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

  • #91
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    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.
    No Jim, you are arguing a zygote isn't a human being because it has no sense of self or a brain capable of having such a sense. You are making "reasoning" the test of being a human being. That is just an arbitrary characteristic that you are choosing. It is not a scientific test of a human organism or being. It is nothing more than YOUR OPINION. And the logical conclusion of thinking like that is to come to the conclusion that infants are not human beings either because they are not as smart as some animals and have no sense of self and can't reason. And then we have to decide what level of reasoning is sufficient to be a human being. Maybe we can do like the Nazis and decide that the mentally retarded are not real human beings and can be treated like animals.

    The biological definition of a human being is an self-contained organism with human DNA. A zygote is a human at the earliest stage of its life. Any other conditions you want to pile are on just your opinion.



    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.
    but he has no sense of self. Can't reason. My sleeping dog has a better sense of self than someone in a coma.


    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
    Oh suddenly you want to add on more conditions in order to allow an infant to pass your test. How generous.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      No Jim, you are arguing a zygote isn't a human being because it has no sense of self or a brain capable of having such a sense. You are making "reasoning" the test of being a human being. That is just an arbitrary characteristic that you are choosing. It is not a scientific test of a human organism or being. It is nothing more than YOUR OPINION. And the logical conclusion of thinking like that is to come to the conclusion that infants are not human beings either because they are not as smart as some animals and have no sense of self and can't reason. And then we have to decide what level of reasoning is sufficient to be a human being. Maybe we can do like the Nazis and decide that the mentally retarded are not real human beings and can be treated like animals.
      No - I'm making having a brain a critical test of whether or not there is a person in there. And it isn't my opinion, its a fact.

      Please name one person on the face of the earth that exists and functions without also having a brain. Please - just one.

      The biological definition of a human being is an self-contained organism with human DNA. A zygote is a human at the earliest stage of its life. Any other conditions you want to pile are on just your opinion.
      I did not say the zygote was not biologically human. I said it doesn't have a mind, it isn't in any sense capable of anything that makes a human distinct from a flower except it has the capacity to BECOME a human being.


      but he has no sense of self. Can't reason. My sleeping dog has a better sense of self than someone in a coma.
      You are wrong.



      Oh suddenly you want to add on more conditions in order to allow an infant to pass your test. How generous.
      There is nothing new in that statement. Just the obvious.

      If you can't agree "There is no equivalence between having no brain at all and having an immature brain." then you are no longer capable of reasoned discussion on this 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


      • #93
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        No - I'm making having a brain a critical test of whether or not there is a person in there. And it isn't my opinion, its a fact.
        Nobody has been arguing "person" - Person is a legal term. We have been arguing HUMAN BEING, A HUMAN ORGANISM.

        Please name one person on the face of the earth that exists and functions without also having a brain. Please - just one.
        JimL


        I did not say the zygote was not biologically human. I said it doesn't have a mind, it isn't in any sense capable of anything that makes a human distinct from a flower except it has the capacity to BECOME a human being.
        It is a human being. It is completely distinguishable from a flower. It is not a plant, it has unique HUMAN DNA, it is a complete self-contained human organism. period. Anything else you want to stick on top is just your personal opinion. Biology 101.



        You are wrong.
        No, You are wrong.




        There is nothing new in that statement. Just the obvious.

        If you can't agree "There is no equivalence between having no brain at all and having an immature brain." then you are no longer capable of reasoned discussion on this matter.


        Jim
        Ah taking lessons from carp? Can't respond to the argument so you blame me and claim I am the one who can't be reasonable? You are the one sticking personal arbitrary conditions upon a human organism before you consider them a human being. That is completely irrational. I can just as well argue that it isn't a human being until it can recite the alphabet. Doesn't make it true anymore than your arbitrary conditions.

