Is a fetus a human being?

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

So, again:
Whats the difference between killing a parisitical fetus and a parasitical newborn?

1. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

2. A parasite is an organism that lives in or on the living tissue of a host organism at the expense of that host.

Translated, this means: A Parasite is a being that feeds in/on, is sheltered in/on and grows in/on an unwilling organism. It does not contribute anything to the host. When a Newborn starts to crawl back into the womb, unwanted, and then live there like it's a house, then and only then is it a parasite.


I already answered that. By definition, the latter isn't a parasite. We are talking about a medical or biological parasite, which means:

Medically, parasitology even covers conjoined twins in which one is living on and off of the full body resources of the other, while contributing nothing. Medically, a fetus is a parasite untill born, when it no longer requires the use of your body for it's own home and internal regulation.

Ah.... Social contract. What society wants.
So, if society changes its mind, your argument fails.
Right?

Not really, since rights nearly always procure the most happiness overall. If rights had little or no utility, they wouldn't be used. Rights that cause more overall damage than harm are not good.

Social Contractarianism can be justified on Utilitarian grounds, but isn't itself Utilitarian. I am a Utilitarian. I am merely using something already established BY society.

You missed the point of the question:
Whats the difference between a newborn and a leech?
Both are parasites, in the same way, and both use the organs of the host to survive.
According to your argument, killing a leech is no different than killing a newborn.

Well, this is an odd question; it's also a trick one. Technically speaking most leeches are not parasites because they only take one meal, or bite from a host and then leave, rather they are highly evolved predators. Only a few leeches really are parasitic in behaviour, these include Calliobdella lophii which lives permanently attached to Angler Fish, Hemibdella soleae which parasitises Soles, several species of Ostreobdella which can be found in Oysters and various species of Theromyzon which live in the nasal cavities of some water birds.

Further, Not all leeches are blood suckers either, many species are straight forward predators on smaller invertebrates including insects, crustaceans and other annelids. These prey animals are sucked in and swallowed whole..

Most leeches do not live ON or in their victims, as many other parasites do.
A leech is a parasite. However, if you voluntarily want a parasite on your body, that's up to you. Feeding on another creatuer is what all animals do, yet not all animals are leeches, so there has to be some other criterion. Parasites typically require living on or in something else.

www.earthlife.net/inverts/hirundinae.html
www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Annelida_ClassHirudinea.asp
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~sos-iwla/Stream-Study/Catalog/FGLeech.HTML


Many are not parasites at all, because many don't stay on their victims.
However, some sources disagree, so, this question is rather trivial, since you can't even get a straight answer to if leeches are really parasites. :lol:

A more accurate example would be...baby vs intestinal worm.

Um... no. Thats NOT the primary ethical consideration.
Doing wehats best for the greatest number of people is.
"Maximization of happiness" is a perversion of utilitarianism.[

HAHAHAHAHAHAH. No. The Utility Principle = maximize the greatest happiness. That is the Utility Principle. Read "Utilitarianism" By J.S. Mill as well as On The Legislation of Morals, by Jeremy Benthem. Then read Practical Ethics By Singer, and then look at Sidgwick as well. All are following the utility principle.

All human life is equal, and so all human life should be treated the same.

Well there ya go. There's your first biological fallacy. No man is biologically equal at all.

What a surprise.

Eugenics is hardly bad. It's not all deathcamps and forced births. That's one TYPE of eugenics, but not all.

I never thought I would use the Ayn Rand Institute, since I hate it, but, it is quite useful some times.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?J...1a&page=NewsArticle&id=6176&news_iv_ctrl=1021

 

[Felicity]

4. Parts in a lightbulb at a factory WILL be a lightbulb, but they the individual value of each part is not the same as the value of the end product.

Your analogy with the lightbulb is not equivalent. Humans do not gain individual parts that are then combined into a whole. At conception--the thing IS whole--all that is needed is there--that's why the fertilized ovum Is human--it is a complete WHOLE.

A fetus will have a brain eventually, so treat it as if it does now! Same thing, substitution of words. Equally as stupid.

What is this...organ worship? Everything that is needed for humanity is present in the moment old zygote except TIME.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Not necessarily so.
Leeches, lampreys, rhemoras, ticks, bedbugs - all all parasites; none lives on or is sheltered by its host.
HowEVER... newborns ARE sheltered by their host.
And in none of those cases do any of them 'contribute anything to the survival' of the host.

2. A parasite is an organism that lives in or on the living tissue of a host organism at the expense of that host.

That describes all of the parasites, above, inclusing the newborn.

Translated, this means: A Parasite is a being that feeds in/on, is sheltered in/on and grows in/on an unwilling organism. It does not contribute anything to the host. When a Newborn starts to crawl back into the womb, unwanted, and then live there like it's a house, then and only then is it a parasite.

