If you thought the Planned Parenthood scandal couldn't get worse - it just did.

[Darth Ovious]

...,,,

Three paragraphs and you've actually said nothing coherent. Are you speaking in code?

I don't think he's even human. Perhaps we can have him aborted.

[Darth Ovious]

Science can obviously tell us about the level of cognitive function of the fetus or baby at different stages of development and compare/contrast that to the cognitive function of animals.

I thought that materialists believed that consciousness was an arbitrary construct caused by electric impulses in the brain.

There is actually quite an interesting difference... because humans walk upright, the hips are a great deal more constrained in terms of size, which means that a human baby being born has to fit through a much narrower opening than your average animal baby. As a result, the baby's head needs to get squeezed to fit through the opening, which would cause substantial brain damage in a developed brain. Presumably for this reason, nearly all the brain development in humans takes place post-birth, whereas most animals are born pretty much fully functioning. The difference is obvious if you've ever seen footage of (say) a baby cow which immediately after birth can walk, and respond to its environment. Contrast that with human babies who typically take 4 months or so before they can roll over or identify their mother.

So you're going up to 4 months now in your assessment to kill human babies? Once again you use an arbitrary reason in order to justify this. Your argument seems to state that because a brain is not fully developed then that means you can kill a human life. Did the personhood fairy decide that this was the most opportune time to kill another human?

Basically every atheist you talk to is going to tell you that they think cognitive capacity is morally relevant. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a decent article about what the criteria for moral relevance is, and as you can see from its 'Grounds of moral status' section, nearly every philosopher thinks it has something to do with cognitive capabilities.

You are implying that moral relevance is an indicator for being able to take human life or not. There are plenty of animals out there with no moral relevance either which apparently you want to decide you won't kill.

I find your (implied) viewpoint that morality depends on whether something is genetically human (as compared to an animal or something) to be entirely arbitrary. Why privilege humans over animals (or aliens) in such a manner?

If aliens existed then maybe you would have a point, perhaps you could provide proof. As for the rest, well from an secular point of view humans are top of the food chain. Humans are also our in group i.e. own species and we should value our own species more than that of others. However if you find my definition of morality to be completely arbitrary then welcome to the atheist mind set and why these things lead to abortion in the first place. Considering that atheist morality is completely arbitrary to begin with then I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. It means the whole basis of your argument can only come down to one natural outcome, that human life itself is completely arbitrary in the first place.

And furthermore, for those obsessed with the idea of fully-human DNA being the crucial factor, let's say you stuck a needle in my arm and extracted some stem-cell (ie containing 100% of my DNA and capable of itself becoming any type of cell in my body, or potentially able to be used to grow an entire clone of me) and put it in a test-tube. Is that "fully human" from a moral perspective? Or is it just a 'blob of cells'?

OK, I grant you authorisation to kill a stem cell.................. oh wait, a stem cell is not a life form that can be killed in the first place.

I don't think the killing of any conscious beings is morally justifiable. But given the cognitive capacity of many animals is substantially higher than that of a human fetus, I am far more concerned about intelligent animals being killed than I am about human fetuses, and the sheer scale on which we kill animals for meat is so much higher also.

Why do you consider electric pulses within the brain to be the defining factor that decides if a life is worthy or not? Is consciousness a real construct then? Does a soul actually exist?

Well, I currently eat fish. Although becoming vegetarian is getting increasingly high on my life's to-do list. But I would never eat the more intelligent fish-like species like dolphins, whales, or octopuses.

yes, because of arbitrary reasons.

That is impossible because human babies post-birth don't even yet have the ability to respond to their environment in such a manner. I guess it's possible that the insertion of instruments into the womb might create a pressure differential that would push the baby away though.

I googled a bit to try and work out what you could be talking about or what you thought you saw, and came across this. It's just the usual fake and deceptive video editing that the anti-abortion movement is known for.

Yep, just label it fake and deceptive. So what about the ultrasound picture of my son sucking on his thumb? I guess that was just fake and deceptive too? man those hospital nurses over here with their fake and deceptive scans.

