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

Christianity Today Op Ed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Again, likening a brain dead person to a developing fetus is absurd because there are significantly more dissimilarities than similarities between the two. You're basically promoting the classic "It's just a lump of tissue" argument favored by pro-abortionists. But you say you're not in favor of abortion, so what would you say to someone who defends abortion by quoting your own argument back to you?
    I'm not arguing for abortion on demand. I'm discussing onset of a human being in a developing fetus, ensoulment in religious terms - more or less.

    The only element I am comparing here is presence or absence of consciousness. And in that element the two cases are symmetric. In the dying person, the brain and consciousness are collapsing. In the fetus, they are building and forming. At some point in the brain dead person we went from functioning, conscious brain to a deteriorating body without a consciousness. In a fetus we go from a developing body without a consciousness to having consciousness.

    That is the symmetry that is being discussed and compared.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-23-2020, 12:01 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


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      I'm not arguing for abortion on demand.
      I didn't say you were. I asked how you would respond to someone who defended abortion on demand by quoting your argument back to you.
      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


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        again wrong. A zygote IS a human being. I was one once, and so were you. A zygote is a distinct stage of a human being's life cycle. Just like "infant," "teenager," and "adult"

        A zygote has a full distinct DNA, different from the mother or father. It is a separate organism. It is alive and growing. A gamete isn't. It might be a "potential" human being (very bad odds of that) but a zygote is an actual human being.
        As Jim notes, you're conflating terminology here. The question is whether (or when) an embryo or fetus -- an organism -- becomes a being, a person. If a zygote is a being (person) then 1) all potential-person organisms are "beings" or persons which 2) leads to logical absurdities.

        Stem cells would have to be considered "beings" since, under the right conditions, they can be developed into full-fledged organisms, containing within themselves "a full distinct DNA". Likewise, Jim's example is apt: if a zygote is a "being" or person then identical twins are a single person?

        No, the categorical distinction must lie elsewhere.

        --Sam
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          I dont think that is a viable definition Sparko. Remember twins? The zygote can be the first step in creating more than on person, and so it is not correct to say it is a human being. There are many subsequent factors that will determine which human being(s) the zygote becomes. The zygote is the recipe for at least one human being. But it is not yet a human being or beings.
          It is a human being. If it splits then it is two human beings, or 3, etc. A human being begins with a zygote. This is first year biology.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            It is a human being. If it splits then it is two human beings, or 3, etc. A human being begins with a zygote. This is first year biology.
            Having taken first year biology, I can state confidently that this is false. You're conflating the word "being" with "organism" and the two are necessarily distinct.

            --Sam
            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
              As Jim notes, you're conflating terminology here. The question is whether (or when) an embryo or fetus -- an organism -- becomes a being, a person. If a zygote is a being (person) then 1) all potential-person organisms are "beings" or persons which 2) leads to logical absurdities.

              Stem cells would have to be considered "beings" since, under the right conditions, they can be developed into full-fledged organisms, containing within themselves "a full distinct DNA". Likewise, Jim's example is apt: if a zygote is a "being" or person then identical twins are a single person?

              No, the categorical distinction must lie elsewhere.

              --Sam
              You are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. A human zygote is a specialized cell that will grow into an infant, naturally. A stem cell is not. And again, "person" is a legal term. Being is synonymous with "organism" here. Legally, in Germany during WW2, Jews were not "people" - they were human beings.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                You are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. A human zygote is a specialized cell that will grow into an infant, naturally. A stem cell is not. And again, "person" is a legal term. Being is synonymous with "organism" here. Legally, in Germany during WW2, Jews were not "people" - they were human beings.
                I'm deliberately trying to explain the nuance required for the discussion. The stem cell and the zygote are the same in their particulars: it is external forces that make the difference. Case in point: gametes that are fused in a petri dish 1) become a zygote and 2) will not develop into an infant naturally. Is the zygote in utero a person and the zygote in a dish not, based on their natural trajectories? Such are the absurdities that come from lack of precision.

                A "being" is not synonymous with "organism" -- worms are organisms but are not "beings". Dogs are not "beings", as much as we love them. Chimpanzees, elephants, and dolphins may well be "beings". "Organism" and "being" are necessarily distinct terms that carry wildly different implications.

                You're going to have to cite me the Nazi terminology of Jewish people: the Nuremberg race laws don't define them outside the scope of personhood. Certainly, we've come to understand that Nazis (and Americans and others) deemed some people as "subhuman" ... but never were they talking about the categorical distinctions at issue here. Black slaves, Jewish Germans, and other oppressed groups were understood to have minds, to process complex sensations, etc. -- it was not argued that they weren't "persons" in the sense we're talking about here but that they were inferior persons.

                The Nazi analogy, therefore, continues to be an example of poisoning the well to avoid the complexity the discussion demands.

                --Sam
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  I'm deliberately trying to explain the nuance required for the discussion. The stem cell and the zygote are the same in their particulars: it is external forces that make the difference. Case in point: gametes that are fused in a petri dish 1) become a zygote and 2) will not develop into an infant naturally. Is the zygote in utero a person and the zygote in a dish not, based on their natural trajectories? Such are the absurdities that come from lack of precision.

                  A "being" is not synonymous with "organism" -- worms are organisms but are not "beings". Dogs are not "beings", as much as we love them. Chimpanzees, elephants, and dolphins may well be "beings". "Organism" and "being" are necessarily distinct terms that carry wildly different implications.