1- The organism doesnt need to be 'unwilling'
2- Your definition doesnt require that the newborn be inside the mother to be a parasite.

I already answered that. By definition, the latter isn't a parasite. We are talking about a medical or biological parasite, which means:

You did answer, and your answer does NOT disqualify newborns as parasites.

Kill a leech, kill a newborn; the difference is...?

Medically, a fetus is a parasite untill born, when it no longer requires the use of your body for it's own home and internal regulation.

And afterwards... if you do not use your body to feed it and shelter it -things that you, yourself, say denotes a parasitical relationship - then it will die. Sounds like it 'requires' the use of your body to me.

Not really, since rights nearly always procure the most happiness overall.

Um...
If society changes the definition of the right from the current definition to one opposite, then your argument, based on the curent defintion of the right, necesarily fails. That you can argue that it may not change is irrelevant; if it DOES change then your argument holds no water.

If rights had little or no utility, they wouldn't be used. Rights that cause more overall damage than harm are not good.

Irelevant - rights, as you say, are defined by society. Good or bad, thats how they are defined.

Social Contractarianism can be justified on Utilitarian grounds, but isn't itself Utilitarian. I am a Utilitarian. I am merely using something already established BY society.

You're groudning your -entire- argument on the current holding of society.
This means your argument is only -conditionally- sound, which means it is not -fundamentally- sound.

Technically speaking most leeches are not parasites...
...A leech IS a parasite.

You just contradicted yourself, and therefore rendered irrelevant everything edited out by the ... .

However, if you voluntarily want a parasite on your body, that's up to you. Feeding on another creatuer is what all animals do, yet not all animals are leeches, so there has to be some other criterion. Parasites typically require living on or in something else.

According to the criterion you provided, above, a newborn IS a parasite - perhaps even more so than a leech.

And so...
What, again, is the difference between killing a leech an killing a newborn?
Killing the former woudl not give you pause - why should killing the latter?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH. No. The Utility Principle = maximize the greatest happiness. That is the Utility Principle. Read "Utilitarianism" By J.S. Mill as well as On The Legislation of Morals, by Jeremy Benthem. Then read Practical Ethics By Singer, and then look at Sidgwick as well. All are following the utility principle.

I'm more than familiar with Utilitarianism, and JS Mill, thank you.
And as I said - 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people' does not equate to 'maximum happiness' -- for that which is 'good' for you may very well not make you happy.

Well there ya go. There's your first biological fallacy. No man is biologically equal at all.

Speaking of fallacies...
I didnt say anything about humans being biologically equal.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Not necessarily so.
Leeches, lampreys, rhemoras, ticks, bedbugs - all all parasites; none lives on or is sheltered by its host.
HowEVER... newborns ARE sheltered by their host.
And in none of those cases do any of them 'contribute anything to the survival' of the host.

I don't care what you say is "necessarily so." I care what medical dictioniary and my textbook on biology says, and that's what it says. Take it up with the texts.

That describes all of the parasites, above, inclusing the newborn.

According to your interpretation; however, that's not what biology texts state.

1- The organism doesnt need to be 'unwilling'
2- Your definition doesnt require that the newborn be inside the mother to be a parasite.

1. Yes it does. Something is not parasitical if the host willinginly wants or allows it to go about its business. The ony way that would be is if it's a symbiotic relationship, and symbiots are treated differently from parasites.

2. Yes it does. On or in.

You did answer, and your answer does NOT disqualify newborns as parasites.

Kill a leech, kill a newborn; the difference is...?

Of course it does, since your whole scenario was wrong.

And afterwards... if you do not use your body to feed it and shelter it -things that you, yourself, say denotes a parasitical relationship - then it will die. Sounds like it 'requires' the use of your body to me.

You don't use your body to feed and shelter a newborn. Newborns don't live inside the mother. Fetuses do.

A. You give sustinence voluntarily
B. You don't need the host. There are ways to take care of babies without direct mother-child feeding.

Um...
If society changes the definition of the right from the current definition to one opposite, then your argument, based on the curent defintion of the right, necesarily fails. That you can argue that it may not change is irrelevant; if it DOES change then your argument holds no water.

The right is only valuable insofar as it serves utility as a rule. Using your logic, since any philosophical principle can change at any moment, it is therefore worthless to support an argument. That's absurd. Justice coudl also change, therefore, any argument based on justice concepts is invalid if we take you seriously.

Irelevant - rights, as you say, are defined by society. Good or bad, thats how they are defined.

Rights are defined via utility, according to utilitarianism. Deontologists won't agree. In either case, there are no "inherent" rights. Pretending there are, however, produces the most utility and "respects the dignity of the person" according to deontology.

You're groudning your -entire- argument on the current holding of society.
This means your argument is only -conditionally- sound, which means it is not -fundamentally- sound.

