Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Coyote]

Since the word person is defined as "a human being" and the laws that relate to killing protect persons which are human beings without qualification, then animals which are non human beings are not protected. You accused me of playing semantics a while back. It turned out to be you who was playing, but this is your most blatant example yet.

No, I'm not playing with semantics in the least. You are using definitions and laws, arbitrarily set by people - subject to change at any time - as the final authority on what does and what does not constitute a living being with it's own rights - in other words a person.

You hold the concept that all persons are human beings, and all human beings are persons.

What gives those laws any kind of authority? What grants these rights that the laws uphold? Are you saying life and death decisions are based upon arbitrary human whims?

 

[Coyote]

And exactly how do you reach that conclusion (that all human beings are not persons) if you must use reasoning that you would find acceptable if it were your life on the line?

When you were a newborn, you also woud not have cared what logic was used against you but you did enjoy the protection of the law.

All human beings are not persons because the definition of a person is more than just a biological entity - it includes some form of conciousness, environmental awareness.

Newborns have always enjoyed the protection of the law because law has traditionally held that once a baby is born, it is a person - not because it's a human.

The problem with using the kind of logic that I would use if my life were on the line is that if my life were on the line, I naturally would not want to end it. There is absolutely no logic I could use to justify it. But then - neither would a dog want to lose it's life, or a dolphin. No living being would.

 

[palerider]

No, I'm not playing with semantics in the least. You are using definitions and laws, arbitrarily set by people - subject to change at any time - as the final authority on what does and what does not constitute a living being with it's own rights - in other words a person.

The law is all we have. At present, in the US the lives of all human beings are protected unless law specifically enumerates the conditions upon which that right may be denied. No law specifically enumerates such conditions for unborns.

You hold the concept that all persons are human beings, and all human beings are persons.

The only qualification that the law makes for organic beings to be persons is that they be human beings. Unborns at any stage of development are undeniably human beings.

Thus far, you have faild to show that all human beings are not persons. You admit that "personhood" is undefinable and that we don't know exactly when it begins. Since you, nor anyone else, can say when personhood begins, exactly how do you justify killing those which you can't possibly know are persons or not?

Do you believe it is morally and legally justifiable to set off an explosive charge in a mine based on the argument that you didn't know whether or not anyone was in the mine? Do you believe it is morally and legally justifiable to burn a house down based on the argument that you just didn't know whether or not someone was in there?

What gives those laws any kind of authority? What grants these rights that the laws uphold? Are you saying life and death decisions are based upon arbitrary human whims?

So now you are arguing that we shoud simply disregard the law? Since you can't logically argue around it, your answer is to disregard it?

All human beings are not persons because the definition of a person is more than just a biological entity - it includes some form of conciousness, environmental awareness.

You say that, but you can't prove it. Nor can you identify when it happens. Nor does the law agree with you since no qualification is put on being a person beyond being a human being (or a certain type of corporate entitity)

Newborns have always enjoyed the protection of the law because law has traditionally held that once a baby is born, it is a person - not because it's a human.

Traditionally, we weren't exactly sure what was going on inside and were only sure once the child was born. "Traditionally" we believed all sorts of things that turned out not to be true. Harking to tradition is fine so long as new knowledge has not superceeded it, but once we know that what we thought we knew is wrong, it is time to disregard the old knowledge and adopt the new.

"Traditionally" we believed that blacks were not human beings and when the body of evidence became undeinable, those who still wished to exploit them argued that they were inferior human beings. Then their ability to learn was called into question and the list of objections to simply admitting that the only difference between them and whites was pigment went on and on and still some argue a more profound difference even in the face of a very large body of evidence to the contrary.

Your argument is no different. First was the argument that the were not human beings, then that they were partial human beings, then that they were only partially alive, then that they were not persons. Here, you find that you can't effectively argue around the law so you suggest that the law itself is pointless.

The problem with using the kind of logic that I would use if my life were on the line is that if my life were on the line, I naturally would not want to end it. There is absolutely no logic I could use to justify it. But then - neither would a dog want to lose it's life, or a dolphin. No living being would.

