What is it? (1 Viewer)

[Felicity]

When it has an individual, sustained function.
That in a bacteria, the single cell IS the organism, that IS the mature, sustained individual.

Bacteria has to have specific environment to function on its own or it dies--the embryo does too. Bacteria function independently of the function of the environment but it is dependent upon the environment. Same goes for the embryo.

The embryo is an organism, steen.

 

[steen]

It's all a function of the embryo and the placenta.

Nope. Why don't you give up trying to discuss medical/biological facts when you truly know so little about it, and since what you "know" seems determined more by your politics than facts? You will just end up in a never-ending series of false claims that the rest of us will end up correcting, showing your ignorance. Do you really want the posts to be about that?

The mother does not "do" anything to aid the embryo in developing the placenta or processing the nutrients it obtains via the placenta.

Go research what the "Corpus Luteum" is.

The body of the embryo functions for itself via its own developing systems.

Nope.

 

[steen]

Bacteria has to have specific environment to function on its own or it dies--

And so do you.

the embryo does too.

And so does sperm. And so does the egg. So does ALL cells. That doesn't prove independence.

Bacteria function independently of the function of the environment but it is dependent upon the environment. Same goes for the embryo.

Except that it doesn't "function independently, so your claim remains nonsense "just because I say so" postulations.

The embryo is an organism, steen.

Nope.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

And a "carcass" is dead--the thing in the womb is alive until it is aborted.

Again: I don't see relevance in something being alive, especially when you factor in your argument points about DNA uniqueness. That doesn't make something valuable. Your argument, that I see, is essentially::" Zomg! It's got unique DNA and the potential to be sentient! We must treat it with respect!"

Also--we treat dead people better than the thing in the womb--it's illegal to desecrate a corpse.

We treat dead bodies with respect because it serves utility to do so. It makes the families feel better. If they weren't around, I wouldn't give a hoot what you did with the bodies. They're dead. It really doesn't matter what you do to them at that point if no other rational, relevant individual has a preference that must be satisfied. I would just cremate them all. THere's no intrinsic value to a dead person as much as there is no intrinsic value to a fetus.

But anyway...I'll ask you a different question...Why is it irrelevant?

Why is what irrelevant, though? Unique DNA? It is irrelevant because of the very reasons I described. The fact that something has unique DNA does not give it imply it ought to have rights. Lots of things have unique DNA, but are worthless. There is no reason to consider the rights of something that is non-sentient. It's simply absurd. We don't fret over the rights of pluripotent cells (oh wait..some do!). Following the logic of the pro-lifer (life begins at conception), absurd conclusions are reached in which it is a tragedy and heinous to kill or use something that cannot feel, cannot think, cannot act, and has no preferences. Essentially, you are putting sentient life on the same ethical level as non-sentient life. That's dispicable and irresponsible, IMO. A clump of inert cells does not have the moral equivalency of an adult human or even a newborn. That's disgracing the dignity of the human being with rational attributes. To assign moral rights to something that has no rational attributes is to claim that which makes us human is irrelevant and meaningless ethically. We are the same as inert clumps of cells. Only sentient beings or things that can suffer have any moral value at all. The preference satisfaction of a sentient being outweighs that of a non-sentient being. A fetus is not sentient. A mother is.

ANd to think that people get worked up when they hear about evolution and how humans are disgraced since they came from Apes. Well gee wiz: we are all the same as mindless clumps of undifferentiated cells--no more value.

 

[Willravel]

Again: I don't see relevance in something being alive, especially when you factor in your argument points about DNA uniqueness. That doesn't make something valuable. Your argument, that I see, is essentially::" Zomg! It's got unique DNA and the potential to be sentient! We must treat it with respect!"

It's not just a plant or animal that is alive. It is the devloping life form of Homo sapiens. Whether ot not the zygote/fetus is sentient is seeminly moot. Do we execute people for not being sentient?

We treat dead bodies with respect because it serves utility to do so. It makes the families feel better. If they weren't around, I wouldn't give a hoot what you did with the bodies. They're dead. It really doesn't matter what you do to them at that point if no other rational, relevant individual has a preference that must be satisfied. I would just cremate them all. THere's no intrinsic value to a dead person as much as there is no intrinsic value to a fetus.

A dead person is not alive. A fetus is. The fetus has metabolism and growth The fetus is devoping the reproductive ability until it has entered puberty, and murdering a pre-pubesent child is illegal, and generally considered immoral (which calls the entire scientific definition of life into question in this matter). A fetus will likewise have response to stimuli and adaptation to the environment. The fetus has a heartbeat at 18 days after conception. The fetus has barin waves and independant movement at 6 weeks after conception. A baby is able to respond to sound or touch at 8-10 weeks. Most abortions are not carried out until 8 weeks after conception.

Following the logic of the pro-lifer (life begins at conception), absurd conclusions are reached in which it is a tragedy and heinous to kill or use something that cannot feel, cannot think, cannot act, and has no preferences. Essentially, you are putting sentient life on the same ethical level as non-sentient life. That's dispicable and irresponsible, IMO. A clump of inert cells does not have the moral equivalency of an adult human or even a newborn. That's disgracing the dignity of the human being with rational attributes. To assign moral rights to something that has no rational attributes is to claim that which makes us human is irrelevant and meaningless ethically. We are the same as inert clumps of cells. Only sentient beings or things that can suffer have any moral value at all. The preference satisfaction of a sentient being outweighs that of a non-sentient being. A fetus is not sentient. A mother is.