        Comment


        • #94
          Yet another person calls you out and says the same thing I said. I wonder how many it will take to open your eyes...
          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Nobody has been arguing "person" - Person is a legal term. We have been arguing HUMAN BEING, A HUMAN ORGANISM.
            I've never said the zygote is not a human organism. I have said it is not a human individual, person etc. Again, and I repeat, I am not arguing the difference is a justification for abortion. I am simply arguing that there is a point in the development of the baby where it transitions from being a developing human body to being a human person. Without a brain or a nervous system it is not yet a human person. But unhindered it will be. And no-one has a right to stop that process from unfolding. The fact it is a developing human body with the potential to become a human person with a soul is sufficient reason for it to be wrong to kill it, to stop the process. There is no argument here that this is 'only' human tissue. That is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that until the elements that make it a person exist, it is not one yet. Without the brain and nervous system, the developing baby is not animate, it does not think in any form no matter how basic, it does not feel. That all changes once the nervous system and brain develops.


            JimL
            you all are too hard on JimL.


            It is a human being. It is completely distinguishable from a flower. It is not a plant, it has unique HUMAN DNA, it is a complete self-contained human organism. period. Anything else you want to stick on top is just your personal opinion. Biology 101.
            I knew without a thesis you'd balk at that. It is a human organism. But it is inanimate - like a flower.


            No, You are wrong.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147439/

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-is-conscious/

            There are multiple levels of consciousness possible in comatose states. Some people are comatose and brain dead. Others are fully aware and completely 'lock in' - isolated from any external expression of their consciousness with the outside world but fully aware of ALL that is going on around them. New techniques are and have been developed to help both objectively determine the difference and to enable these 'locked in' or semi-conscious comatose states interact with the outside world.



            Ah taking lessons from carp? Can't respond to the argument so you blame me and claim I am the one who can't be reasonable?
            I said:
            Source: oxmixmudd

            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.

            © Copyright Original Source



            You claimed I was 'adding on conditions' which as you can plainly see is false. I was making a statement of fact. Perhaps stated more clearly or simply: You claimed noting a zygote doesn't have a brain provides justification for arguing an infant isn't a person. I said that simply isn't true - You can't compare not having a brain to having an immature brain. Once an organism has a brain it is in a completely different category of life than not having one - therefore not having a brain implying not a person does not provide justification for arguing an infant isn't a person. An infant HAS a brain.

            You are the one sticking personal arbitrary conditions upon a human organism before you consider them a human being.
            It is not arbitrary. Without a brain or nervous system the embryo is inanimate: it can't move, think, or feel. It is a physical form without any sort of mind.

            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


            • #96
              Even if the way he reached the conclusion is different, oxmixmudd shares the same conclusion as the rest of you in regards to abortion being wrong. This whole argument feels pedantic and I'm not sure what the purpose of it is.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                I've never said the zygote is not a human organism. I have said it is not a human individual, person etc. Again, and I repeat, I am not arguing the difference is a justification for abortion. I am simply arguing that there is a point in the development of the baby where it transitions from being a developing human body to being a human person.
                again you bring up "person" which is not a scientific or biological term, but a political and legal one. And it is your arbitrary conditions of what makes it a person. Your OPINION. Scientifically it is a human being/organism from the moment of conception. There is no magical transition point where it transforms from a non human being into a human being. Even with your conditions of having a brain and nervous system isn't a line in the sand. Both of those continue to develop even after the child is born. And the fetus can't live without any of it's organs: heart, lungs, liver, stomach, so why not say one of THOSE is the determining condition of becoming a human being?


                Without a brain or a nervous system it is not yet a human person.
                What is it then?
                1. Is it human?
                2. Is it a new organism separate from either parent?
                3. If left unhindered and remains healthy will it one day become an adult human?


                But unhindered it will be. And no-one has a right to stop that process from unfolding. The fact it is a developing human body with the potential to become a human person with a soul is sufficient reason for it to be wrong to kill it, to stop the process. There is no argument here that this is 'only' human tissue. That is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that until the elements that make it a person exist, it is not one yet. Without the brain and nervous system, the developing baby is not animate, it does not think in any form no matter how basic, it does not feel. That all changes once the nervous system and brain develops.
                Why? Since it isn't a person YET why can't it be aborted? You aren't killing a person. It can't feel or think. Why not kill it if you want? Potential isn't a good enough reason. He could potentially grow up to be a serial killer for all you know. Or spontaneously miscarriage, so why not allow abortion?