I'm pretty sure everyone always knew that a human fetus was human.

Yes but the pro-abort crowd refused to budge their position after learning this through science. They didn't know it at the time when Roe vs Wade happened. So when science proves their original reason wrong they then scramble for another defence. Of course they do this by looking at the timeline of a baby's development and look for markers that they then use to say that a human fetus is not a "person". The term person is completely arbitrary because everybody will give you a different answer to what it means to be a "person".

[Roy]

we might have common genes, but it is obvious he was talking about the DNA in totality. He said HUMAN genetic code.

No, he didn't. He said its genetic code was that of a human. The genetic code of strawberries, lobsters and giraffes is that of a human and vice versa.

sheesh. A book will use the same letters as every other book but that doesn't make Lord of the Flies the same book as Alice in Wonderland.

So you don't know what a genetic code is either.

Roy

[Roy]

Still sore that you were shown that you were totally wrong on your arguments of outrage there too...

Wow are you deluded. You can't show that someone is wrong by making unsupported assertions and then dodging questions.

[tabibito]

No, he didn't. He said its genetic code was that of a human.

The meaning and application of the substantive "is" seems to escape you.
The genetic code is that of a human = the genetic code of a human exists without modification. That is, in context, "The entire genetic code of a human is present in its entirety - nothing added, nothing subtracted."

[Roy]

Roy needs to stick to debating his intellectual equals (IE Jorge) and leave the real stuff to his betters (as his post keep showing).

So you don't know what the genetic code is either.

[Roy]

The meaning and application of the substantive "is" seems to escape you.
The genetic code is that of a human = the genetic code of a human exists without modification. That is, in context, "The entire genetic code of a human is present in its entirety - nothing added, nothing subtracted."

You still don't know what a genetic code is, do you?

Hint: The term you should be using is "genome"

[tabibito]

Wrong.

Genetic Code: the nucleotide triplets of DNA and RNA molecules that carry genetic information in living cells.

In a human foetus, the genetic code is present, active, and functioning in the way that only the human genome does.

[Starlight]

I thought that materialists believed that consciousness was an arbitrary construct caused by electric impulses in the brain.

I'm not a materialist.

Also, I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the fact that science can test the mental capabilities of animals (by setting them various behavioral tests) and compare that to humans of different ages.

Once again you use an arbitrary reason in order to justify this. Your argument seems to state that because a brain is not fully developed then that means you can kill a human life. Did the personhood fairy decide that this was the most opportune time to kill another human?

Look, basically every modern moral philosopher thinks that cognitive capabilities are the core measure that is relevant to moral status, as the Stanford encyclopedia article I linked to outlined. You don't have to like that view. But it's not really arbitrary, because basically everyone agrees on it, and it's certainly not made up in order to justify abortion. In general, I'm very interested in the topic of the philosophy of morality, and very not interested in the topic of abortion, so if you think for a moment I would just make up a view of morality to justify my views on abortion, then you've got it totally wrong and backwards.

There are plenty of animals out there with no moral relevance either which apparently you want to decide you won't kill.

Huh? Why do those animals have no moral relevance?

As for the rest, well from an secular point of view humans are top of the food chain. Humans are also our in group i.e. own species and we should value our own species more than that of others.

Is that supposed to be secular morality? Or are you stating your own moral views? Because nearly every secular person would regard both those things as indicative of immorality... might doesn't make right, and being less-nice to people not like you sounds like bigotry.

However if you find my definition of morality to be completely arbitrary then welcome to the atheist mind set

Yes, I find your definition of morality to be completely arbitrary, and you're allegedly a Christian. If you're trying to tell atheists what to believe, how about letting them choose what to believe and listening to them?

Considering that atheist morality is completely arbitrary to begin with then I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Atheist morality is completely objective. It's Christian morality that is completely arbitrary.

Is consciousness a real construct then?

Yes. Obviously consciousness really exists. I know because I experience it directly. I'm kind of assuming you do to.

