US Becoming Pro-Life

[Dr.Who]

If you believe that a human is a body only, then you have a point. If you believe in the spiritual part of humanity, then the dead body is just an empty shell.

Speaking from a legal point of view only I would have to say that the state definition of human cannot appeal to the existence of the soul. Historically the definition of person just meant human and it was obvious who a human was.

In law it has become confused since many people are trying to define a person as not a person when they have not yet had the experience of passing through the birth canal.

Beyond the law various religions have often said that ensoulment takes place after conception but before birth. do you want state laws made on the basis of religious concepts?

Those dead empty shells though are still biologically human and we even call them by name.

 

[PLC1]

There is but one electron separating lead from gold. You're claiming the only real separation of us from primates is spritual, which is nothing more than your unprovable opinion. Science can prove there is a difference between primates and humans through DNA the same way it can differentiate between lead and gold.

The difference between lead and gold is based on the number of protons and neutrons, not electrons, but that doesn't really matter.

Science can prove that there is a difference between humans and other primates based on the human mind, as well as on DNA.

Yes you are, and its all based on the theological and spiritual realm, outside our scientific capability to verify or disprove. You are arguing faith and belief, I am not.

Yes, that's correct. There is no way to prove one way or the other anything I've said about the human soul.

It should be somewhat easier to demonstrate that an adult human is sentient, while a day old zygote is not, however.

When an individual becomes a sentient being may be more difficult to prove, however.

Its not my contention that there isn't a spiritual aspect to humans but the laws about abortion are not based on our spiritual beliefs. They are based on biological understandings. The "Viability" of an embryo is not a spiritual question, its one of biology. The health of a woman is not a spiritual question, its biological.

OK, fair enough. Let's leave the spiritual side of humanity to religion and focus on science. Laws are not, of course, based on science any more than they are on religion, but nevertheless, science is not going to be able to show that a day old zygote is not a thinking being. If you don't want to discuss when the soul enters the body, let's talk about when the mind begins to function.

And when an individual is created, its alive.

But, when is an individual created? Is creation finished when the sperm meets the egg, or is there more work still to do?

This is your philispohical opinion which you cannot prove with empirical evidence.

Yes, yes it is. Is your philosophical opinion different, or do you believe that life ends when the body dies?

Many people do believe this, but I didn't think you did.

But how do you KNOW when the spirit leaves the body? If its a requirement to know when an embryo gains its spirit and becomes human, then it follows you must also know when the spirit leaves in order to determine when a human being is nothing but a soulless body.

We don't know. Maybe it is better to say that life ends when the brain no longer functions, when that EEG is flat.

If we are going to argue that life, or at least earthly life, ends when the heart stops beating, then it follows that it begins when the heart begins, doesn't it?

But, a beating heart is just another biological function, and has nothing to do with the human mind.

So you're saying here that American servicemen (and women) are abusive, incompetent and corrupt... there are 5 levels of interrogation, and several levels of sceenings, that take place before anyone is subjected to "harsh interrogation" techniques.

Declaring they "may or may not" have been simply sold to our troops impies our troops are both incompetent in their screening and corrupt in their continued detention and apprehension of suspects. To further declare that we "torture" (use harsh interrogation tactics) on those who are 'undeserving of the practice' is also an accusation of incompetence for those charged with interrogations, as well as screenings, and also a charge of sadism or abusive behavior.

I'm saying that not everyone who has been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" or who has been locked up without charges for years is really a terrorist.

Of course, that's a whole different thread.

Again... Only to you and those who already hate Cheney and agree with your position that waterboarding is torture.

I don't think you have to hate Cheney to hate torture.

You are simply biased. Nothing wrong with being biased so long as you admit it... but for you to deny you have that bias, and pretend you're somehow unbiased, is what I find intellectually dishonest.

Of course, I'm biased. Aren't you?

 

[GenSeneca]

The difference between lead and gold is based on the number of protons and neutrons, not electrons, but that doesn't really matter.

It is protons, not nuetrons or electrons... you still understood the analogy.

Science can prove that there is a difference between humans and other primates based on the human mind, as well as on DNA.

How about a primates zygote vs a human zygote?

Yes, that's correct. There is no way to prove one way or the other anything I've said about the human soul.

Then why do you feel its necessary for people to answer your unanswerable questions when discussing abortion?

It should be somewhat easier to demonstrate that an adult human is sentient, while a day old zygote is not, however.

Even a non-sentient human being is a human being. Both are individuals.

When an individual becomes a sentient being may be more difficult to prove, however.

And to me its irrelevant. I am not advocating sentient beings rights but Individual Rights that extend to all humans.

OK, fair enough. Let's leave the spiritual side of humanity to religion and focus on science.

From the moment of conception:
1. The fertilized egg is alive.
2. Human DNA is present in the fertilized egg.
3. That DNA is unique to both parents and therefore an individual.
From the moment of conception a living individual human is created.

On scientific grounds, what of the above can you dispute as inaccurate?

If you don't want to discuss when the soul enters the body, let's talk about when the mind begins to function.