                I am curious, if you and an atheist pro-choicer had a debate about abortion, how would you convince them that abortion was wrong. I wish we could set that debate up between you and Starlight.



                you all are too hard on JimL.
                H'e's a troll.



                I knew without a thesis you'd balk at that. It is a human organism. But it is inanimate - like a flower.
                It isn't inanimate. It is a living human organism, that is growing, developing, metabolizing, etc.



                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147439/

                https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-is-conscious/

                There are multiple levels of consciousness possible in comatose states. Some people are comatose and brain dead. Others are fully aware and completely 'lock in' - isolated from any external expression of their consciousness with the outside world but fully aware of ALL that is going on around them. New techniques are and have been developed to help both objectively determine the difference and to enable these 'locked in' or semi-conscious comatose states interact with the outside world.
                I know all about coma patients Jim. My dad was one for about a month after he had a stroke. He was unaware of anything around him. He had no memory of the time he was in a coma. His brain waves were minimal. He was for all practical purposes, a vegetable. The only thing functioning was his autonomic nervous system and reflex actions. According to your criteria he was not a person during that time.




                I said:
                Source: oxmixmudd

                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.

                © Copyright Original Source



                You claimed I was 'adding on conditions' which as you can plainly see is false. I was making a statement of fact. Perhaps stated more clearly or simply: You claimed noting a zygote doesn't have a brain provides justification for arguing an infant isn't a person. I said that simply isn't true - You can't compare not having a brain to having an immature brain. Once an organism has a brain it is in a completely different category of life than not having one - therefore not having a brain implying not a person does not provide justification for arguing an infant isn't a person. An infant HAS a brain.
                You told Bill the Cat and LPOT that their argument about developing stages was erroneous and yet here you are using that very argument in regards to your "personhood" conditions.




                It is not arbitrary. Without a brain or nervous system the embryo is inanimate: it can't move, think, or feel. It is a physical form without any sort of mind.

                Jim
                So what? Without a liver it can't live. Or a heart. Your condition is a personal arbitrary line in the sand. And who cares when it becomes a "person?" That is a legal definition. It is a human being. Whether it is a legal person doesn't matter.
                I was a zygote once. There was never a time since I was a zygote until now that I was not a distinct human being. I had continuous existence from the time my mother's egg was fertilized by by dad's sperm. That is the moment I came into existence. As did you and every other human being on earth. Some arbitrary legal definition or personal definition of "personhood" is irrelevant to that.

                Again I would love to see you and Starlight debate abortion, or you explain to me how you would convince a pro-choice atheist that abortion is wrong without resorting to "souls" - completely scientifically.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                  Even if the way he reached the conclusion is different, oxmixmudd shares the same conclusion as the rest of you in regards to abortion being wrong. This whole argument feels pedantic and I'm not sure what the purpose of it is.
                  51775659_1882117635248515_8188285275001061376_n.jpg

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    It is not just a matter of maturation Bill.
                    Yes it is. From a biological perspective, there is no difference in kind, only maturity.

                    It can be expressed that way, but doing so is far too general and (dis)misses the distinctions that I'm talking about.
                    Because they are arbitrary and pretty nonsensical.

                    The brain is physically where who we are resides.
                    Again with the "who we are" nonsense. Consciousness is one of a multitude of interrelated biological processes. Ascribing value to it is metaphysical, not biological.

                    Damage the brain, and who I am can completely change.
                    No it doesn't. How you behave may, but you are still biologically Jim.

                    Destroy enough of the brain and even though the body may live on, there is no "I" there anymore. No person.
                    False. As long as the body survives, there is legally a person. Death is the only time that full personhood ceases. And even then, the corpse has certain rights as a human being.