A fetus can think, can act, and can sense by 8 weeks, which is again when most abortions are carried out. Because you are incorrect in this, you are incorrect about abortion. Is a fetus able to think as well as a human that has been born? No. Of course neither is a dog, but it's generally considered immoral to kill a dog. A dog isn't even human. Can a fetus sense as well as a human that has been born? No, but neither can a blind man. Can a fetus move like a human that has been born? No, but neither can someone who is crippled. A fetus is not aborted when it is a clump of cells as you would ahve everyone believe. The abortion happens upon the dawn of sentience.

 

[Felicity]

Nope. Why don't you give up trying to discuss medical/biological facts when you truly know so little about it, and since what you "know" seems determined more by your politics than facts?

Keep hoeing that row, steen...It's very evident that this is the standby you run back to when you don't have an intelligent response that doesn't paint you into a corner...you pull back into your self-constructed superiority stance and wait for the FACTS to blow over so you can go back to pounding the drum of your particular world view. I'm the one giving the facts each and every time--you just say I'm ignorant--no refutation...just the same lame deflection...really...quite sad actually..
So the facts are:
1) the embryo divides and grows and sustains itself for the first month--demonstrating growth and individual homeostasis and a metabolism.
2) the embryo implants in its uterine environment and establishes a means of nourishment via the placenta--demonstrating a response to the environment and individual growth and maturation while establishing another means of metabolizing nutrients.
3) the woman's body is influenced by the action of the implantation--the embryo initiates the production of the hormone that sustains the environment--(that's your corpus luteum thing, steen ) and I guess we owe that to the presence of the embryo as well--otherwise Aunt Flo pays a visit to the would-be Mamma... So, I don't know why you would think the CL would somehow boost your claim that the embryo doesn't function independently--actually it exerts an influence on the mother by its presence (or lack thereof). Really--that helps validate my position rather than yours.

You will just end up in a never-ending series of false claims that the rest of us will end up correcting, showing your ignorance. Do you really want the posts to be about that?

:2wave: You have yet to "correct" anything--you constantly say I'm wrong--but don't give a reason why--just your own say so and your insults.

Go research what the "Corpus Luteum" is.

Maybe you ought to, doc.

 

[Felicity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicity
Bacteria has to have specific environment to function on its own or it dies--

And so do you.

Exactly the point. All organisms are dependent upon their environment, but function independently within that environment.

Quote:
the embryo does too.

And so does sperm. And so does the egg. So does ALL cells. That doesn't prove independence.

It proves an "organism" can be dependent upon an environment and still be an "individual."--technically sperm is an "organism"--AND...so is the embryo...a DIFFERENT organism.

And so I ask again...what is the "organism" that can be identified as "human" and is the "source" for that DNA obtained from the materials of an abortion? It's a being that is a human--right steen?...(I'm gonna get you to admit it eventually:smile: ) Sperm is "of" human origin--but isn't "a" human since its source is a man. The aborted DNA has a source too--it is "of" human origin as well....it belongs to the organism from which it came--hmmmm....now what is that organism??? Wouldn't the origin be....(like the origin of the sperm's DNA)..."a" human?

Quote:
Bacteria function independently of the function of the environment but it is dependent upon the environment. Same goes for the embryo.

Except that it doesn't "function independently, so your claim remains nonsense "just because I say so" postulations.

And yet the facts say differently, steen--the zygote/embryo/fetus DO IN FACT function under the power of its own biological individuality--dependant upon the environment in which it exists (as we all are as you pointed out) and yet individually self-sustaining within that environment.

 

[Felicity]

Correction in the above post (but too bad for you steen it is irrelevant to the logic of my argument--it actually strengthens it...)

This is how the portion above should read--I can't go back and fix it as time has elapsed....(Changes in bold)

Quote:
the embryo does too.

And so does sperm. And so does the egg. So does ALL cells. That doesn't prove independence.

It proves an "organism" can be dependent upon an environment and still be an "individual."--technically sperm would be an "organism" if it could reproduce at some point in its "life" But the embryo is...a DIFFERENT organism from the one that is the environment in which it lives.

 

[steen]

A dead person is not alive. A fetus is. The fetus has metabolism and growth

Well, this is also the case with a tumor, so i don't get the importance of your argument.

The fetus is devoping the reproductive ability until it has entered puberty, and murdering a pre-pubesent child is illegal, and generally considered immoral

Which is why the sentience issue seems a bit more appropriate than the issue of 'life."

A fetus will likewise have response to stimuli and adaptation to the environment.

So will the leg of a dead frog (famous experiment couple hundred years ago, proving the existence of electricity).

The fetus has a heartbeat at 18 days after conception.

An automatic contraction of tissue. So what?

The fetus has barin waves and independant movement at 6 weeks after conception.

That claim is flat-out false. care to provide the scientific evidence for your claim?