If I based it on justice, that too is "conditionally" sound. Justice is by no means "universal" as a concept. There are different versions of justice. Deontological justice is not the same as utilitarian justice. There are actually several versions of "justice" in deontology. Something is always contingent on some principle, and since no principle is "objective," there is always ambiguity.

You just contradicted yourself, and therefore rendered irrelevant everything edited out by the ... .

No I didn't. You selectively edited. Only some leeches are considered parasites, while not all are. This is directly quoted from not only a biology book, but a medical text.

A newborn is not like every leech, because not every leech is a parasite. Those which are parasites are not like newborns.

According to the criterion you provided, above, a newborn IS a parasite - perhaps even more so than a leech.

And so...
What, again, is the difference between killing a leech an killing a newborn?
Killing the former woudl not give you pause - why should killing the latter?

That's hardly the case. According to my criterion, a newborn isn't a parasite. Not even all leeches are parasites, haha. Depending on how you look at it, a late-term fetus or newborn isn't much different from a chicken in innate value.

I'm more than familiar with Utilitarianism, and JS Mill, thank you.
And as I said - 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people' does not equate to 'maximum happiness' -- for that which is 'good' for you may very well not make you happy.

Apparently you aren't, or you wouldn't have said something so absurd. And yes, the greatest good does equat to happiness, since utilitarianism judges the "greatest good" via the maximization of happiness and the minimization of suffering.

Good = happiness in utilitarianism. I can direct you to many sources on this. One good source is Analysing Moral Issues by Judith A. Boss. It's a standard ethics text covering a wide variety of ethical theories.

Speaking of fallacies...
I didnt say anything about humans being biologically equal.
Today 12:54 PM

Oops! You implied they were all equal. Since they aren't biologically equal, and there's no justification for "metaphysical" equality, they aren't equal at all. You are merely attributing it to them for no reason. what is your criterion for "equality?"

 

[Fantasea]

Quote: Originally posted by Fantasea
"The argument regarding personhood is baseless. It hangs on opinion and emotion; no fact.

The argument — that some human beings are not persons — is to say that only achievers, only successful functioners, only sufficiently intelligent performers, qualify as persons and have a right to life. And who is to say what “sufficient” is? The line can be drawn at will - the will of the stronger. Nature, reason, and justice are then replaced by artifice, prejudice, and power. When it is in the self-interest of certain people to kill certain other people, whether fetuses, or the dying, or enemies of the state, or Jews, or Armenians, or Cambodians, or heretics, or prophets, the killers will simply define their victims as non-persons by pointing out that they do not meet certain criteria. Who determines the criteria? Those in power, of course. Whenever personhood is defined functionally, the dividing line between persons and non-persons will be based on a decision by those in power, a decision of will. Such a decision, given the frailty of human nature, will inevitably be based on self-interest. Where there is an interest in killing persons, they will be defined as non-persons."

False, False, False bullshit. Personhood has nothign to do with emotion, rather logic based off of facts.

1. Other animals are not as valuable as humans because humans are rationally autonomous and are thinking beings. Humans are capable of thought beyond most other animals. You do not view a dog as equal in value to a human because of the consciousness factor. A human understands itself as a being with a life to lead and preferences to make. A Human is a highly conscious, thinking organism--many other animals aren't. To ascribe value to a human more than a dog, you have to provide a legitimate criterion.

”False, False, False bullshit.”

2. If you think that "rationality" and "thinking" are not what make humans valuable, then you should have no problem equating DOGS and HUMANS, since, outside of our level of awareness and intelligence, there is little value-difference between a monkey and a human. If you do find one more valuable than the other, then if and only if the human does not have that which makes it more valuable than the monkey, it is not as valuable.

"False, False, False bullshit."

It is simple and factual and logical steps: Learn them and use them.

1. Compare humans do other animals
2.1. Find what makes humans more valuable than other animals
3. Locate that characteristic and isolate it
4. Apply human rights/personhood to said characteristic
5. Compare to other animals again. Does said human have that characteristic?
6. If yes, give rights worthy of humans.
7. If no, do not bestow human rights.

You cannot bestow human rights on something that does not even exhibit the characteristic value of humans. It's not just, nor is it logical. It's an if only if then statement. If you betstow value on it anyway, then you are working off of false premises. You are not actually valuing the creature based on said characteristics that separate it from other animals.

“False, False, False bullshit.”

Points of Factual consideration:

1. There are no such things as rights. Rights are ascribed
2. Life is irrelevant to value. Many creatures are alive, yet we kill them.
3. "will be" is not a valid logical argument. Lots of things "will be" but "aren't"
4. Parts in a lightbulb at a factory WILL be a lightbulb, but they the individual value of each part is not the same as the value of the end product. A human WILL die eventually, so according to your logic, you might as well kill him now. After all, he will be dead, so it's just the same as being dead!