                    This is just simple fact.
                    No it isn't. Not even close.

                    How that relates to an eternal soul only God knows.
                    And has no bearing on anything I am saying. I've not raised a single argument for God, the soul, or anything of a religious nature. As was stated earlier in the thread, laws shouldn't be made on religious grounds.

                    But until there is a brain, there is no 'I'.
                    Absolutely false.

                    There is no capacity for awareness, no capacity for thought, no capacity for anything that distinguishes us from any other animal.
                    Wholly irrelevant. See the case of Kaliysha Barrett. Kaliysha is a human being with all the rights and privileges of any other human being. And she has 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.
                    Moving the goalposts won't help you. Individual members of a species need not have sentience to be individual members.

                    The body without the mind is just an empty shell, the person is gone.
                    Gone? As in dead. So, since you have made the mistake of equivocating missing a brain with death, then you must logically conclude the embryo and pre-brain-developed fetus as dead.



                    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.
                    Therefore, since "The body without the mind is just an empty shell, the person is gone", the entire first month of gestation, the fetus is dead.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      You told Bill the Cat and LPOT that their argument about developing stages was erroneous and yet here you are using that very argument in regards to your "personhood" conditions.
                      He went in full speed and I pulled the line. His logic, out of necessity, is no brain = dead.
                      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


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        again you bring up "person" which is not a scientific or biological term, but a political and legal one. And it is your arbitrary conditions of what makes it a person. Your OPINION. Scientifically it is a human being/organism from the moment of conception. There is no magical transition point where it transforms from a non human being into a human being. Even with your conditions of having a brain and nervous system isn't a line in the sand. Both of those continue to develop even after the child is born. And the fetus can't live without any of it's organs: heart, lungs, liver, stomach, so why not say one of THOSE is the determining condition of becoming a human being?


                        What is it then?
                        1. Is it human?
                        2. Is it a new organism separate from either parent?
                        3. If left unhindered and remains healthy will it one day become an adult human?
                        Until it has a brain and nervous system, is is a developing human body with no mind of any sort. It is the mind that makes us special, unique, a person. Without a mind, it is only flesh and bone.


                        Why? Since it isn't a person YET why can't it be aborted?
                        That is the rub, isn't it sparko. You agree with the abortionions position that if you can't say the initial phases of development are a human person then you can't justify preventing its abortion. So you try to define it as being the equivalent of a fully developed baby with a mind. I disagree with that.

                        You aren't killing a person. It can't feel or think. Why not kill it if you want? Potential isn't a good enough reason. He could potentially grow up to be a serial killer for all you know. Or spontaneously miscarriage, so why not allow abortion?
                        Again, therein lies the rub. fundamentally you agree with the abortionist position that unless you can somehow assert this developing baby is equal in all ways to the born baby, its ok to kill it. But that just isn't true, and so you are left with the dilemma of denying the truth in order to be able to support what you know is right. And what I'm saying is the very fact you have a developing baby, an organism that will become a human person is itself sufficient reason to say it is immoral to kill it or stop that process. Because all human life is precious. All human life is sacred. We do not take human life except for the most austere of reasons.

                        I am curious, if you and an atheist pro-choicer had a debate about abortion, how would you convince them that abortion was wrong. I wish we could set that debate up between you and Starlight.
                        I don't know if I would be able to convince them. If a person can't be convinced that all human life is precious and that we do not take human life for convenience, then why do you suppose they will be convinced by falsely defining an embryo as being he equivalent of a 1 day old baby? It is trivial to show the developing embryo is human life. It's a matter of the heart Sparko. If a person can understand that a baby 2 weeks from delivery can be burned alive or cut to pieces in the mothers womb, and they are ok with that, what difference will the relative state of an embryo in the first trimester make? No one can argue that a baby 2 weeks from birth is not a baby, not a human person. Yet people still argue for abortion up to the day of birth.

                        The reality is this: If we propagate a falsehood to support our cause, we are actually giving the pro-abortionist side an excuse to ignore the truth that from conception this is human life, and because it is human life, it is precious and can't morally be taken for convenience.