A baby is able to respond to sound or touch at 8-10 weeks

it is not a baby until birth. That aside, the "response" is a reflex with no cognizant involvement. I can get a reflex like that out of a plant. So what?

Most abortions are not carried out until 8 weeks after conception.

Not true. 60.5% of abortions were at less than 8 weeks per the CDC annual data. Your claim is outright false:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm
(see table 1)

A fetus can think, can act, and can sense by 8 weeks,

All three claims are flat out false.

which is again when most abortions are carried out. Because you are incorrect in this, you are incorrect about abortion.

Rather, you are incorrect.

Is a fetus able to think as well as a human that has been born? No. Of course neither is a dog, but it's generally considered immoral to kill a dog.

Could you please explain that to your local Human Society?

A fetus is not aborted when it is a clump of cells as you would ahve everyone believe. The abortion happens upon the dawn of sentience.

I find your claim ignorant and based on false information.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

A dead person is not alive. A fetus is. The fetus has metabolism and growth.

1. Let us examine your points. I will try to be as specific as possible.

1. Yes. I know a fetus is alive and a dead person isn't. That's a valid point, but that is not the point that was made earlier. The vast majority of anti-abortionists use the argument: "you cannot kill it, because it is alive. It is separate as an entity and has unique DNA." The first point is totally irrelevant, since the fact that something is alive does not mean you cannot kill it morally.

Let's examine the second point you bring up: the fetus metabolizes, grows. I do not belive this gives something, according to my philosophy, a right to life, nor do I think it gives something moral consideration because similarily, most every cell in your body metabolizes and grows and replicates. You as an entity are alive and grow and metabolize just as do your cells. So, if your argument is that since the fetus does all three, you cannot kill it, then you must accept that it is also wrong to draw blood or test on human tissue because you are killing living material that does all three of the things you mentioned. Now, if you want to go with something a bit more substantive, like sentience, then I will agree it is wrong to hurt or kill something if the good does not outweigh the negative.

The fetus is devoping the reproductive ability until it has entered puberty

I don't understand this point. Are you trying to say that a fetus enters puberty? A fetus is born and becomes a newborn well before it enters puberty in the pre-teen years. By then, the individual has more value because of its sentience.

and murdering a pre-pubesent child is illegal, and generally considered immoral (which calls the entire scientific definition of life into question in this matter).

It is only wrong to "murder" a pre-teen because it is a sentient being, not because of anything to do with its sexual maturity. You have to critically analyse why it is wrong to kill adults and children--they have rational attributes. A frog eventually reaches sexual maturity and puberty. That does not logically follow that the being has any moral consideration.

A fetus will likewise have response to stimuli and adaptation to the environment. The fetus has a heartbeat at 18 days after conception. The fetus has barin waves and independant movement at 6 weeks after conception. A baby is able to respond to sound or touch at 8-10 weeks. Most abortions are not carried out until 8 weeks after conception.

Yes. It can respond to stimulie with automatic reflexes. So? So what if it has a heart beat? So did Terry Schivo. She was worth little too. Obviously, heartbeat is not what gives something moral consideration and right to life.

However, I agree with you that brainwaves appear anywhere from around 6-8 weeks. However, even this is a problematic criterion.

A fetus can think, can act, and can sense by 8 weeks, which is again when most abortions are carried out. Because you are incorrect in this, you are incorrect about abortion. Is a fetus able to think as well as a human that has been born? No. Of course neither is a dog, but it's generally considered immoral to kill a dog. A dog isn't even human. Can a fetus sense as well as a human that has been born? No, but neither can a blind man. Can a fetus move like a human that has been born? No, but neither can someone who is crippled. A fetus is not aborted when it is a clump of cells as you would ahve everyone believe. The abortion happens upon the dawn of sentience.

No, a fetus cannot "think" and act. It can do litterally nothing. It's brain is in infancy. I am not incorrect on this, and I never said that brian waves don't appear at 7-8 weeks. Show me where I said that.

What makes you think I am for late term abortions? However, I would like some evidence that shows they can think at 8 weeks. The problem with sentience is that the fact that it is in someone else's body changes the equation. It would be wrong to kill a sentient being if it were alone, but the same does not necessarily follow if it is inside of you. You have conflicting rights. Personhood beings with self awareness or some derrivation of it.

I can direct you to an excellent work of ethics on this topic:

1. http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200509--.htm
2. http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

They are both excellent treaties on utilitarian bioethics that generally categorize the majority of utilitarian argumentation for abortion.

 

[Willravel]

Well, this is also the case with a tumor, so i don't get the importance of your argument.

A tumor isn't a developing human life form. Do you understand the difference? The combination of potential for not only sentience, but sapience and the fact that it is in fact alive. A tumor is alive, in a sence, but the tumor will never be self aware or experience apperception.

Which is why the sentience issue seems a bit more appropriate than the issue of 'life."

Why stop at the development of sentience? Why not wait until a human is sapient before judging it worth allowing him or her to live?

So will the leg of a dead frog (famous experiment couple hundred years ago, proving the existence of electricity).

Again dead is to alive as apples are to oranges.

An automatic contraction of tissue. So what?

Many people associate the sould with the heart. Working form a stricylt non-scientific standpoint, it is possible someone will find merrit in that statement. That was for their benefit.

