Support NeoGAF

[faceless007]

Actually, it really is the same issue- according to all logical definitions, a fetus is a unique human being.

And yet you have refused Atrus' repeated requests to specify that definition.

 

[LuCkymoON]

Right.

Let me just ignore my education and the definition found in multiple textbooks and cited by multiple professors in favor of the first online dictionary you found that happened to agree with you.

Holy shit are you actually going to arguing against Merriam-Webster's, biology-online.org's and webMD.com's definition of parasite?
It's the same definition used in Biology classes across America.

 

[JayDubya]

Holy shit are you actually going to arguing against Merriam-Webster's, biology-online.org's and webMD.com's definition of parasite?
It's the same definition used in Biology classes across America.

Read the edit.

 

[zoku88]

Actually, it really is the same issue- according to all logical definitions, a fetus is a unique human being. But just like other groups of humans in the past, it is treated as non-human because it is more convenient for society to do so.

if by logical you mean scientific, yes.

But if by logical you mean philosophical, then no.

And sadly, scientific definitions don't really matter in this debate.

 

[LuCkymoON]

Read the edit.

ahh I see, well we are talkng Human biology here. =p

 

[Branduil]

And yet you have refused Atrus' repeated requests to specify that definition.

It's really quite simple, if you're not looking to arbitrarily exclude certain groups of people.

1)Does it contain unique human DNA, created from the combination of a human sperm cell and a human egg cell?

If yes, it's a human being.

 

[JayDubya]

And sadly, scientific definitions don't really matter in this debate.

Congratulations, you've hit on precisely what I criticize most fiercely in the very first post in this thread.

 

[zoku88]

Congratulations, you've hit on precisely what I criticize most fiercely in the very first post in this thread.

And I think you're wrong?

 

[speculawyer]

No. Because you're just compounding the tragedies.

Forcing a woman carry the spawn of the man who raped her is compounding the tragedy.

 

[JayDubya]

And I think you're wrong?

Why do you dislike science?

Edit: More fairly, why do you feel biological science should not be informative on this issue?

 

[numble]

It's really quite simple, if you're not looking to arbitrarily exclude certain groups of people.

1)Does it contain unique human DNA, created from the combination of a human sperm cell and a human egg cell?

If yes, it's a human being.

All human cells fit the above criteria, including cancer cells.

 

[PROOP]

This is most definitely a tricky issue, but I think I have a clear way to look at it. When a fetus is 40 days old, the brain floods the entire body with an interesting chemical called DMT. Now, if you smoke just a tiny amount of this stuff, it is the most intense trip of all psychadellics. The trip is usually described as extremely spiritual and you often talk to guardian spirits, elves, or whatever pops up into that reality at the time. Often times the experience is not clearly spiritual, like when it is conducted in a lab. There are however, many testimonails that peg DMT as the 'spirit molecule'. Another interesting fact, when you die (unless you are incinerated or brain blown to peices), your brain floods your body again with the chemical DMT. It is the most plausible explanation for Near Death Experiences, and if you do believe in the soul, DMT is the catalyst that attatches and detatches a soul to a body. Along this line of thought, if at 40 (or 49) days old the soul enters the body, then an abortion before that date is fine by me because the baby is nothing but a ball of cells and has no higher life-force attatched to it. I am a huge advocate of the morning after pill, but I am very much against the partial-birth late term abortions.

 

[Atrus]

It's really quite simple, if you're not looking to arbitrarily exclude certain groups of people.

1)Does it contain unique human DNA, created from the combination of a human sperm cell and a human egg cell?

If yes, it's a human being.

So if a human has more than one unique DNA it is then multiple humans?

 

[zoku88]

Why do you dislike science?

It's not about liking or disliking, it's about knowing when it's useful or not.

 

[Keylime]

This is most definitely a tricky issue, but I think I have a clear way to look at it. When a fetus is 40 days old, the brain floods the entire body with an interesting chemical called DMT. Now, if you smoke just a tiny amount of this stuff, it is the most intense trip of all psychadellics. The trip is usually described as extremely spiritual and you often talk to guardian spirits, elves, or whatever pops up into that reality at the time. Often times the experience is not clearly spiritual, like when it is conducted in a lab. There are however, many testimonails that peg DMT as the 'spirit molecule'. Another interesting fact, when you die (unless you are incinerated or brain blown to peices), your brain floods your body again with the chemical DMT. It is the most plausible explanation for Near Death Experiences, and if you do believe in the soul, DMT is the catalyst that attatches and detatches a soul to a body. Along this line of thought, if at 40 (or 49) days old the soul enters the body, then an abortion before that date is fine by me because the baby is nothing but a ball of cells and has no higher life-force attatched to it. I am a huge advocate of the morning after pill, but I am very much against the partial-birth late term abortions.