                        It isn't inanimate. It is a living human organism, that is growing, developing, metabolizing, etc.
                        Ok - so here we are both right. There are two definitions of inanimate. You are using 1a. I am using 1b:

                        Source: websters

                        1 : not animate:
                        a : not endowed with life or spirit, an inanimate object
                        b : lacking consciousness or power of motion an inanimate body
                        2 : not animated or lively : DULL

                        © Copyright Original Source






                        I know all about coma patients Jim. My dad was one for about a month after he had a stroke. He was unaware of anything around him. He had no memory of the time he was in a coma. His brain waves were minimal. He was for all practical purposes, a vegetable. The only thing functioning was his autonomic nervous system and reflex actions. According to your criteria he was not a person during that time.
                        I actually had deduced your response to that issue was based on personal experience. With all due respect to how hard that must have been Sparko, it is quite possible modern research and methods would have revealed the brain activity that was clearly still present in sufficient capacity to allow recovery. You are reading into my words something that is not there. You are conflating our capacity to determine if the mind is still alive and active with the actual fact of whether or not the mind is still active and alive. With a person in a coma, we do not make rash decisions or assumptions about whether or not they will recover. Even today, we can't know for sure if the mind is actually still there or will return. And I applaud you if anyone tried to encourage you to cut off life support that you resisted that suggestion and gave your father the time he needed to recover.

                        With an embryo, there is no possibility of confusion. There are no nerve cells yet. There is no mind because it has not yet been created. What we are talking about here can't be used as an end of life criteria for a person suffering from damage to the brain. And I would vehemently fight any such extension of this particular line of thought.



                        You told Bill the Cat and LPOT that their argument about developing stages was erroneous and yet here you are using that very argument in regards to your "personhood" conditions.
                        Too vague for me to know exactly what you are talking about, so if you want to pursue this idea further, please grab what they said and what I said and show me what you mean.


                        So what? Without a liver it can't live. Or a heart. Your condition is a personal arbitrary line in the sand. And who cares when it becomes a "person?" That is a legal definition. It is a human being. Whether it is a legal person doesn't matter.
                        I was a zygote once. There was never a time since I was a zygote until now that I was not a distinct human being. I had continuous existence from the time my mother's egg was fertilized by by dad's sperm. That is the moment I came into existence. As did you and every other human being on earth. Some arbitrary legal definition or personal definition of "personhood" is irrelevant to that.

                        Again I would love to see you and Starlight debate abortion, or you explain to me how you would convince a pro-choice atheist that abortion is wrong without resorting to "souls" - completely scientifically.
                        It is not arbitrary Sparko. Answer me this: Explain how the you that is talking with me today, the mind with which I am engaging, was in any way present in that embryo before any nerve cells had yet been formed. The fact is sparko, all the cells that made that pre-brain embryo have likely died. The only cells in your body that have lived from the time you were born, from the time you were in your mothers womb, are your nerve cells, the ones in your brain. Excepting the possibility of an eternal spirit perhaps emergent from the same or given supernaturaly, These brain cells and their electochemical interactions are you. The rest of your body is simply the supporting physical scaffolding that allows you to exist and live and think.

                        https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...-contain-them/

                        Source: above link

                        Most of your body is younger than you are. The cells on the topmost layer of your skin are around two weeks old, and soon to die. Your oldest red blood cells are around four months old. Your liver’s cells will live for around 10 to 17 months old before being replaced. All across your organs, cells are being produced and destroyed. They have an expiry date.