That claim is flat-out false. care to provide the scientific evidence for your claim?

Just got off the phone with my cardiologist (who is not a lay person in fetul development or neurology), and he said it is not uncommon. If you expect me to find a link, you'll be disapointed as I can't find any dependable information either way. I suggest you call your doctor.

it is not a baby until birth. That aside, the "response" is a reflex with no cognizant involvement. I can get a reflex like that out of a plant. So what?

We're not talking about a plant. We're talking about a human. Can you say with 100% certianty that there is NO consciousness behind the movement? Are you a doctor?

Not true. 60.5% of abortions were at less than 8 weeks per the CDC annual data. Your claim is outright false:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm
(see table 1)

If I were to question your source, I know that that would not make me right. I do know that it might take a bit of huff out of your argument, though.

The CDC collects most of its information indirectly, mainly through reports from state health departments. Reports for the 45 states that collect information on abortion and the District of Columbia vary in completeness, with some lacking information on as many as 40-50% of the abortions that occur in the state.

The CDC also conducts limited surveys of abortion providers or makes estimates for the states that do not collect abortion information (Alaska, California, Iowa, New Hampshire and Oklahoma). For information on the type of abortion procedure used and the characteristics of women having abortions, the CDC relies on the reports of the approximately 40 states that collect these data.

I am not saying your information is certianally wrong, but I am suggesting that what the CDC says is not necessarily gospel.

All three claims are flat out false.

Aside from the thinking, you never claimed these were false. You said so what it can act. You said even a dead from can react. So you are now contradicting yourself.

I don't understand this point. Are you trying to say that a fetus enters puberty? A fetus is born and becomes a newborn well before it enters puberty in the pre-teen years. By then, the individual has more value because of its sentience.

No, I am saying that not all humans who are born are classified as alive. Children from birth to puberty are unable to reproduce.

It is only wrong to "murder" a pre-teen because it is a sentient being, not because of anything to do with its sexual maturity. You have to critically analyse why it is wrong to kill adults and children--they have rational attributes. A frog eventually reaches sexual maturity and puberty. That does not logically follow that the being has any moral consideration.

What's with the frogs?

What scientific test is there to place on a fetus to test if he or she has sentience? Is this test performed before every abortion? Do you think I'd pass the test (feel free to take a punch, I don't mind)?

Keep in mind that one of the first parts of the anatomy to form in a fetus is the brain stem. The brain stem records stimulus from inside and outside of the womb and is the core, after birth of instinctive reactions throughout life. Many scientific reports prove (I'll grab my discertations later) the fetus resdponds emotionally to the emotions of the people in their life, specifically mother and partner. There is a corelation between a troubled relationship between mothers and fathers and the overall emotional state of a baby once it is born. The fetus constantly records emotions and sensations as the brain stem forms, and there on. At the third week after conception, a 3 layered embryo contains ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. In the third week, the ectoderm thickens and contains a groove and begins to fold its edges in such a way that it forms the neutral tube, which is the first stage in the developement of the brain, spinal cord, and the entire nervious system. At the end of the third week to the begininng of the fourth week the neutral tube closes and the brain begins to develope. This is when memory and sensory perception dawn.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

No, I am saying that not all humans who are born are classified as alive. Children from birth to puberty are unable to reproduce.

Yes. Childre who are born and are not classified as alive when having been born are dead. And? Children from birth to purberty are not sexually mature. And? What is the relevance of this. These are total non sequitors to rights or moral consideration. What theory gives moral consideration due to sexual maturity? It's a tautology to suggest that things that are born not alive are dead.

What's with the frogs?

What do you mean "what's with the frogs?"

What scientific test is there to place on a fetus to test if he or she has sentience? Is this test performed before every abortion? Do you think I'd pass the test (feel free to take a punch, I don't mind)?

To test sentience in various animals (not just humans) they are three basic tests they use to measure self-awareness and understanding that you are a being over time. Sentience is essentially awareness of the self. This gets more complex as there are other rational attributes. Sentience is the basic line of moral consideration since it allows for suffering. Yes, since you're talking to me right now, you would pass the test. You aren't braindead.

We use sentience tests to see if other animals are sentient, like we are. This is how we tested chimpanzees and other creatures. Sentience essentially indicates the ability to suffer pain and experience preferences/pleasure. However, this is only a basic criterion for moral value. It's not the only, absolute one. As for sentience, review the following: Brain activity begins in the fetus at about 8 weeks, but we have good evidence for believing that fetuses normally become sentient (able to feel pain) sometime between 20 and 28 weeks. At about 20 weeks, the neurons in the cerebral cortex form synapses (connections). At about 21-22 weeks, cortical EEG can first be recorded. [How is this possible, given that the thalamo-cortical synapses have not formed? Does the reticular formation connect to the cortex in some other way?] At about 23-24 weeks, the neurons in the thalamus (through which most the sensory neurons of the body pass) and the neurons in the cerebral cortex (which generates most experiences) form synapses. At about 24 weeks, the blink-startle reflex (e.g., with eyes opening in response to auditory stimuli) first appears. At about 25-27 weeks, sensory-evoked cortical potentials first appear.