“False, False, False bullshit.”

A fetus will have a brain eventually, so treat it as if it does now! Same thing, substitution of words. Equally as stupid.

"False, False, False bullshit."

Do notice the applicability of your own words. You made it quite easy for me to respond. Just a little cut & paste.

You consistently mistake emotion for fact. You consistently attribute human characteristics to animals in a futile attempt to denigrate humans. You seem to think that the ramblings and meanderings of those who assume that they have the right to confer what they define as “personhood” on humans or withhold it according to arbitrary standards which they believe they have the authority to establish is sufficient grounds for the elimination of those who don’t measure up.

That, too, is “False, False, False bullshit.”

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Your analogy with the lightbulb is not equivalent. Humans do not gain individual parts that are then combined into a whole. At conception--the thing IS whole--all that is needed is there--that's why the fertilized ovum Is human--it is a complete WHOLE

Well, that's not true. Humans do get individual parts that are combined to a whole. It's called fetal development. You aren't born with everything. As you grow, you gain more parts. Eventually you get a brain, which starts the actualization process for personhood.

What is this...organ worship? Everything that is needed for humanity is present in the moment old zygote except TIME.

Bullshit. None of your organs are even developed in a zygote. A zygote is merely a fertalized egg. It doesn't even have enough cells to make all the different tissues.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Do notice the applicability of your own words. You made it quite easy for me to respond. Just a little cut & paste.

You consistently mistake emotion for fact. You consistently attribute human characteristics to animals in a futile attempt to denigrate humans. You seem to think that the ramblings and meanderings of those who assume that they have the right to confer what they define as “personhood” on humans or withhold it according to arbitrary standards which they believe they have the authority to establish is sufficient grounds for the elimination of those who don’t measure up.

You make the mistake of thinking that ethical values = emotion, thus you think my position has something to do with emotion. It doesn't. It has to do with a reasoned look at why humans are valued. This has nothing to do with emotion. You are misapplying terminology.

You also ad hominem me by claiming I am out to denigrate humans, which has nothing to do with the position. That's baseless. You are reading into it to get the conclusion you want.

 

[Fantasea]

A fetus will eventually become a human. Other than that, I'm completely clueless.

If you wish to "get a clue", all you need do is accept the findings of persons who have dedicated their lives to the study of science, medicine, obstetrics, embryology, fetology, genetics, and the like. All are in agreement that human life commences at conception and that a zygote is human; an embryo is human; a fetus is human.

Would you like some sources to explore?

 

[Fantasea]

Well, that's not true. Humans do get individual parts that are combined to a whole. It's called fetal development. You aren't born with everything. As you grow, you gain more parts. Eventually you get a brain, which starts the actualization process for personhood.

Since the womb is a sealed capsule, as it were, from which everything but oxygen, fluids, and nourishment are excluded, please explain:

1. Where do these "individual parts" come from?

2. How are they combined?

3. What is it that "you" are born without?

4. How do "you" gain more parts?

5. From where do "you" get a brain?

 

[tecoyah]

Since the womb is a sealed capsule, as it were, from which everything but oxygen, fluids, and nourishment are excluded, please explain:

1. Where do these "individual parts" come from?
They are created as cells divide, and form said parts
2. How are they combined?
Thru a genetic code built into the DNA sequence
3. What is it that "you" are born without?
well....teeth might be one thing
4. How do "you" gain more parts?
They are grown as a child Ages...see above
5. From where do "you" get a brain?

The brain forms ...again...according to that which is defined in the DNA

 

[Fantasea]

You make the mistake of thinking that ethical values = emotion, thus you think my position has something to do with emotion. It doesn't. It has to do with a reasoned look at why humans are valued. This has nothing to do with emotion. You are misapplying terminology.

You also ad hominem me by claiming I am out to denigrate humans, which has nothing to do with the position. That's baseless. You are reading into it to get the conclusion you want.

I repeat:

"You consistently mistake emotion for fact. You consistently attribute human characteristics to animals in a futile attempt to denigrate humans. You seem to think that the ramblings and meanderings of those who assume that they have the right to confer what they define as “personhood” on humans or withhold it according to arbitrary standards which they believe they have the authority to establish is sufficient grounds for the elimination of those who don’t measure up."

Animals are not human; humans are not animals. You do not seem to understand this. That is why I use the word "denigrate".

You consistently ignore the biological fact that complete human life begins at conception. Everything required is present at that time and requires only the fluids, oxygen, nourishment, warmth, and shelter provided by the mother in order to grow to the point at which it no longer needs to remain in the womb. After leaving the womb, the requirements will continue to be substantially the same throughout the remainder of the child's life.

