twins. And I don't think my argument relating to twins is very hard to follow, so I'm going to go with you are just being stubborn and playing debating games rather than actually trying to understand.

                    First, I am not talking about adults. I'm talking about a single cell that has nothing more than DNA and protoplasm and which can become a human baby. Nothing to sneeze at, but also not (yet) a human individual. As the zygote develops eventually it takes on recognizable human form. This would have been what was observed in the septuagint translation, differentiating formed and unformed. They didn't have microscopes back then, so there wouldn't have been much knowledge of the early stages are are discussing.

                    So looking at the endpoints of gestation: zygote -> fully formed baby ready to be born. On one end a zygote is a cell. There is no human form. There is no mind, no blood, no heart, just a cell and DNA, not a human individual yet, but it IS a zygote, it will BECOME a human baby ready to be born if all goes well. At the other end is the fully formed human baby ready to be born. This is indistinguishable from the baby that is born, except it is out of the womb and disconnected from the mothers blood supply. As we move from there towards the middle there is a point when brain activity starts. Before that there is no brain activity. There are points where arms and legs form, where the heart forms and starts beating. Where a nervous system forms and the developing baby can feel.

                    Clearly, at any point after the point where the baby can be born and live, we are talking about a child. a baby. This is where the pro-choice arguments walk into absolute territory where almost anyone can recognize (that is given the actual information) this is a baby. They want to be able to abort after this point and that is dead wrong if one values human life. The earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks, 5 days, but he had handicaps. Generally, we are talking 22 to 24 weeks. After that, this developing child can survive outside the womb on its own. So there is no excuse for anyone advocating abortion after 22 weeks. Period. This is a child, and they are killing it.

                    But then it gets unclear, unless one approaches it from a religious perspective that regards the human individual as being a human individual from conception. In that middle ground is where progress could be made if we were willing to accept we can't win in the entirety of the issue. We will never be able to convince the secular public the earliest stages are a human individual scientifically, because scientifically they aren't - yet.

                    Jim
                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672893/

                    There are two views of human beings, or indeed of all living beings. The temporal-parts view—also known as four-dimensionalism or perdurantism—defines a human being or any organism as a process or series of events, similar to a song or a football game. By this view, the human being is not wholly present at each time that it exists. Rather, just as the human being has spatial parts, ‘Smith-on-Monday' and ‘Smith-on-Tuesday' are only parts of the whole Smith, who is a process or series of events, spread out over, for example, 70 or 80 years.

                    According to the second view of human beings—the one we believe is far more sound—a human being is wholly present at each moment that he or she exists. It is literally true that you, the whole you, is currently reading this article, even though changes are going on within you. It is not only a temporal part of you, ‘you-on-Friday-afternoon'. This second view is called endurantism or three-dimensionalism.
                    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


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      We've already been around that pole of how to interpret that verse...
                      No, we've been around the pole of how you THINK the verse should be interpreted, and nothing you've said has convinced me that your opinion on the matter is necessarily correct or definitive.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Moderated By: BTC

                        Split this derail off into its own thread

                        ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                        Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                        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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          No, we've been around the pole of how you THINK the verse should be interpreted, and nothing you've said has convinced me that your opinion on the matter is necessarily correct or definitive.
                          We discussed both points of view, not just mine, (though I gave by far the more supporting evidence and sources for my position). Neither of us were convinced the other was correct. I call that 'going around the pole' in that doing it again is unlikely to invoke any change in either of our positions on the matter.

                          Jim
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            False. There is only a difference in degree of maturation, not in kind, between any of the stages from embryo, to fetus, infant and so on. Again, the human embryo, from fertilization forward, develops in a single direction by an internally directed process: the developmental trajectory of this entity is determined from within, not by extrinsic factors, and always toward the same mature state, from the earliest stage of embryonic development onward. This means that the embryo has the same nature—it is the same kind of entity, a whole human organism—from fertilization forward; there is only a difference in degree of maturation between any of the stages in the development of the living being.
                            It is not just a matter of maturation Bill. It can be expressed that way, but doing so is far too general and (dis)misses the distinctions that I'm talking about. The brain is physically where who we are resides. Damage the brain, and who I am can completely change. Destroy enough of the brain and even though the body may live on, there is no "I" there anymore. No person. This is just simple fact. How that relates to an eternal soul only God knows. But until there is a brain, there is no 'I'. There is no capacity for awareness, no capacity for thought, no capacity for anything that distinguishes us from any other animal. Until the brain and nervous system forms, while it is human life, there is nothing yet that exists about it that even remotely approaches the definition of a 'person' or 'an individual' as in a sentient being. The body without the mind is just an empty shell, the person is gone. Or in this case, has not yet arrived. In a zygote, or even the entire first month of gestation, there is no mind. There is no 'I' to be found yet.


                            Jim
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              It is not just a matter of maturation Bill. It can be expressed that way, but doing so is far too general and (dis)misses the distinctions that I'm talking about. The brain is physically where who we are resides. Damage the brain, and who I am can completely change. Destroy enough of the brain and even though the body may live on, there is no "I" there anymore. No person. This is just simple fact. How that relates to an eternal soul only God knows. But until there is a brain, there is no 'I'. There is no capacity for awareness, no capacity for thought, no capacity for anything that distinguishes us from any other animal. Until the brain and nervous system forms, while it is human life, there is nothing yet that exists about it that even remotely approaches the definition of a 'person' or 'an individual' as in a sentient being. The body without the mind is just an empty shell, the person is gone. Or in this case, has not yet arrived. In a zygote, or even the entire first month of gestation, there is no mind. There is no 'I' to be found yet.


                              Jim
                              Jim using that argument you can claim an infant is not a person because she has no sense of "I" and her brain is not developed enough to even have language. Same with a fetus at any stage. Merely having a brain doesn't mean it is working and intelligent yet. Your arguments are sounding more and more like the prochoice arguments. Like Tassman to be more exact. His "clump of cells" argument. Using your description above, the child is not worthy of being called a human being until it can speak and can distinguish itself from a vegetable or animal.

                              And it means someone in a coma is no longer a human being either.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Jim using that argument you can claim an infant is not a person because she has no sense of "I" and her brain is not developed enough to even have language. Same with a fetus at any stage. Merely having a brain doesn't mean it is working and intelligent yet. Your arguments are sounding more and more like the prochoice arguments. Like Tassman to be more exact. His "clump of cells" argument. Using your description above, the child is not worthy of being called a human being until it can speak and can distinguish itself from a vegetable or animal.
                                The truth is not determined by what kind or argument can be mounted for or against something I like or dislike. If that truth makes arguing against abortion more difficult, that is just the way it is. It is still true. The argument against abortion should not be based on falsehoods. The person that makes this human body unique and more than just a physical shell just isn't there till there is a brain. It's just the way it is. And that is one of the differences between a zygote and a baby at 24 weeks. I think abortion is wrong period. But I'm not basing that opinion on the idea that before the brain develops that developing child has some sort of awareness of itself or its environment independent of the brain. It doesn't. And no one argues that once the brain is gone we should artificially sustain the life of a patient. They are not there any more. This is reality Sparko. You can't argue cogently for or against topics by ignoring reality.


                                And it means someone in a coma is no longer a human being either.
                                A person in a coma is not brain dead Sparko! We KNOW a person in a coma is still there. Too many have come back from comas to tell us so.


                                ETA: And NO you can't argue an infant isn't a person using that fact. There is no equivalence between having no brain at all and having an immature brain. Come on Sparko - think.


                                Jim
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-14-2019, 02:36 PM.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                126 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                326 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X