It should also be noted that only 1/3 of human Zygotes are actual those which develop into a fetus as we know it. 2/3's die. That's a high attrition rate. Do you cry over a lost zygote?

Keep in mind that one of the first parts of the anatomy to form in a fetus is the brain stem. The brain stem records stimulus from inside and outside of the womb and is the core, after birth of instinctive reactions throughout life.

You have to realize that teh brainstem is one part of the brain, and it is not even the most important to what makes us human. Most of our higher functions are present in the upper portion of our brain. Those harbour the higher primate functions. If those aren't developed enough, there can be no "mind." The higher functions are found in the cerebral cortex, which is not formed in early pregnancy, according to the lower source. From here is where the person developes. The brain stem is a primitive portion of the brain, much like the lymbic system. You can survive as a zombie (not the horror type) with your brainstem.

Many scientific reports prove (I'll grab my discertations later) the fetus resdponds emotionally to the emotions of the people in their life, specifically mother and partner. There is a corelation between a troubled relationship between mothers and fathers and the overall emotional state of a baby once it is born. The fetus constantly records emotions and sensations as the brain stem forms, and there on. At the third week after conception, a 3 layered embryo contains ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. In the third week, the ectoderm thickens and contains a groove and begins to fold its edges in such a way that it forms the neutral tube, which is the first stage in the developement of the brain, spinal cord, and the entire nervious system. At the end of the third week to the begininng of the fourth week the neutral tube closes and the brain begins to develope. This is when memory and sensory perception dawn.

Ok. I would like a reputable study that shows they respond to emotions with their own emotions. The capacity to understand and feel pain/suffer is the beginning of sentient life. A fetus changes over time, and it doesn't mean that at every point in this development it won't be sentient.

From what I have read of Singer and L W Summer, which are essentially Utilitarian philosophers. According to their writings: "Fetuses develop this some time towards the end of the second trimester." According to this source:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...es/ABORTION.DOC+"fetus"+AND+"sentience"&hl=en

Sentience starts after 20-24 weeks. Viability currently starts at about 23 weeks According to this resource, which is fairly reliable, since it's a university edu on abortion, brainwaves begin at 8 weeks. Now, since sentience they find only begins around 20, brainwaves logically do not imply sentience.

 

[Felicity]

Singer

Didn't we go a round or so about this joker until you got pissed off and PMed me to stop? Do you wanna start it here? He's MEGA-HYPOCRITE (wasn't that the thread it was in?) and so is your whole "utilitarianist" perspective--contradictions galore! If you like, I'll drag up the post where I pointed out some of the main contradictions to which you never responded....

Remember all the names you called me?......Posts 380-404 in Hypocrites! thread.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Didn't we go a round or so about this joker until you got pissed off and PMed me to stop? Do you wanna start it here? He's MEGA-HYPOCRITE (wasn't that the thread it was in?) and so is your whole "utilitarianist" perspective--contradictions galore! If you like, I'll drag up the post where I pointed out some of the main contradictions to which you never responded....

Remember all the names you called me?......Posts 380-404 in Hypocrites! thread.

I already explained why you are wrong on the first half, but try to listen calmly.

1. The fact that someone does not adhere to everything he says you ought to do does not logically invalidate what you ought to do. What you do is an IS occurance, while what you ought to do is a normative one. Period. This is simple ethics. There is no debate on this. This is a logical answer to your problem. Attacking the hypocrisy of the advocate is merely an Ad Hominem attack that does not logically dispell the argumement. It means he's not perfect and doesn't always adhere to the utilitarian ideal. This doesn't make the argument wrong. That is where you go wrong. I also explained how he is not the only one making decisiosn adn that Utilitarian calculations must take into account all the family members who have an interest based upon weighted importance. Leave this be, since this is not the topic, and it will derail it.

2. I responded: you didn't approve of the answer. I don't really care. I am a Utililitarian, so I will use Utilitarian principles. You don't have to like it, and I think your contradictions are your misunderstanding of the ethical system. That is most likely the problem of a novice reader. Utilitarianism is not contradictory: that is your interpretation of it. The vast majority of scholars in ethics know far more than you, and they do not think the ideology is "contradictory," so you are most likely over simplifying and misunderstanding it, as usual.

Your argument about emotions and "rationality" conflicting is primarily a problem with your interpretation of ethical terminology and ethical axioms. I tried to explain this.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

IF you want to talk about the other topic, do so calmly in the thread I made called "Ethics and Ideology." To prevent problems of fast page turns, only we should talk. Discuss your problems calmly there, and I will address them. I have far more time now that I am off. Do not do so here, since it will further derail the thread.

 

[Felicity]

I already explained why you are wrong on the first half, but try to listen calmly.

:rofl :2rofll: Like I was the one who TOTALLY lost it!

Remember these lovelies?...

You're a moron AND illiterate... you idiot... lazy ass whiney tards like you ....ignorant little twerp ......****ing retard,.....Now kiss my ass you troll. .....You're just a moron. .....dumbass

And that’s not even a complete list from a SINGLE post in that thread!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=115712&postcount=399


You are not the epitome of what one of sound mind would consider “credible.”