You hinge your argument on the non-factual concept of "personhood", a political invention which seeks to separate humans into two groups; those who are persons and those who are non-persons. It then proceeds to confer or withhold rights from one or the other. Human life is not subject to political invention.

 

[George_Washington]

I don't care what you say is "necessarily so." I care what medical dictioniary and my textbook on biology says, and that's what it says. Take it up with the texts.

Your textbook on biology? :rofl

We all know people who write undergrad level textbooks are infallible!

Biology textbooks don't support or endorse abortion. You're just interpreting it the way you want to.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

personally, Washington, I agree with you in SOME respect, but I think value starts to come as soon as the brain is developed and brainwaves start. I partly agree with Singer and I partly disagree with him. I don't think you can do anything you want to a newborn. I think it has value because of its autonomy and brain functioning, but...I think you should also act to prevent the most suffering, even if some don't consider it a "person."

Prevention of suffering and maximization of happiness is the goal. If you can CURE or treat a disease insofar as the victim will have an adequate life, then that's fine. If that life is going to be predicted as to be so horrible, then it shouldn't exist. It's better to replace it and increase total utility.

Anything prior to brain formation (waves_ around 4-5 months is ok. HOpefully, they can detect severe mental and physical deficiency in that time, given new technology, so you can eliminate the suffering before it starts.

Animals are not human; humans are not animals. You do not seem to understand this. That is why I use the word "denigrate".

False. Humans are animals, but due to our characteristics, if possesed, we hold ourselves more valuable. Our intelligence and level of self-awareness differentiates us from many other animals, save higher level primates. This is not emotion---but biological fact. Human newborns are more than any chicken IS, at any moment.

 

[Donkey1499]

What? Did someone say "chicken"? Whoooo hooooooooo!!!!!!!! Get the dipping sauce!!!!

 

[FutureIncoming]

Hello, all!!

I see folks here arguing over some of the same things that have been thrashed out in the "Explain Your Reasoning" Message Thread. I INVITE ALL PRO-CHOICE WRITERS in this forum to copy/paste/use in this Thread and others, any/all of the large amount of data which I have posted in that Thread. You will find MANY things there which NO pro-life writer has been able to refute with facts. Instead they try to ignore the facts, or cover them over with unfounded beliefs. Lies have been exposed; they have not posted one single argument against abortion there which has not been utterly demolished. Should they happen to present something new there, I wll remain alert to demolish it, also. I do not have the time to duplicate my efforts there, in this and other Message Threads, and so that is why I am waiving any claim to copyright of my postings. We need to take this victory and spread it throughout all abortion debate forums nationwide, so that not even a fully Conservative Supreme Court can ignore it.
Thank you!

 

[Fantasea]

Hello, all!!

I see folks here arguing over some of the same things that have been thrashed out in the "Explain Your Reasoning" Message Thread. I INVITE ALL PRO-CHOICE WRITERS in this forum to copy/paste/use in this Thread and others, any/all of the large amount of data which I have posted in that Thread. You will find MANY things there which NO pro-life writer has been able to refute with facts. Instead they try to ignore the facts, or cover them over with unfounded beliefs. Lies have been exposed; they have not posted one single argument against abortion there which has not been utterly demolished. Should they happen to present something new there, I wll remain alert to demolish it, also. I do not have the time to duplicate my efforts there, in this and other Message Threads, and so that is why I am waiving any claim to copyright of my postings. We need to take this victory and spread it throughout all abortion debate forums nationwide, so that not even a fully Conservative Supreme Court can ignore it.
Thank you!

Clutching at straws as you feel yourself sinking, I see.

I wonder how many will heed your cries for help.

If you disagree, then:

1. Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which denies that human life begins at conception.

2. Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which affirms the concept of personhood which claims that some unborn children are persons and some unborn children are non-persons.

3. Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million unborn children since Roe v. Wade.

4. Cite some of the lies to which you refer.

5. Cite some of your statements, which you consider factual, which have not been refuted, or as you say, "demolished".

Copyrighted posts? :rofl

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

First of all, you need to drop the act pretending you are so scientific, because:

A. You aren't
B. Science does not equal ethics.

Before you attack others, be consistant in in your beliefs. You claim to whant everyone else to use science to prove it is ok to kill an abort a fetus and that ethics and personhood is "arbitrary nonsense," when you don't agree with them, but then you turn around and make your own normative conclusions. That's hypocritical. I know you don't believe that Humans are equally valuable as any other animal. You surely beleive Humans are more valuable than other animals, so you give them ethical preference over Humans. The Life of a Human is worth more than the life of a Butterfly. This is an ethical judgement, not a scientific, factual one. Nothing you could ever find in science makes Man superior to Bovine. That's a reasoned, ethical decision based on what you call "arbitrary, nonscientific" principles. Man is no more "evolved" or "superior" a being unless you are judging creatures based on "arbitrary" as you call them, ethical personhood considerations.