                  You're going to have to cite me the Nazi terminology of Jewish people: the Nuremberg race laws don't define them outside the scope of personhood. Certainly, we've come to understand that Nazis (and Americans and others) deemed some people as "subhuman" ... but never were they talking about the categorical distinctions at issue here. Black slaves, Jewish Germans, and other oppressed groups were understood to have minds, to process complex sensations, etc. -- it was not argued that they weren't "persons" in the sense we're talking about here but that they were inferior persons.

                  The Nazi analogy, therefore, continues to be an example of poisoning the well to avoid the complexity the discussion demands.

                  --Sam
                  I am not going to nitpick terminology with you Sam. We both know what we are talking about, despite your desperate hand waving. We are talking about an individual HUMAN LIFE. Humans are "beings" are they not? Even a brain dead one is still a human being. Even a corpse is still a human being, albeit a dead one.

                  A new human organism begins with fertilization. And yes it is still a human being in a petri dish. It is not in it's natural habitat, a womb, so while it can still grow for a bit, it will eventually die if not implanted. That doesn't mean it isn't a human. A stem cell can't grow into a human organism. At best it could be made to grow into some tissue or an organ (they are still working on that)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    I am not going to nitpick terminology with you Sam. We both know what we are talking about, despite your desperate hand waving. We are talking about an individual HUMAN LIFE. Humans are "beings" are they not? Even a brain dead one is still a human being. Even a corpse is still a human being, albeit a dead one.

                    A new human organism begins with fertilization. And yes it is still a human being in a petri dish. It is not in it's natural habitat, a womb, so while it can still grow for a bit, it will eventually die if not implanted. That doesn't mean it isn't a human. A stem cell can't grow into a human organism. At best it could be made to grow into some tissue or an organ (they are still working on that)
                    Thank you -- this is why "nit-picking" terminology is important.

                    You say a brain-dead patient is "still a human being". However, we do not require the consent of a brain-dead patient to terminate life support. We do this because we recognize that brain-dead patients no longer possess the qualities that confer the rights which demand a person's consent. So there must, by necessity, be some other factor that confers personhood and rights than the property "is a human organism".

                    Stem cells can, in fact, grow into a human organism -- we've already done so with mice. It has the same "potential toward personhood" as does a zygote. If your distinction is "natural environment" then you concede that some external factor, not an inherent property, separates the potential between a zygote in utero from a zygote in a dish or, indeed, a stem cell. And, that being the case, means that the quality of personhood (or "being") is not found inherently in a zygote.

                    This is all complicated stuff and it's going to necessarily involve getting "nit-picky" with precise concepts and terms if one wants to have a good, rational argument. It's also why very few people bother with getting that far into the real debate.

                    --Sam
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      Thank you -- this is why "nit-picking" terminology is important.

                      You say a brain-dead patient is "still a human being". However, we do not require the consent of a brain-dead patient to terminate life support....
                      In MANY cases, the "brain-dead patient" has a living will or directive authorizing somebody to act in their best interests, or spelling out their preferences.
                      Sometimes, that's just "good planning", and sometimes it's something that happens prior to a medical procedure or something else which may reasonably result in the patient being incapacitated.

                      An unborn human being NEVER has the opportunity to designate somebody else to act in their best interest.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        I didn't say you were. I asked how you would respond to someone who defended abortion on demand by quoting your argument back to you.
                        I would say that just because aborting the fetus prior to it having conscious awareness does not make it right or good. This forming child will be a human person, of infinite worth and value, and stopping that process for trivial reasons is wrong.

                        You may find that 'weak', but a lie is never a strong defense. And telling the person this 1 month old fetus without a brain or any level of conscious thought is the same as a 6 month gestation fetus with a brain and some rudimentary level of conscious thought and perception of its world is simply a lie.
                        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 Sparko View Post
                          It is a human being. If it splits then it is two human beings, or 3, etc. A human being begins with a zygote. This is first year biology.
                          That is just poor logic. Saying the zygote is a (1) human being when it may well become two or three DIFFERENT human beings is simply incorrect. At that point it is not yet a human being. And in fact, it is not fully determined what human being it will become - physically or mentally. The 'mind' and the personality is not just the physical mass of neurons in the brain, but rather both how they interconnect and how they interact and respond to their environment. (note that in the case of twins or triplets they are DIFFERENT human beings not because of any significant difference in their DNA but because the way the brain forms and how the neural nets develop - which is not controlled solely by the DNA but rather - and by design - in significant part a response to the environment)
                          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 Cow Poke View Post
                            In MANY cases, the "brain-dead patient" has a living will or directive authorizing somebody to act in their best interests, or spelling out their preferences.
                            Sometimes, that's just "good planning", and sometimes it's something that happens prior to a medical procedure or something else which may reasonably result in the patient being incapacitated.

                            An unborn human being NEVER has the opportunity to designate somebody else to act in their best interest.
                            Neither point is responsive:

                            The first is an acknowledgement that, whatever happened prior, the brain-dead patient does not have the capacity for or the right of consent.

                            The second is simply acknowledging that the fetus in question does not yet possess the capacity necessary to make such arrangements. This is, notably, not the same as arguing that the capacity to consent is a key or necessary issue.

                            What we're trying to suss out here is when and how the capacity for personhood arises and trying to identify stages where it does not exist. This philosophical question has legal and moral implications, even if those implications diverge at some point.

                            --Sam
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              I'm deliberately trying to explain the nuance required for my position.
                              Fixed that for you, no charge. Abortion, at whatever stage, is the deliberate termination of what would, absent intervention, grow into an adult human being. Finis.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                Neither point is responsive:
                                Of course. Silly, silly me.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                311 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X