Anyone can check out the LAME attempt you made to defend the clearly RIDICULOUS Singer on their own if they want to--it's pages 38-41 on the Hypocrites! thread....and it's a LAUGH a line, especially considering your desire for an what you called a "heavenly" society like that in Huxley's Brave New World. That just solidifies the credibility issue.

2. I responded: you didn't approve of the answer. .

Well....I checked all through 10 pages after the post and you never addressed the issues I pointed out in the contradictions of Preferential Utilitarianism...This was the post to which I'm referring--the last one in the conversation with you because you never responded:

Utilitarianism is a major contributor to the culture of death that promotes such human travesties as abortion and euthanasia.

Technocratic Utilitarian specifically endorses Preference Utilitarianism (Peter Singer's brand of Utilitarianism). And I've got some questions for anyone who adheres to this philosophy:

In Preference Utilitarianism, how does one address these questions?

1. What preference is the one I go with when I have changed my mind—the original preference, or the current preference? And how do I know my preference won’t change again?

2. What do I do if my preference today is that I had made a better choice yesterday?

3. How does PU deal with the element of “surprise?” For example: “I am surprised by how much pleasure that action brought me—It was not my preference.”

4. What do you do when your preference is in conflict with another’s preference and both have a reasonable stake in the issue. I prefer my son not marry that woman, or I prefer my wife not give our baby up for adoption.

5. What happens when I have no actual preference, but someone else prefers I make a specific decision, but then that person changes his mind?

6. What if a person for whom you are responsible has a preference that is not detrimental, but in conflict with your preference?


You may be able to aswer each individual question whith what you think, but the answers will not remain consistant. The lack of consistency makes the philosophy arbitrary and thus unreliable.

Interesting paper: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Valu/ValuRonn.htm

IF you want to talk about the other topic, do so calmly in the thread I made called "Ethics and Ideology." To prevent problems of fast page turns, only we should talk. Discuss your problems calmly there, and I will address them. I have far more time now that I am off. Do not do so here, since it will further derail the thread.

This is the same sort of thing you tried on that other thread and in your PMs to me...what have you got to hide that you can't just talk about it and you have to "isolate" the discussion between you and me? If you're right--you're right....why wouldn't you want the world to know That's foolishness. Again--It is YOU who have the temper and need to be reminded to remain calm, not I. I'm interested in other's input on the Utilitarian nonsense...er...I mean...perspective .

 

[Proudly Pro Life JP Freem]

I really am trying to understand the other side...

There have been many that compare the aborted materials to toenails and such...I really don't understand the similarity.

When a toenail is cut from a body, one can test the DNA and locate the individual human being that was the originating source for that DNA. When the products of conceptions after fertilization are aborted and the DNA is tested it can be determined to be of the human species. However--there is no originating source for the particular DNA of a zygote/embryo/fetus such as there is for the toenail...the “source" is “it”self...

My question is: what is “it” (the source of the DNA in the material from an abortion) that can be identified as belonging to the human species but is something that the pro-choice side seems to be insisting is not “a” individual human being...what is “it” then?

OH No Iam having the big one. Felicity Refering to a Baby as "It" (I know you don't mean it) but this is what I think of every time Someone refers to a ababy in the womb as "it"

“it”

it" The Pro Abotionist refer to another human being as "it" It brings to mind the character on the TV show "The Adams Family" You know the guy with the hat and hair down to his feet. Now all you Pro Choice People you are being creepy & spooky,Mysterious and Kooky. Now I'll have that song playing in my head all day. Thinking Cousin "It" is in someones womb. "it" what a ridiculas thought "It" another Human Being. "It" So sad someone can think that way. "it" To all Pro Abortion people were the 5 babies my wife and I lost were they to "it" They all could have been legally aborted? "it' another word for Baby, Human being, in the Pro abortion dictionary. It makes it easier to tear an "it" apart during the abortion process limbs, heart, head, torso ripped to threads "it" is then place in a red Biological waste bag."it" might find "it's' way into a sewer. Anyway "it" died and "it" was killed, Yes "it" was murdered. Suddenly the Adams Family song stop playing stoped playing in my head.

 

[steen]

A dead person is not alive. A fetus is. The fetus has metabolism and growth

Well, this is also the case with a tumor, so i don't get the importance of your argument.

A tumor isn't a developing human life form. Do you understand the difference?

That is irrelevant in this point. You made a claim about requirements for being "alive." I merely pointed out that per the requirements that YOU provided, a tumor also would be classified as "alive." Are you denying this?

The combination of potential for not only sentience, but sapience and the fact that it is in fact alive. A tumor is alive, in a sence, but the tumor will never be self aware or experience apperception.

Agreed. But both have metabolism and growth, which was your requirement for being "alive."

A fetus will likewise have response to stimuli and adaptation to the environment.

So will the leg of a dead frog (famous experiment couple hundred years ago, proving the existence of electricity).

Again dead is to alive as apples are to oranges.

Really? I would think that Yin and Yang would be a better comparison.

That aside, you are again diverging from your original claim. The issue here is whether response to stimuli, f.ex. has any meaning as to the status of the fetus.

Many people associate the sould with the heart.

yes, they are quite ignorant, aren't they?