Now, you can freely admit that you have zero evidence humans are "better" or "more valuable" than the lives of other animals, fine. Then you will be scientifically consistant. If no, you aren't being Scientific at all. Value statements aren't science, rather subjective ethics. No ethical system is "objective" by the nature of what ethics tries to achieve. Objective means based from fact. Ethics is normative, which means it's based on value-statements. Value-statements are always subjective.

The fact that a fetus is a human does not make it valuable. That's an ethical set of principles applied to the scientific fact. Pck one, pick the other, or admit your "science" requirements are nonsense. No scientific fact can, itself, justify ANY action.

1. Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which denies that human life begins at conception.

Why would anyone have to do that? Who is denying LIFE begins at conception? Of course a new life begins at conception. Duh. Who cares is more the point.

Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which affirms the concept of personhood which claims that some unborn children are persons and some unborn children are non-persons.

Actualy, this is simple logic derrived from medical procedures. No brain waves = no person. Brain functions = Person. Do you not understand how medicine works? When your brain waves stop, they pronounce you dead. When your brainwaves haven't begun yet, the person hasn't been born yet.

Furthermore, Personhood is an ethical concern, not Science. You are committing the is/ought fallacy. You cannot make a normative conclusion from ony a descriptive scientific one. Remember, check your premises. Every normative conclusion needs normative premises.

Post factual information from a recognized scientific, medical, obstetric, fetology, or genetic source which justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million unborn children since Roe v. Wade.

Same is/ought fallacy. Science does not make normative suggestions. It has no power to do so, nor does it have the authority.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I will just make some additions, since there were some types above:


1. Science cannot be used to state right and wrong, so your demand for science to prove it is ok to kill a fetus is irrelevant nonsense. Nothing in science can be used to prove something is either right OR wrong. Right and wrong are subjective value statements of ethics based on "arbitrary" ethical principles, like personhood. We pick things we value, which is arbitrary.

THe scientific fact that something is alive does not mean you can kill it and it does not mean that you cannot kill it. The fact that something is not human does not mean it is more valuable, nor does it mean that it is less valuable.

2. You are hypocritical. You ask for science, yet I know you do NOT use science. You claim abortion is wrong. No science can prove it is wrong, since Right/Wrong are not scientific claims, but ethical ones, and ethics are not science, but a specific type of philosophy--the philosophy of value-judgements. Science is Objective--it deals with fact. Ethics is not Objective.

3. Asking for evidence of Right and Wrong from Scientific or medical journals proves you are a dishonest asshat, since you ought to know damn-well that you cannot go from an Is to an Ought. Ethical theory is not science, and it never can be. This is why science is controled via ethics, and not ethics by science.

Example:

1. PROVE to me Scientifically, using a scientific/medical journal, that it is unjust to imprison someone for something he didn't do. Newsflash--you can't, just as you cannot prove, via science, that it's wrong to kill someone innocent.

 

[Donkey1499]

This is true. There is no right/wrong in science. (Except that there is right way to use a bunsen burner and a wrong way to use it [this is just and example]. But that is merely just a safety precaution. But I don't believe that there are ANY morals in science. If there were, then science couldn't be... credible... perhaps? But what the Hell would I know? I've only got HS biology, chemistry, and marine biology under my belt.)

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

But I don't believe that there are ANY morals in science. If there were, then science couldn't be... credible... perhaps? But what the Hell would I know? I've only got HS biology, chemistry, and marine biology under my belt.)

This is what I am trying to say. Morality is applied TO science, but science does not dictate morality. Some people have a hard time differentiating between the two.

If science dicated morality, then we would have no objection to unlimited human experimentation. Vivisection is not ethical, but science does not prove tha--only ethical theory can suggest it is---and ethical theory is "made up" personhood.

 

[Fantasea]

Why would anyone have to do that? Who is denying LIFE begins at conception? Of course a new life begins at conception. Duh. Who cares is more the point.

Actualy, this is simple logic derrived from medical procedures. No brain waves = no person. Brain functions = Person. Do you not understand how medicine works? When your brain waves stop, they pronounce you dead. When your brainwaves haven't begun yet, the person hasn't been born yet.

Furthermore, Personhood is an ethical concern, not Science. You are committing the is/ought fallacy. You cannot make a normative conclusion from ony a descriptive scientific one. Remember, check your premises. Every normative conclusion needs normative premises.

Same is/ought fallacy. Science does not make normative suggestions. It has no power to do so, nor does it have the authority.

Great. Glad to see that you agree that the occupant of the womb is a real live human being and has been since the moment of conception. That stipulation puts the bulk of the debate behind us.

Now, all we have to decide is the matter of the value of that zygote, embryo, fetus, unborn child.