Why not answer the question honestly. Why not simply say that you can't formulate an argument for the killing of unborns that you would find acceptable if it were your life that was to be ended.

You claimed that there is absolutely no logic that you could use to justify ending your own life. Is that really true? Do you believe that you have the right kill others at will and that one would not be justified in killing you if you were attacking them with the intent to kill them? Do you believe that another would not be justified in killing you if your actions were genuinely threatening their life even if you had no intention of causing them harm?

 

[9sublime]

Palerider, I'll admit it. The absoloute logic to me, indicates that a foetus should not be killed. But this is about something deeper than applying rules and laws, and it doesn't have to follow the same kind of logic.

 

[Coyote]

Why not answer the question honestly. Why not simply say that you can't formulate an argument for the killing of unborns that you would find acceptable if it were your life that was to be ended.

You are right.

But by your logic, I maintain - I have no right to kill any sentient being because there is nothing but an arbritrary law behind this that humans for some bizzarre reason, deserve life above all other creatures. I also agree with 9Sublime - this is not simply a matter of law and logic.

There is no logical reason that human life should be held above that of any other creature - the only reason you can give is a human-made, culturally bound, and arbritrary legal definition and a statement that certain rights are inherent. They carry no real force because they are transient. When this culture dies, they die with them. All your logic - while correct, lies on weak foundation.

You claimed that there is absolutely no logic that you could use to justify ending your own life. Is that really true? Do you believe that you have the right kill others at will and that one would not be justified in killing you if you were attacking them with the intent to kill them? Do you believe that another would not be justified in killing you if your actions were genuinely threatening their life even if you had no intention of causing them harm?

You've got me there - I did not carry the logic through beyond the direct topic.

To kill in self defense is justifiable.

Do we have the right to kill any sentient being that is not harming us? After all, there is nothing special about human life but an arbritrary culture-specific law. Are you saying all laws, regardless - should be obeyed? All are equal weight?

 

[palerider]

Palerider, I'll admit it. The absoloute logic to me, indicates that a foetus should not be killed. But this is about something deeper than applying rules and laws, and it doesn't have to follow the same kind of logic.

Why not? Is it because you would have to admit that you have been wrong and accept that you actually favored killing innocent human beings? Or is it that you are willing, in order to hold your position, that you are willing to dispose of logic?

 

[Coyote]

It's because the logic ultimately falls back on:

All persons are human therefore all humans are persons.

 

[palerider]

You are right.

Thank you.

But by your logic, I maintain - I have no right to kill any sentient being because there is nothing but an arbritrary law behind this that humans for some bizzarre reason, deserve life above all other creatures. I also agree with 9Sublime - this is not simply a matter of law and logic.

You seem to be saying, then, that "persons" also have no more right to live than any other being. In which case, you have, by your own reasoning, erased any differentiation between human beings and persons.

There is no logical reason that human life should be held above that of any other creature - the only reason you can give is a human-made, culturally bound, and arbritrary legal definition and a statement that certain rights are inherent. They carry no real force because they are transient. When this culture dies, they die with them. All your logic - while correct, lies on weak foundation.

And the only separation that you have offered between human beings, which you claim are no different than animals, and persons, which you claim deserve the protection of the law is even more arbitrary and ethereal than the law. And you claim that my position rests on a weak foundation? The entire foundation for your postion is unknowable, untestable, and unprovable. How much more weak could a position be?

You've got me there - I did not carry the logic through beyond the direct topic.

It isn't logic until it has been followed to its end.

Do we have the right to kill any sentient being that is not harming us? After all, there is nothing special about human life but an arbritrary culture-specific law. Are you saying all laws, regardless - should be obeyed? All are equal weight?

Again, you seem to be arguing that you no longer see a difference between human beings and persons. Are you saying that your life is no more valuable than any unborn's? If so, how do you square that with your admission that you wouldn't want to give up your life with your position that it is no big deal to kill an unborn?


Out of curiosity; can you state with any confidence when you were concieved give or take a month or two?

 

[palerider]

It's because the logic ultimately falls back on:

All persons are human therefore all humans are persons.

You seem to have abandoned the personhood argument.