Does a soul actually exist?

Depends what you mean by 'soul'.

So what about the ultrasound picture of my son sucking on his thumb?

I'm confused as to what you think that proves...

Yes but the pro-abort crowd refused to budge their position after learning this through science. They didn't know it at the time when Roe vs Wade happened. So when science proves their original reason wrong they then scramble for another defence. Of course they do this by looking at the timeline of a baby's development and look for markers that they then use to say that a human fetus is not a "person". The term person is completely arbitrary because everybody will give you a different answer to what it means to be a "person".

I would be surprised if they were that ignorant at the time of Roe vs Wade. They obviously didn't have the level of scanning technology we have now, but miscarriages at various stages of pregnancy have always been a thing, so doctors have always been able to see what the fetuses at different stages of development looked like.

I think it's hilarious you're implying that anti-abortionists just made up the whole discipline of moral philosophy in order to continue to justify their anti-abortion position. That's an awesome conspiracy theory. How about, instead, you realize that people have been interested in the topic of morality for hundreds and thousands of years, and that the ancient Greeks were having deep philosophical discussions over the nature of morality long before Christianity even existed, and that what philosophers think about moral personhood is a product of them seriously thinking about the subject, and not something they have made up in the last 30 years in order to justify abortions.

[Roy]

Wrong.

Genetic Code: the nucleotide triplets of DNA and RNA molecules that carry genetic information in living cells.

WRONG.

The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells. It is the correspondence between nucleotide triplets and amino-acids. Humans have two slightly different ones, one for nuclear DNA and one for mitochondrial DNA. Both are shared with penguins and porcupines, among others.

You are wrong. Will you admit that, dig deeper, or run away?

[tabibito]

Really - Who'd have thought? You're saying that the genetic code = the set of rules by which living cells translate rna and dna information into proteins?

[Darth Ovious]

I'm not a materialist.

Also, I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the fact that science can test the mental capabilities of animals (by setting them various behavioral tests) and compare that to humans of different ages.

So you are being ableist then? You judge a human fetus as irrelevant due to ableist views. It can't do certain arbitrary tasks that you deem worthy and so you evaluate the human fetus less because as such. It's funny, because babies are normally seen as being more precious because of their inability to protect themselves but you seem to hold the opposite view. Oh, well this is where moral relativism gets you.

Look, basically every modern moral philosopher thinks that cognitive capabilities are the core measure that is relevant to moral status, as the Stanford encyclopedia article I linked to outlined. You don't have to like that view. But it's not really arbitrary, because basically everyone agrees on it, and it's certainly not made up in order to justify abortion. In general, I'm very interested in the topic of the philosophy of morality, and very not interested in the topic of abortion, so if you think for a moment I would just make up a view of morality to justify my views on abortion, then you've got it totally wrong and backwards.

My point firstly was that you are using this ability to determine that the life of a human fetus is worth less than that of a human adult which is completely arbitrary. What's to stop me from saying that I don't think a human is a person unless they have the ability X of other activities. In other words you are saying X thus Y with being X being cognitive thinking and Y being able to abort. Look what I mean.

P1 - A human fetus does not have the same cognitive thinking as that of a human adult

C1 - Therefore we can kill a human fetus

Just exactly how are you getting your conclusion from your premise here?

Huh? Why do those animals have no moral relevance?

Why would they? They don't hold onto any moral values that humans hold onto, do they? A female spider for instance eats her mate. If you think animals have moral relevance to humans you would agree that a female spider shouldn't eat her mate or that a human female should be able to eat her mate. Obviously animals do not hold to moral relevancy of humans.

Is that supposed to be secular morality? Or are you stating your own moral views? Because nearly every secular person would regard both those things as indicative of immorality... might doesn't make right, and being less-nice to people not like you sounds like bigotry.

So how did you come to this determination? Did you use that construct called subjective morality to determine that? Biologically speaking each animal in the world places itself on the food chain somewhere and each species value their own over others.