First it would be good to have an understanding of the ethics involved. An interesting article which bears on the 'flexibility" of ethics may be found here: http://slate.msn.com/?id=113959&

This exerpt caught my eye:

"Credentials and committees don't make you ethical. Principles do. Those principles have to make sense. You have to apply them consistently or rethink them if you can't stomach their implications. And the easier you make them, the less they matter. The slickest way to make yourself look ethical is to narrow the definition of ethics so that it won't interfere with what you want to do. But that won't make you ethical. It'll just make you an ethicist."

There was also some quite revealing testimony presented to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Health and Environment. I was particularly impressed with the following excerpt from this lengthy read: http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvhouse.htm

"...there is no scientific physiological basis for a valid parallel between "brain death" and "brain birth", sentience or self-consciousness. Full human development, full brain integration and the actual exercising of what bioethicists call "rational attributes" or "sentience" are actually not complete until young adulthood.

"When does a human person begin", on the other hand, is a philosophical question. Only philosophical realism starts with and matches the correct scientific facts, necessarily concluding that personhood begins when the human being begins - at fertilization or cloning. If bioethics philosophical rationalism (e.g., the exercising of "rational attributes") or bioethics philosophical empiricism (e.g., the exercising of "sentience", or pain and pleasure) are the rationales for personhood, then newborns, young children, the comatose, Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, alcoholics, drug addicts, the mentally ill and retarded, the depressed, paraplegics (e.g., Christopher Reeves) - and many of us - are not "persons" either, and thus, by the same logic, could be experimented on or so "disposed of".

Thus, your entire contention regarding brain waves and humanity is shot down in flames.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Great. Glad to see that you agree that the occupant of the womb is a real live human being and has been since the moment of conception. That stipulation puts the bulk of the debate behind us.

Now, all we have to decide is the matter of the value of that zygote, embryo, fetus, unborn child.

First it would be good to have an understanding of the ethics involved. An interesting article which bears on the 'flexibility" of ethics may be found here: http://slate.msn.com/?id=113959&

This exerpt caught my eye:

"Credentials and committees don't make you ethical. Principles do. Those principles have to make sense. You have to apply them consistently or rethink them if you can't stomach their implications. And the easier you make them, the less they matter. The slickest way to make yourself look ethical is to narrow the definition of ethics so that it won't interfere with what you want to do. But that won't make you ethical. It'll just make you an ethicist."

There was also some quite revealing testimony presented to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Health and Environment. I was particularly impressed with the following excerpt from this lengthy read: http://www.uffl.org/irving/irvhouse.htm

"...there is no scientific physiological basis for a valid parallel between "brain death" and "brain birth", sentience or self-consciousness. Full human development, full brain integration and the actual exercising of what bioethicists call "rational attributes" or "sentience" are actually not complete until young adulthood.

"When does a human person begin", on the other hand, is a philosophical question. Only philosophical realism starts with and matches the correct scientific facts, necessarily concluding that personhood begins when the human being begins - at fertilization or cloning. If bioethics philosophical rationalism (e.g., the exercising of "rational attributes") or bioethics philosophical empiricism (e.g., the exercising of "sentience", or pain and pleasure) are the rationales for personhood, then newborns, young children, the comatose, Alzheimers and Parkinsons patients, alcoholics, drug addicts, the mentally ill and retarded, the depressed, paraplegics (e.g., Christopher Reeves) - and many of us - are not "persons" either, and thus, by the same logic, could be experimented on or so "disposed of".

Thus, your entire contention regarding brain waves and humanity is shot down in flames.

I can see you don't have any recognition of your nonsense "science proves morality" argument, which I shot down in flames, thus refuting it. As you can see, the concept of Personhood does not belong to Science, rather Philosophy, but the article makes some arbitrary, nonsensical mentioning of ethical rationalism and ethical empiricism, which don't exist. Empiricism is a method of epistemology, not determinging ethics based on "senses" or "rationality."


They also got it completely wrong, since self-awareness AND the ability to experience are what are important. Since they instead focus on "rationality" as the criterion (which few do), their entire speil about Chris Reeves being disposable is laughble. He could experien, think, talk, and do a lot of things. He wasn't a walking corpse. They can't even get that right. What retarded webpage did you copy/paste that off of? SOme tabolid?

If they think lack of brainwaves is meaningless, they are quite frankly stupid, since medical professionals pronounce you gone when your brain stops functioning by pumping out waves in the higher regions of thought. A fetus can formulate no preferences, thus it does not factor into a Utilitarian calculus. Not untill late in pregnancy does a baby even have a functioning brain. No brain waves = no self-awareness = no person. Nice dodge of your lie, though. Flip flop, flip flop.