I find that as equally irrelevant as when the soul enters the body... Individual Rights belong to individuals and whether or not we have souls, are sentient, or we have died, we are still individuals.

But, when is an individual created? .

At the point of conception, a living human individual is created.

Is creation finished when the sperm meets the egg, or is there more work still to do?

I don't understand what you're getting at with this question... Puberty, for instance, takes place long after birth and our bodies change in dramatic ways. Are you suggesting that because there is "more work still to do" that individuals should not receive individual rights?

Yes, yes it is. Is your philosophical opinion different, or do you believe that life ends when the body dies?

When I believe life ends is irrelevant because I'm not arguing that we are no longer individuals when we die. From the monent of conception, we are individuals... We cease to be individuals once we no longer have DNA, either through cremation or decomposition, but either way, long after we're dead.

You don't want to give an individual his individual rights until you know for certain he is a sentient being... does that mean you believe once the individual is no longer sentient, or no longer living, that the individual has no rights?

Even once we die, we retain individual rights. There are laws against abusing, disturbing and mutilating a corpse, laws against necrophilia and other laws to protect an individual after death... The fact that grave robbery is illegal is a recognition that even though dead, individuals still have a right to their property.

We don't know. Maybe it is better to say that life ends when the brain no longer functions, when that EEG is flat.

The point of my asking you when life ended was based on the fact that you don't want to recognize an individuals rights until they are both living and sentient but you're not suggesting we have no rights after death... when we are neither living nor sentient.

If we are going to argue that life, or at least earthly life, ends when the heart stops beating, then it follows that it begins when the heart begins, doesn't it?

Is that when our rights as individuals also end?

 

[PLC1]

It is protons, not nuetrons or electrons... you still understood the analogy.


How about a primates zygote vs a human zygote?


Then why do you feel its necessary for people to answer your unanswerable questions when discussing abortion?


Even a non-sentient human being is a human being. Both are individuals.


And to me its irrelevant. I am not advocating sentient beings rights but Individual Rights that extend to all humans.


From the moment of conception:
1. The fertilized egg is alive.
2. Human DNA is present in the fertilized egg.
3. That DNA is unique to both parents and therefore an individual.
From the moment of conception a living individual human is created.

On scientific grounds, what of the above can you dispute as inaccurate?


I find that as equally irrelevant as when the soul enters the body... Individual Rights belong to individuals and whether or not we have souls, are sentient, or we have died, we are still individuals.


At the point of conception, a living human individual is created.


I don't understand what you're getting at with this question... Puberty, for instance, takes place long after birth and our bodies change in dramatic ways. Are you suggesting that because there is "more work still to do" that individuals should not receive individual rights?


When I believe life ends is irrelevant because I'm not arguing that we are no longer individuals when we die. From the monent of conception, we are individuals... We cease to be individuals once we no longer have DNA, either through cremation or decomposition, but either way, long after we're dead.

You don't want to give an individual his individual rights until you know for certain he is a sentient being... does that mean you believe once the individual is no longer sentient, or no longer living, that the individual has no rights?

Even once we die, we retain individual rights. There are laws against abusing, disturbing and mutilating a corpse, laws against necrophilia and other laws to protect an individual after death... The fact that grave robbery is illegal is a recognition that even though dead, individuals still have a right to their property.


The point of my asking you when life ended was based on the fact that you don't want to recognize an individuals rights until they are both living and sentient but you're not suggesting we have no rights after death... when we are neither living nor sentient.


Is that when our rights as individuals also end?

I think our argument boils down to biology vs a whole entity. My argument is that a human is more than just DNA, so life on Earth begins not when the DNA is complete, but when the mind (since you object to my reference to the unproven soul) begins to function. Your position is that life begins when the DNA is complete, i.e. conception.

The question of when "rights" begins is related, but not the same. Rights is a legal term, and the question of when they start is pretty fuzzy from a legal point of view.

How is it, for example, that a woman can abort a fetus in the first trimester for whatever reason and with no consequences other than whatever guilt she may feel, yet another person ending the pregnancy is guilty of manslaughter or murder? How is it that a killer of a pregnant woman is guilty of a double homicide, unless the fetus is a second human?

If you believe that biology determines humanity, that is to say, that life begins at conception, then it follows that any human at any stage of life should have the same rights. Our laws reflect that belief in some ways, but not in others, which is why I say the law is fuzzy on the issue of when life begins.

If you believe that human intelligence, or a human soul, determines humanity, then the question remains: When does human life begin?

I really don't think either of us can prove our point, really. It is an issue that has been and will be argued for a great many years yet, and with no firm conclusion, probably ever.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you believe that biology determines humanity, that is to say, that life begins at conception, then it follows that any human at any stage of life should have the same rights.

Its not my opinion, I state as empirical fact that biology determines individuality, not humanity. This is why I can state with certainty that an individual is created at conception and that individual remains an individual whether or not they are sentient, much less alive.