Yes, I find your definition of morality to be completely arbitrary, and you're allegedly a Christian. If you're trying to tell atheists what to believe, how about letting them choose what to believe and listening to them?

Because apparently if we let you believe what you want to believe then you admit to kill humans using ableist views.

Atheist morality is completely objective. It's Christian morality that is completely arbitrary.

We're not the ones using arbitrary reasons to justify the killing of innocent humans.

Yes. Obviously consciousness really exists. I know because I experience it directly. I'm kind of assuming you do to.

And what causes this consciousness?

Depends what you mean by 'soul'.

I mean a soul. Is a soul a real construct rather than just a reaction created from electrical impulses in your brain.

I'm confused as to what you think that proves...

Well, you arbitrarily have decided that a life is only important if it has a consciousness. Of course consciousness from an atheistic view is just the result of electrical impulses in the brain. So I suppose I should ask why electrical impulses from a brain is the standard to judge why it is wrong to kill another human or not in the first place.

I would be surprised if they were that ignorant at the time of Roe vs Wade. They obviously didn't have the level of scanning technology we have now, but miscarriages at various stages of pregnancy have always been a thing, so doctors have always been able to see what the fetuses at different stages of development looked like.

Remember that science has advanced over the last few decades. They did not have the ability to see inside the womb back then with ultrasound.

I think it's hilarious you're implying that anti-abortionists just made up the whole discipline of moral philosophy in order to continue to justify their anti-abortion position. That's an awesome conspiracy theory. How about, instead, you realize that people have been interested in the topic of morality for hundreds and thousands of years, and that the ancient Greeks were having deep philosophical discussions over the nature of morality long before Christianity even existed, and that what philosophers think about moral personhood is a product of them seriously thinking about the subject, and not something they have made up in the last 30 years in order to justify abortions.

Strawman. That's not what I said, what I said was that you arbitrary use it as an excuse to kill the unborn when you are unable to make that connection in the first place. Your reasoning seems to be that a life is only valuable if it has an ability for moral philosophy. Under this stance I could justify killing you since you do not have the ability for moral philosophy. You mean, you are trying to justify killing babies here. That is not moral philosophy. In what way would you be morally relevant in this view?

[Roy]

Really - Who'd have thought? You're saying that the genetic code = the set of rules by which living cells translate rna and dna information into proteins?

Yes. Specifically, it's the correspondences that determine which amino-acid gets added to a protein chain for which RNA triplet. E.g. {AGA, AGG} -> Arginine.

[Sparko]

Cells in a test-tube can certainly be 'alive' by most definitions. If there's a single "primary biological definition" on the subject, I'm not aware of it, perhaps you could share it? At what point in embryonic development does the fetus change from being not-alive like you say those cells in a test-tube are not alive, to alive?

Perhaps you can also explain what it is that makes human DNA special? Especially given monkeys have something like 99% the same DNA as humans, IIRC... so does moral status rest totally in that last 1% of DNA? I'm assuming the answer is that being human rather than being an animal is the morally relevant thing...? And then if I ask the follow-up question of what it is about being human gives humans moral status and animals not, then I assume we're going to launch into fully non-empirical territory along the lines of "humans have souls because the bible says so" or something....

So you think a human life is not worth any more than an animal's life? Does that mean that I can go around killing anyone I want and call it "hunting?"

Also if a human life is worth the same as an animal's, then why are you OK with killing humans but not animals (such as whales?) - shouldn't you be at least as much against killing humans as you are against killing animals?

[Sparko]

It seems to me that a lot of people who are anti-abortion have simply seen some sort of (doctored) video of an abortion been performed and had a reaction of emotional disgust along the lines of "OMG, that looks awful!" and so are now anti-abortion. (Likewise if we showed them some graphic footage of an animal being slaughtered, they'd probably all become instant vegetarians.)

people, especially Christians have been anti-abortion LONG before there were any videos of abortions, you ignorant twit.

And most people especially in the past slaughtered animals on a daily basis. It was clear even to them that a human life is more important than an animal's.