Working form a stricylt non-scientific standpoint, it is possible someone will find merrit in that statement. That was for their benefit.

Ah, pandering to ignorance. Well, I am not surprised.

The fetus has barin waves and independant movement at 6 weeks after conception.

That claim is flat-out false. care to provide the scientific evidence for your claim?

Just got off the phone with my cardiologist (who is not a lay person in fetul development or neurology), and he said it is not uncommon. If you expect me to find a link, you'll be disapointed as I can't find any dependable information either way.

So no evidence. OK:
http://www.biocybernaut.com/about/brainwaves/brainwaves.htm#nav1top
(Shows that multiple structures interacting are necessary for brain waves to occur).

http://www.shamarie.com.au/brainwav.htm
EEG devices we can measure the brain waves as they are produced by our brain. Brain waves are the electrical fluctuations in the brain associated with various states of cortical arousal (thinking, learning, relaxing, recuperating etc.).

http://hexaglot.de/sita/uk/faq_sita_uk.htm
"Brain waves can be measured in an electroencephalogram (EEG) from sensors attached to the scalp. Each one of the innumerable electrochemical discharges from the brain’s nerve cells generates a tiny electromagnetic field with a frequency of between 1 and 30 Hz (cycles per second). The so-called brain waves are the sum of these electrical activities. Brain waves are classified into four groups: beta, alpha, theta and delta waves. Different waves may occur simultaneously in different areas of the brain and this causes the wave pattern to vary from second to second"

http://www2.itu.edu.tr/~cilesiz/courses/Electroencephalogram.pdf
What are brain "waves"? In the brain, the total sum of the electrical activity of millions of neurons, located principally in the cortex, can be observed with the electroencephalograph (EEG), a device that registers the brain's cells [activity] through a person's several states, from the awaken state to deep sleep

I suggest you call your doctor.

I prefer to go with what the science actually shows.

We're not talking about a plant. We're talking about a human. Can you say with 100% certianty that there is NO consciousness behind the movement?

yes.

Are you a doctor?

Yes.

I am not saying your information is certianally wrong, but I am suggesting that what the CDC says is not necessarily gospel.

So the prolife administration's agency of health is somehow skewing results to make prochoice look better? Uhum :roll:

The data they have is factual. We can also look at the Alan Guttmaker site. They call each clinic directly:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Go to the pie-chart. They list <9 weeks (not exactly our point) as 59.1%

A fetus can think, can act, and can sense by 8 weeks,

All three claims are flat out false.

Aside from the thinking, you never claimed these were false. You said so what it can act. You said even a dead from can react. So you are now contradicting yourself.

react is not act. Act is a conscious activity. And sensation still need the cortical involvement. As such, even the physical connection necessary for any of these does not happen until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy when the thalamocortical tract connects with the cortex.

No, I am saying that not all humans who are born are classified as alive. Children from birth to puberty are unable to reproduce.

They are still "alive," they are not dead.

Keep in mind that one of the first parts of the anatomy to form in a fetus is the brain stem.

Actually, the notocord, not the brainstem.

The brain stem records stimulus from inside and outside of the womb and is the core, after birth of instinctive reactions throughout life.

yes, reflexes, not conscious processing.

Many scientific reports prove (I'll grab my discertations later) the fetus resdponds emotionally to the emotions of the people in their life, specifically mother and partner.

Noted at birth. Please show where any of these traits occur before the 26th week of pregnancy.

There is a corelation between a troubled relationship between mothers and fathers and the overall emotional state of a baby once it is born.

And there have been 13 weeks to establish this, after the brain's cortex actually connect to the sensory nerves and start receiving input.

The fetus constantly records emotions and sensations as the brain stem forms, and there on.

Nope. Emotions and sensation are cortical processing experiences.

At the third week after conception, a 3 layered embryo contains ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. In the third week, the ectoderm thickens and contains a groove and begins to fold its edges in such a way that it forms the neutral tube, which is the first stage in the developement of the brain, spinal cord, and the entire nervious system. At the end of the third week to the begininng of the fourth week the neutral tube closes and the brain begins to develope.

yes?

This is when memory and sensory perception dawn.

Nope.

 

[Felicity]

No answer yet steen...eh? Typical...

 

[Felicity]

1. ZYGOTE/EMBRYO/FETUS (ZEF)= TOENAIL ARGUMENT
A zygote/embryo/fetus is just a lump of cells of human origin—it’s not an “individual” human being—it’s simply human in the sense that a toenail is human—it’s human material but nothing more than the equivalent of a discarded toenail clipping.

PRO-LIFE RESPONSE:
Begs the question: What human originated the cells? A toenail can be traced to a human source...What is the source in the case of the zygote/embryo/fetus?

2. THE ZEF IS THE PRODUCT OF SPERM AND EGG WHICH IS SPERM AND EGG WHICH IS SPERM AND EGG WHICH IS SPERM AND.....ARGUMENT
The humans that made the sperm and the egg that came together and produced the zygote are the source of the cells of human origin that are known as ZEFs.

PRO-LIFE RESPONSE:
But the zygote has a unique DNA combination that is not the same as the sperm donor nor the egg donor—it is “unique” and “individual” and the point in question is not the origin of ALL human life—but rather the point of individual human existence.