...it's kinda funny that you put this picture in the "Foil_GAF" folder, as if you're baiting me to do exactly as I've just done :lol

 

[Branduil]

All human cells fit the above criteria, including cancer cells.

Cancer cells usually are part of unique human being... assuming they're in a human.

 

[JayDubya]

Branduil possibly could be wording some of that better, but the DNA => Cancer, Clones & Identical twins dance is one I've done before.

So if that's where we're going, folks, know I'm ahead of you.

A cancer cell is nothing more than a mutated version of a cell that your body already had / was supposed to have. The resultant mass proliferation is still just a bunch of cells that are all you, albeit mutated, pathologic, and (often) in urgent need of excision for the sake of the organism.

This has nothing in common with pregnancy.

 

[speculawyer]

It's really quite simple, if you're not looking to arbitrarily exclude certain groups of people.

1)Does it contain unique human DNA, created from the combination of a human sperm cell and a human egg cell?

If yes, it's a human being.

So what do you think of all these thousands of 'human beings' frozen in fertility clinic labs all over the planet?

Will they rise up when the power fails and they thaw out? :lol

 

[speculawyer]

So if a human has more than one unique DNA it is then multiple humans?

Wow . . . Do Chimeras have to get two social security numbers? And two passports?

 

[numble]

Branduil possibly could be wording some of that better, but the DNA => Cancer, Clones & Identical twins dance is one I've done before.

So if that's where we're going, folks, know I'm ahead of you.

A cancer cell is nothing more than a mutated version of a cell that your body already had / was supposed to have. The resultant mass proliferation is still just a bunch of cells that are all you, albeit mutated, pathologic, and (often) in urgent need of excision for the sake of the organism.

This has nothing in common with pregnancy.

1)Does it contain unique human DNA, created from the combination of a human sperm cell and a human egg cell?

If yes, it's a human being.

 

[JayDubya]

1)Does it contain unique human DNA, created from the combination of a human sperm cell and a human egg cell?

If yes, it's a human being.

And by that sentence, one not written by me, so is an individual skin cell that is not cancerous. Because the sentence is not specific enough for purposes of these sorts of debates and can be nitpicked apart.

My posts thus far have an answer for that, thanks.

I've even gone to the trouble of neatly slapping down most nitpicky stupidity in the first post.

 

[Branduil]

You can play the semantics game all night long. There's never been a case of a fetus being born from a human mother as anything other than human. There's no evidence that a fetus magically changes from non-human to human at some point. It begins as a human being from its conception and it remains one until it dies or is killed.

 

[speculawyer]

This is most definitely a tricky issue, but I think I have a clear way to look at it. When a fetus is 40 days old, the brain floods the entire body with an interesting chemical called DMT. Now, if you smoke just a tiny amount of this stuff, it is the most intense trip of all psychadellics.

WTF? You are just looking to create the OT thread of "Teen smokes fetus in quest for ultimate high" :lol

 

[JayDubya]

You can play the semantics game all night long. There's never been a case of a fetus being born from a human mother as anything other than human. There's no evidence that a fetus magically changes from non-human to human at some point. It begins as a human being from its conception and it remains one until it dies or is killed.

/nods By the standards of the most widely accepted use of the word "species" as well as, barring that, our species lack of ability to host an organism that does not have solely human parentage. Unlike say, a horse and a donkey, we cannot give birth to a "mule" and the species distinction therein is relevant because the mule is non-fertile.

 

[speculawyer]

You can play the semantics game all night long. There's never been a case of a fetus being born from a human mother as anything other than human. There's no evidence that a fetus magically changes from non-human to human at some point. It begins as a human being from its conception and it remains one until it dies or is killed.

I find embryology quite magical.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Wow . . . Do Chimeras have to get two social security numbers? And two passports?

They are clearly two different people, so yep, two social security numbers, two pensions, two sets of wives etc etc

 

[speculawyer]

They are clearly two different people, so yep, two social security numbers, two pensions, two sets of wives etc etc

:lol

 

[JayDubya]

I find embryology quite magical.