                        In your brain, it’s a different story. New neurons are made in just two parts of the brain—the hippocampus, involved in memory and navigation, and the olfactory bulb, involved in smell (and even then only until 18 months of age). Aside from that, your neurons are as old as you are and will last you for the rest of your life. They don’t divide, and there’s no turnover.* +

                        © Copyright Original Source




                        Jim

                        * a really good reason to avoid strong drink, drugs, or introducing any element into your body that will destroy brain cells. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

                        + after double checking, I see the cells in your eye lens may also have existed from the womb, though they do not directly contribute to creating or energizing your mind.
                        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-15-2019, 08:34 AM.
                        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


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Until it has a brain and nervous system, is is a developing human body with no mind of any sort. It is the mind that makes us special, unique, a person. Without a mind, it is only flesh and bone.
                          and still a human being. Only in your arbitrary mind is the line drawn at having a brain. At what point is the brain sufficiently developed to be a person in your opinion? It doesn't just pop into existence one day, poof! So where do you draw that line? It is all your personal opinion. It is not a scientific demarcation. Scientifically the human organism begins to exist at fertilization and continues in an unbroken line till death.




                          That is the rub, isn't it sparko. You agree with the abortionions position that if you can't say the initial phases of development are a human person then you can't justify preventing its abortion. So you try to define it as being the equivalent of a fully developed baby with a mind. I disagree with that.
                          No Jim, I am not trying to come up with some work around. I believe it is a complete human being from the time it is a zygote till it dies. But you have already said it is not a person, a human being until it has a brain. Even though when it has that brain, it is not functioning, it doesn't think. The nervous system is just another part of the body. It isn't special. So you are the one with the problem, because you want to claim abortion is wrong from conception on but at the same time you are just calling a fetus a lump of inanimate cells until it reaches what you have decided makes it a person. You are the one left without a position because without resorting to metaphysics you have no reason why abortion should be disallowed.



                          Again, therein lies the rub. fundamentally you agree with the abortionist position that unless you can somehow assert this developing baby is equal in all ways to the born baby, its ok to kill it.
                          No I don't Jim. YOU DO. That is what you have been arguing all this time: your argument is that until it CAN be equal to some arbitrarily decided "person" then it is not a human being and therefore you have no reason to oppose its abortion.
                          And what I'm saying is the very fact you have a developing baby, an organism that will become a human person is itself sufficient reason to say it is immoral to kill it or stop that process. Because all human life is precious. All human life is sacred. We do not take human life except for the most austere of reasons.
                          Except you have been arguing it is NOT a human person until it reaches a specific milestone. Until then you have no reason to argue against aborting it.

                          Your claim that all life is sacred means diddly squat to an atheist.



                          I don't know if I would be able to convince them. If a person can't be convinced that all human life is precious and that we do not take human life for convenience, then why do you suppose they will be convinced by falsely defining an embryo as being he equivalent of a 1 day old baby?
                          Nobody has done that. An embryo is not a 1 day old baby. But it is just as much a human being. You need to drop the word "person" from your argument, because it is not a scientific term. It is a legal term. And can be redefined by a court at any time. It has no scientific basis.


                          It is trivial to show the developing embryo is human life.
                          Duh. Except you refuse to accept it is a human being. And you have already argued that it is an "inanimate" object. So while you are claiming this, you have been arguing against that fact. This is really frustrating Jim. You seem to want your cake and stomp it into non-existence too.


                          Ok - so here we are both right. There are two definitions of inanimate. You are using 1a. I am using 1b:

                          Source: websters

                          1 : not animate:
                          a : not endowed with life or spirit, an inanimate object
                          b : lacking consciousness or power of motion an inanimate body
                          2 : not animated or lively : DULL

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Then you are an inanimate object while you are asleep. Unless you toss and turn a lot.



                          Too vague for me to know exactly what you are talking about, so if you want to pursue this idea further, please grab what they said and what I said and show me what you mean.
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          It is not just a matter of maturation Bill.
                          And yet when it comes to the brain, it is just a matter of maturation in your opinion.