Your articlal also totally glosses over a major bioethics field--Utilitarian bioethics, but it comes up with some absurd notion (after strawmanning personhood), that the criteria would also affect the unconscious, drunks, children etc. That's fabricated, since rationality is not the criterion. Drunks and people who are unconscious wouldn't be affected, since they still have preferences that should be honoured that they woudl want to carry over prior to "sleeping" or "intoxication." You don't stop wanting something because you are sleeping. It goes to show the article's authors have no experience in ethical theory--they can't get it right.

Your "document" is also a doctoral dissertation from a History of Philosophy major promoting her own opinion and tooting her own philosophical horn. THat's hardly "shooting" something down. Her argument are easily shot down. Heh. That's not even ethics lol. It's also old and out of date.


In fact, the article is so stupid, since the "doctor" calls Dogs and cats primates. What the frak? Did you dig her out of the barnyard school of stupidity? Dogs? Cats? They aren't primates.

The woman is also retarded in that she claims if pain/pleasure are criteria for personhood, then teenagers are't persons. lol gotta love her logic. Hahahahhaahhahh AHAHAHAHAHH ahahha AHAHHAAHA

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

OH, here's another lie from the "document." The dumb-ass states that you are't self-aware untill young adulthood. Hahahahahahhahhahahahah

She must have got her degree from Retard U.

 

[Fantasea]

I can see you don't have any recognition of your nonsense "science proves morality" argument, which I shot down in flames, thus refuting it. As you can see, the concept of Personhood does not belong to Science, rather Philosophy, but the article makes some arbitrary, nonsensical mentioning of ethical rationalism and ethical empiricism, which don't exist. Empiricism is a method of epistemology, not determinging ethics based on "senses" or "rationality."


They also got it completely wrong, since self-awareness AND the ability to experience are what are important. Since they instead focus on "rationality" as the criterion (which few do), their entire speil about Chris Reeves being disposable is laughble. He could experien, think, talk, and do a lot of things. He wasn't a walking corpse. They can't even get that right. What retarded webpage did you copy/paste that off of? SOme tabolid?

If they think lack of brainwaves is meaningless, they are quite frankly stupid, since medical professionals pronounce you gone when your brain stops functioning by pumping out waves in the higher regions of thought. A fetus can formulate no preferences, thus it does not factor into a Utilitarian calculus. Not untill late in pregnancy does a baby even have a functioning brain. No brain waves = no self-awareness = no person. Nice dodge of your lie, though. Flip flop, flip flop.

Your articlal also totally glosses over a major bioethics field--Utilitarian bioethics, but it comes up with some absurd notion (after strawmanning personhood), that the criteria would also affect the unconscious, drunks, children etc. That's fabricated, since rationality is not the criterion. Drunks and people who are unconscious wouldn't be affected, since they still have preferences that should be honoured that they woudl want to carry over prior to "sleeping" or "intoxication." You don't stop wanting something because you are sleeping. It goes to show the article's authors have no experience in ethical theory--they can't get it right.

Your "document" is also a doctoral dissertation from a History of Philosophy major promoting her own opinion and tooting her own philosophical horn. THat's hardly "shooting" something down. Her argument are easily shot down. Heh. That's not even ethics lol. It's also old and out of date.


In fact, the article is so stupid, since the "doctor" calls Dogs and cats primates. What the frak? Did you dig her out of the barnyard school of stupidity? Dogs? Cats? They aren't primates.

The woman is also retarded in that she claims if pain/pleasure are criteria for personhood, then teenagers are't persons. lol gotta love her logic. Hahahahhaahhahh AHAHAHAHAHH ahahha AHAHHAAHA

Those whom you cannot refute, you mock. That's typical of the pro-death crowd and their apologists.

All you keep saying is that those on your side of the question have the right and the authority to declare, on the basis of non factual, philosophical assessments, that some humans are persons and some humans are non-persons. This is pure, unadulterated, nonsense.

Science takes no part in the argument, simply establishing the fact that all human life is the same. It commences at conception and, if uninterrupted, continues for many decades until natural death.

In order to justify aborting unborn children in the womb, the pro-death crowd struggles to make a convincing argument that the product of conception, while alive and human for the first two trimesters of its existence, is nevertheless, a non-person during that period.

Who believes that? Probably no one; themselves included. However, that is the stance they have chosen to uphold the righteousness of abortion and they are stuck with it. Simply put, they have a tiger by the tail and they can't let go.

Long ago, the pro-death crowd turned the argument into a political tug of war. If the past half dozen federal elections prove anything, it's that the electorate continues to lose its taste for Pro-Choice politicians. Every two years, their number shrinks as fewer are returned to office.

 

[shatteredxdreams8]

Getting an abortion and murdering someone is basically the same, either way you are taking away the rights of another person to live. I mean why should it be ok for a mother to kill their child before the child is born, but after the child is born for them to kill it and then it is a murder? tell me what is the difference, a child is a child regardless if they are born or not.