It's like "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Only, instead of "sufficiently advanced technology," we're talking about something that's not all that advanced and researched a lot, right now, on Earth. You can like, read whole books on the topic. All about transcription factors and what not. Exciting stuff.*

 

[zoku88]

Why do you dislike science?

Edit: More fairly, why do you feel biological science should not be informative on this issue?

I didn't see your edit until now.

More or less, I don't think the way you're using it, at least, matters on this issue. For example, you used the biological def on 'human' in your argument in the last two pages, have you not? Well, suppose the biological definition just changed to something else (not really important.) Your feelings on the subject wouldn't change, right?

Anyway, to more directly answer your question, I think the abortion debate is more philosophical in nature, thus the biological definition of human doesn't amount to much if people believe being human is much more than having the right DNA or wtv. Whether that's becoming sentient beings or being born or wtv.


EDIT: I prolly messed up somewhere in here, but I don't feel like checking it over, so someone can call me out on wtv I said that was wrong.

 

[Atrus]

You can play the semantics game all night long. There's never been a case of a fetus being born from a human mother as anything other than human. There's no evidence that a fetus magically changes from non-human to human at some point. It begins as a human being from its conception and it remains one until it dies or is killed.

So... dead humans are not human? If so is there ever such a thing as a dead human?

 

[Jenov]

Nah. What the so-called pro-lifers fail to understand is that our societies function on the basis of law and such laws function on the idea of personhood. Everything from paying your taxes, being recognized as an individual etc. is based on this idea of personhood. You the Human are not what pays taxes, you the Person does, and you the Person is the one that has rights.

A fetus is not granted personhood, because prior to birth it is part of the personhood of the mother. Just recently as reiterated by Canadian courts, doctors are primarily responsible to the personhood of the mother and as such are required to focus their efforts on assisting women with their health, not on the fetus that they carry. This then makes it a primary responsibility of doctors to ensure that women have access to abortion services.

/thread

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

It's really quite simple, if you're not looking to arbitrarily exclude certain groups of people.

1)Does it contain unique human DNA, created from the combination of a human sperm cell and a human egg cell?

If yes, it's a human being.

You'll find a lot of human beings in cemetries.

 

[speculawyer]

It's like "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Only, instead of "sufficiently advanced technology," we're talking about something that's not all that advanced and researched a lot, right now, on Earth. You can like, read whole books on the topic. All about transcription factors and what not. Exciting stuff.*

Exactly my thought . . . instead of sufficiently advanced technology it is insufficiently understood nature. Who knows how those cells decode a double helix and communicate with each other to build a body? Science is only just starting to understand.

 

[JayDubya]

^^

Well and good. And if we all cared what science already had to say on this matter, this conversation would be over, you'd agree with me, and we could all go out for milkshakes.

But here we are.

 

[zoku88]

^^

Well and good. And if we all cared what science already had to say on this matter, this conversation would be over, you'd agree with me, and we could all go out for milkshakes.

But here we are.

Even if we did care about what science said, it wouldn't amount to much. Because then you would have to say why killing a fetus is wrong. It doesn't really matter whether it's "human" or not since we kill certain other humans, anyway.

Since the next Supreme Court Justices will probably last 30 some years, I believe that the next president will appoint Supreme Court justices that will settle (or affirm) this 35 year old case for good.

They can always overturn... which is what some people want to happen to Row v Wade. (sp?)

 

[numble]

Since the next Supreme Court Justices will probably last 30 some years, I believe that the next president will appoint Supreme Court justices that will settle (or affirm) this 35 year old case for good.

 

[daw840]

Even if we did care about what science said, it wouldn't amount to much. Because then you would have to say why killing a fetus is wrong. It doesn't really matter whether it's "human" or not since we kill certain other humans, anyway.

They can always overturn... which is what some people want to happen to Row v Wade. (sp?)

But do we kill other human beings because we just don't want them?

 

[zoku88]

But do we kill other human beings because we just don't want them?

We kill other human beings, as a society, when it's beneficial to do so, or at least when we think it's beneficial to do so.

I suppose people abort when they thinking having an abortion is beneficial to them.

 

[Atrus]

But do we kill other human beings because we just don't want them?

The larger substance behind his point is what is the emphasis behind 'it's a human and therefore it needs to live' argument?

I'd consider myself a pro-human zealot yet I see nothing that is in the human interest to banning abortions even if you certify that they are human. The interest of our species as a whole does not lie in the interest of all members of our species.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Why do you dislike science?