                          It is not arbitrary Sparko. Answer me this: Explain how the you that is talking with me today, the mind with which I am engaging, was in any way present in that embryo before any nerve cells had yet been formed. The fact is sparko, all the cells that made that pre-brain embryo have likely died. The only cells in your body that have lived from the time you were born, from the time you were in your mothers womb, are your nerve cells, the ones in your brain. Excepting the possibility of an eternal spirit perhaps emergent from the same or given supernaturaly, These brain cells and their electochemical interactions are you. The rest of your body is simply the supporting physical scaffolding that allows you to exist and live and think.
                          What does that even have to do with the discussion? There has been a continual existence of me from the time I was a zygote. Individual cells splitting and dying doesn't change that. Again, your line in the sand is just YOUR OPINION. My mind is not all of me. My body is me too. Unless you are some gnostic? I am a complete organism. Mind, body, and soul. You can't just toss away part of me as not being a human being.

                          In your brain, it’s a different story. New neurons are made in just two parts of the brain—the hippocampus, involved in memory and navigation, and the olfactory bulb, involved in smell (and even then only until 18 months of age). Aside from that, your neurons are as old as you are and will last you for the rest of your life. They don’t divide, and there’s no turnover.* +[/CITE]
                          And many of those neurons don't even develop until later on after birth, so why not claim it isn't a person until all of the brain is developed?

                          This is just your line in the sand Jim, it has nothing to do with biology and when a human being comes into existence.
                          Last edited by Sparko; 02-15-2019, 10:46 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            and still a human being. Only in your arbitrary mind is the line drawn at having a brain. At what point is the brain sufficiently developed to be a person in your opinion? It doesn't just pop into existence one day, poof! So where do you draw that line? It is all your personal opinion. It is not a scientific demarcation. Scientifically the human organism begins to exist at fertilization and continues in an unbroken line till death.




                            No Jim, I am not trying to come up with some work around. I believe it is a complete human being from the time it is a zygote till it dies. But you have already said it is not a person, a human being until it has a brain. Even though when it has that brain, it is not functioning, it doesn't think. The nervous system is just another part of the body. It isn't special. So you are the one with the problem, because you want to claim abortion is wrong from conception on but at the same time you are just calling a fetus a lump of inanimate cells until it reaches what you have decided makes it a person. You are the one left without a position because without resorting to metaphysics you have no reason why abortion should be disallowed.



                            No I don't Jim. YOU DO. That is what you have been arguing all this time: your argument is that until it CAN be equal to some arbitrarily decided "person" then it is not a human being and therefore you have no reason to oppose its abortion.
                            Except you have been arguing it is NOT a human person until it reaches a specific milestone. Until then you have no reason to argue against aborting it.

                            Your claim that all life is sacred means diddly squat to an atheist.




                            Nobody has done that. An embryo is not a 1 day old baby. But it is just as much a human being. You need to drop the word "person" from your argument, because it is not a scientific term. It is a legal term. And can be redefined by a court at any time. It has no scientific basis.




                            Duh. Except you refuse to accept it is a human being. And you have already argued that it is an "inanimate" object. So while you are claiming this, you have been arguing against that fact. This is really frustrating Jim. You seem to want your cake and stomp it into non-existence too.




                            Then you are an inanimate object while you are asleep. Unless you toss and turn a lot.







                            And yet when it comes to the brain, it is just a matter of maturation in your opinion.




                            What does that even have to do with the discussion? There has been a continual existence of me from the time I was a zygote. Individual cells splitting and dying doesn't change that. Again, your line in the sand is just YOUR OPINION. My mind is not all of me. My body is me too. Unless you are some gnostic? I am a complete organism. Mind, body, and soul. You can't just toss away part of me as not being a human being.



                            And many of those neurons don't even develop until later on after birth, so why not claim it isn't a person until all of the brain is developed?

                            This is just your line in the sand Jim, it has nothing to do with biology and when a human being comes into existence.
                            This is pointless. I'm sorry you've decided to take this approach to a discussion, but clearly reason is not something you value. We are done.

                            Jim
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 02-15-2019, 11:45 AM.
                            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


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              You are right. I was wrong but I would rather exit stage right and accuse you of being unreasonable instead.

                              Jim
                              FIFY n/c

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                FIFY n/c
                                Dishonesty noted.
                                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
                                7 responses
                                56 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                244 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                106 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                322 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X