 

[9sublime]

Here is my view Palerider:

A mother has experienced life, has emotion, has problems, has the everday crap throwin at you in the world that this child knows nothing about. This child has no sense of itself, its existence, its mortality, to be honest any pain it does feel (silent scream etc.) is purely instinctual.

Yes, this child should be allowed to live, because potentially it can be a wonderful person, and I think abortions should be discouraged. However,
I think it is the mothers right to choose. The only thing I dislike about abortion is the potential of that child, but I should probably not use a condom either eh?

 

[palerider]

Here is my view Palerider:

A mother has experienced life, has emotion, has problems, has the everday crap throwin at you in the world that this child knows nothing about. This child has no sense of itself, its existence, its mortality, to be honest any pain it does feel (silent scream etc.) is purely instinctual.

Yes, this child should be allowed to live, because potentially it can be a wonderful person, and I think abortions should be discouraged. However,
I think it is the mothers right to choose. The only thing I dislike about abortion is the potential of that child, but I should probably not use a condom either eh?

The subject at hand is embryonic stem cell research. Disregard all of the human problems that you say the mother might have and address the deliberate creation of a human being that is to be killed for scientific research.

And why should you not use a condom? Your sperm, by itself, is of no more consequence than your toenail clippings. True, they represent potential life, but until one of them successfully fertilizes an egg, potential is all they represent. Once fertilization is complete, however, that potential has been realized.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

However, I think it is the mothers right to choose.

This is what I don't get. Why is it the mother's right to chose? It's not her body. It's the baby's body.

 

[9sublime]

Well its the sperms right to choose too, because it could have been fertilised had you given it the choice on wether or not it wanted to.

And nobodys asked a foetus if it wants to live, because it cant respond and doesnt understand the concept.

And it is the mothers body, because the foetus is incapable of suriving without it.

 

[Coyote]

Thank you.

You seem to be saying, then, that "persons" also have no more right to live than any other being. In which case, you have, by your own reasoning, erased any differentiation between human beings and persons.

No...I'm saying the same thing I have always said - I don't except your definition of "person"

And the only separation that you have offered between human beings, which you claim are no different than animals, and persons, which you claim deserve the protection of the law is even more arbitrary and ethereal than the law.

It's no less arbritary then the law - this is wholey evident in how often law changes and how it varies from culture to culture. The same "law" that grants you life will turn around and execute you for sodomy.

What authority does it have beyond the here and now? None. Without anything higher or more fundamental to back it - it is nothing more then an arbritrary construct.

And you claim that my position rests on a weak foundation? The entire foundation for your postion is unknowable, untestable, and unprovable. How much more weak could a position be?

Yes, I do. Your foundation is a mathmatical exersize in logic. But logic can, by itself come up with some pretty weird results. The end result in yours is that there is nothing fundamentally better in human beings to make them worth preserving over any other sentient creature. Human life is worth preserving at any stage simply because "I say so".

It isn't logic until it has been followed to its end.

You've lost me on that end of it I'm afraid....

Again, you seem to be arguing that you no longer see a difference between human beings and persons. Are you saying that your life is no more valuable than any unborn's? If so, how do you square that with your admission that you wouldn't want to give up your life with your position that it is no big deal to kill an unborn?

No. I do see a difference. What I am pointing out is that by following and accepting your logic - that difference is gone. I can't logically refute the highly constrained path you've outlined, yet I don't except your logic as truth. You've avoided answering most of my questions in this process. Let me add - I've never said it's "no big deal", not once. But by your logic - there is nothing fundamentally better about a human then about any other sentient creature except another human's say-so.

Out of curiosity; can you state with any confidence when you were concieved give or take a month or two?

Yes.

 

[DrWho]

Well its the sperms right to choose too, because it could have been fertilised had you given it the choice on wether or not it wanted to.

And nobodys asked a foetus if it wants to live, because it cant respond and doesnt understand the concept.

And it is the mothers body, because the foetus is incapable of suriving without it.

A newborn is incapable of surviving without care too.

And no it is not the mother's body. It is a separate body within the mother's body. The baby has a unique set of DNA and might even be of a completely different gender than the mother. Are you suggesting that every mother who is carrying a late term male child has a penis as a part of her body?