Edit: More fairly, why do you feel biological science should not be informative on this issue?

Because. The biological definition of science does not treat human beings any more special then it does a pig.

You have a fertilized egg. It's living. It has pig genes. Thus it's a pig.

You have a fertilized egg. It's living. It has human genes. Thus it's a human.


No. What truly matters, what has set us apart from the other species, and what will bring other species on par with us... is high functioning sentience.

Our human minds. Without it, we are nothing (as a species). No better than the animals that work in the circle of life, feeding off one another.

With it... we are people. humans in the higher sense... in the sense that we care for.

What does it matter that some cells can grow and have human genes?
Does it matter that those cells only have the potential to form a limb? Would those cells structurally be that different from blastose? No.

As an atheist especially... what does it matter if blastose dies? There is no heaven, nor hell for it. It doesn't particularly care; it simply can't.
As an atheist, I have a deep appreciation for humanity. But I also realise that the humanity I respect, is mostly in our minds, not our bodies.

 

[zoku88]

As an atheist especially... what does it matter if blastose dies? There is no heaven, nor hell for it. It doesn't particularly care; it simply can't.
As an atheist, I have a deep appreciation for humanity. But I also realise that the humanity I respect, is mostly in our minds, not our bodies.

That's more or less what I think. Cept that athiest part, since I'm agnostic.

I've been trying to say something close to that, but I suck at language

 

[Branduil]

As an atheist especially... what does it matter if blastose dies? There is no heaven, nor hell for it. It doesn't particularly care; it simply can't.
As an atheist, I have a deep appreciation for humanity. But I also realise that the humanity I respect, is mostly in our minds, not our bodies.

I have little respect for the human mind when all it's used to do is justify eliminating other members of our species just because it doesn't meet our arbitrary standards for "personhood."

 

[zoku88]

I have little respect for the human mind when all it's used to do is justify eliminating other members of our species just because it doesn't meet our arbitrary standards for "personhood."

I don't know about you, but I find it a waste of time to defend 'brainless' sacks of flesh.

And why is it 'arbitrary'?

 

[Nikashi]

Would anyone care to respond to my previous post regarding a raped woman's legal responsibility to keep her unwanted fetus healthy?

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

I have little respect for the human mind when all it's used to do is justify eliminating other members of our species just because it doesn't meet our arbitrary standards for "personhood."

And I have little respect for the human mind that doesn't realise why it is just so important towards its own humanity. (But I still treat it's bearer as a human).

Why is the importance of the mind an arbitrary definition for personhood?

What do you consider of an anencephalic fetus?

 

[zoku88]

Why is the importance of the mind an arbitrary definition for personhood?

What do you consider of an anencephaly fetus?

Use smaller words for the rest of us

 

[Branduil]

I don't know about you, but I find it a waste of time to defend 'brainless' sacks of flesh.

And why is it 'arbitrary'?

Those "brainless" sacks of flesh have one thing over us sentient humans- they rarely kill their own.

What makes someone the arbiter of a human life worth existing?

 

[ZAK]

I have little respect for the human mind when all it's used to do is justify eliminating other members of our species just because it doesn't meet our arbitrary standards for "personhood."

Your own standard for respect is arbitrary. The concept that murder is wrong is arbitrary.

Don't trot out "this is arbitrary!" in a debate over moral issues. That's ridiculous.

--

I notice nobody's finishing what they started, using an argument independent of what makes a person. It would be nice to at least be acknowledged; lie and say "I'm working on it" at the very least...

 

[zoku88]

Those "brainless" sacks of flesh have one thing over us sentient humans- they rarely kill their own.

What makes someone the arbiter of a human life worth existing?

That's great, but irrelevant.

And why don't you just directly answer the question and say why it's arbitrary?

notice nobody's finishing what they started, using an argument independent of what makes a person. It would be nice to at least be acknowledged; lie and say "I'm working on it" at the very least...

I see nothing wrong with that. If the basis of your ideals are 'abortion is wrong because killing a person is wrong... and a human fetus is still a person', than there is nothing wrong about making arguments about why a human fetus is a person. Same thing for the other viewpoints.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Those "brainless" sacks of flesh have one thing over us sentient humans- they rarely kill their own.

What makes someone the arbiter of a human life worth existing?

Did you really just say this? It sounds like you want to kill people that disagree with your position? Or at the least that people that don't agree with your position should cease to exist.