3. THE ZEF = TUMOR ARGUMENT
A tumor in a human body also has unique human DNA. If we deem “unique DNA” a valid definition of individual human life—then we must allow tumors to progress without medical treatment.

PRO-LIFE RESPONSE:
Aside from tumors arising completely from a single individuals mutated cells rather than a combination of two individuals’ unique and healthy reproductive cells, tumors and ZEFs have nothing in common.....

1. Tumors invade normal tissue and destroy the functioning of that tissue or organ—ZEFs DO NOT.

2. Tumors metastasize—spreading cells to remote locations of the body. ZEFs DO NOT.

3. Tumors are genetically abnormal, tend to have extra chromosomes, large nuclei and mutate rapidly. ZEFs DO NOT.

4. Tumors are less organized and less specialized than the organs in which they arise—the cells don’t work well together. ZEFs ARE organized, complex, develop specialized systems....Just NOT like tumors at all.

5. Tumors represent a disease process--Cancer. ZEFs represent the normal healthy functioning of a sexually active and physically mature woman—It’s called Pregnancy.

6. Tumors are never “born” nor exist separately; surgery is required to remove the medical condition caused by the tumor—ZEFs are eventually born and the medical condition of pregnancy is completely resolved in approximately 9.5 months.

7. Tumors do not have consistent genetic codes that identify its “life form” as a particular organism--ZEFs DO.

A zygote is not able to be validly compared to a tumor.

4. THE ZEF = PARASITE ARGUMENT
It’s a parasite. It does not exist separate—it is attached by the umbilical cord and receives nutrients from its female host. The ZEF is dependent upon the woman and sucks resources from her body—if the woman doesn’t want to be enslaved by the non sentient, non sensate ZEF—she has the medical option of abortion.

PRO-LIFE RESPONSE:
Aside from the fact that pro choice cannot BOTH claim that the ZEF is merely “cells”—thus not an organism—AND ALSO CLAIM that the ZEF is an organism that is parasitic without demonstrating INHERENT contradictions in the premise of its argument, the embryo—which IS an organism as demonstrated above and below, IS NOT a parasite.

The mother/zygote relationship is symbiotic. The zygote resides in the environment provided by the mother and receives nutrients from the mother. Pregnancy provides hormones that have been shown to reduce the risks of some cancers—NOT TO MENTION the benefit to the species as a whole by means of the continuing of the species and ignoring SOCIAL benefits of motherhood.

The ZEF demonstrates all the necessary requirements for LIFE and it has identifiably unique and individual DNA that is of human origin—the ZEF is a whole and complete entity in and of itself EVEN WITHIN the environment it needs to sustain its life.

1) the embryo divides and grows and sustains itself for the first month--demonstrating growth and individual homeostasis and a metabolism. It has the ability to reproduce itself via twinning.
2) the embryo implants in its uterine environment and establishes a means of nourishment via the placenta--demonstrating a response to the environment and individual growth and maturation while establishing another means of metabolizing nutrients.
3) the woman's body is influenced by the action of the implantation--the embryo initiates the production of the hormone that sustains the environment—the action is initiated by the embryo implantation and exerts an influence on the mother by its presence.

 

[Felicity]

The embryo is an INDIVIDUAL, HUMAN BEING AT AN EARLY DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE. If you are pro-choice, and your justification for legal and morally acceptable abortion denies any of the above Pro-Life assertions, it is INVALID. All you have to go to is SUBJECTIVE, VALUE JUDGMENTS that rely on a particular FUNCTION as the defining “REASON” life is protected. Some pro-choice admit to this and accept the responsibility for their value judgment and though this pro-lifer believes they are making an immoral value judgment, at least they have the integrity to admit that the position is SUBJECTIVE and cannot be ABSOLUTELY defined based on biological criteria ALONE.



Steen—you have not done this. You insist that you rely on “science” rather than your own subjective value system. That is FALSE. You define an individual human life as one that has reached the stage of separation from the mother when the umbilical cord is cut and refuse to acknowledge a human individual that resides in the womb claiming somehow that science backs this position. Admit that you rely on a particular FUNCTIONALITY to determine what is “a” human and tell us....what is that function?


You prop yourself up as an expert based on your medical training and we who do not claim to be doctors are supposed to accept your statements. Doctors are the servants of their patients and any GOOD doctor should be able to explain ANY complex condition or medical reasoning to average Joe-Schmo so that he can comprehend the issues involved. Is your lack of ability to explain an admission that you are not a "good" doctor? I doubt you'll admit to that.

However--I accept you at your word that you are a doctor—did you not take an oath to protect life? We, as possible potential patients under your care, have a RIGHT to know what those individuals who may hold our lives or the lives of our loved ones in their hands and swear to protect, consider “life.” If you use your profession as a means of validating your position (which you DO)--you OWE all of us an explanation of your position.

You FAIL your profession by your evasion.


STEEN—WHAT FUNCTION VALIDATES THE PROTECTION OF THE LIFE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AT ANY PARTICULAR STAGE OF THE HUMAN LIFE CYCLE?

And if you believe this is not the "precise" question that you think gets to the issue. GIVE US THE PROPER QUESTION & EXPLAIN IT.