I do agree with your conclusion that individuals at any stage of life should have the same rights... As it is now, dead individuals have more rights than living, unborn individuals. Even if we don't extend to the unborn the full rights of individuals outside the womb, extending to them the same protections we afford our deceased would be a good start.

I really don't think either of us can prove our point, really.

On scientific grounds, can you disprove any of the following?

From the moment of conception:
1. A fertilized egg is alive.
2. Human DNA is present in the fertilized egg.
3. That DNA is unique to both parents and therefore an individual.
From the moment of conception a living individual with human DNA is created.

It is an issue that has been and will be argued for a great many years yet, and with no firm conclusion, probably ever.

Humanity is a concept, just as torture is a concept, and both are subjective terms that have different meanings to different individuals. We may all disagree on what is and isn't torture, what does and doesn't qualify as humanity, but we can all agree that whether alive or dead, born or unborn, sentient or brain dead, we are all individuals.

 

[samsara15]

We are parasites in our mother's wombs, until the day we are born.

 

[GenSeneca]

We are parasites in our mother's wombs, until the day we are born.

You continue to be a parasite until you can forage (become self sustaining) and take care of yourself (food, clothes, shelter etc.)... So what's your point?

Furthermore... Those who live on welfare and unemployment, are parasites on the productive members of society.

 

[top gun]

You continue to be a parasite until you can forage (become self sustaining) and take care of yourself (food, clothes, shelter etc.)... So what's your point?

Furthermore... Those who live on welfare and unemployment, are parasites on the productive members of society.

You miss the important difference.

In only one case is one particular person burdened with the sickness, pain and in some cases possible death.

Once someone is a born "person" they can then survive on their own without using someone else's personal body for blood flow & nourishment.

Anybody not just one sentenced person can care for children AFTER they are born and they do so without having to turn over custody of their own personal internal body parts.

For these important differences & reasons this decision is one that, not me, nor you, nor the government should make... it's up to the woman actually involved.

 

[GenSeneca]

In only one case is one particular person burdened with the sickness, pain and in some cases possible death.

I have said there should be exceptions for rape, incest and if its going to kill the mother.

...it's up to the woman actually involved.

So you think a woman should be allowed to abort her child at any point between conception and birth, whether its viable or not, whether its one week or nine months?

 

[PLC1]

Its not my opinion, I state as empirical fact that biology determines individuality, not humanity. This is why I can state with certainty that an individual is created at conception and that individual remains an individual whether or not they are sentient, much less alive.

It is your opinion that biology determines individuality. It is mine that there is more to an individual human being than DNA.

I do agree with your conclusion that individuals at any stage of life should have the same rights... As it is now, dead individuals have more rights than living, unborn individuals. Even if we don't extend to the unborn the full rights of individuals outside the womb, extending to them the same protections we afford our deceased would be a good start.

The deceased have rights? The deceased are buried, or at least their bodies are. Their souls are in gods hands. What rights they have, we don't really know.

On scientific grounds, can you disprove any of the following?

From the moment of conception:
1. A fertilized egg is alive.

That depends on your definition of alive. Is a bacterium alive? Sure, in a biological sense, it is. Is it a sentient being? Certainly not.

2. Human DNA is present in the fertilized egg.
3. That DNA is unique to both parents and therefore an individual.
From the moment of conception a living individual with human DNA is created.

No, the beginning of a human body is created. The DNA is only a part of what we are as individual human beings.

Humanity is a concept, just as torture is a concept, and both are subjective terms that have different meanings to different individuals. We may all disagree on what is and isn't torture, what does and doesn't qualify as humanity, but we can all agree that whether alive or dead, born or unborn, sentient or brain dead, we are all individuals.

OK, I think we agree on that.

Here's the part of the argument about life beginning at conception that I don't understand:

How is it that the religious types, the very ones who say that they believe in an immortal soul, are the ones who tend to argue that life begins at conception, while it is the non religious, the ones who would argue that a life ends when the body dies, that say that life begins at birth, or sometime during fetal development?

It seems to me that if you believe that an abortion means that an intelligent being has been denied a chance at existence, then abortion is murder, and life really begins at conception. If you believe that an abortion means that the soul might have to wait for another body to occupy, then it is not such a big deal.

It would seem to me that the atheist would be the one arguing that a human is simply a biological entity, and that, therefore, life begins at conception.

And yet, it seems to be the opposite way, doesn't it?

 

[top gun]

I have said there should be exceptions for rape, incest and if its going to kill the mother.

And I must to say I'm very proud of you for that fact.
Seriously I really do respect that.

The thing I try to educate everyone on though is to understand only the woman knows if she's been a victim or rape or incest (other than the bad actor himself and it's safe to presume he's not coming forward).

That being the case... when a woman decides she needs an abortion all we're setting up is a big lying game if abortion is only valid under those circumstances.

It's much better left as is.

So you think a woman should be allowed to abort her child at any point between conception and birth, whether its viable or not, whether its one week or nine months?

No... I think viability is the correct line to draw. That gives a person plenty long enough time to make their decision. The only really relevant exception I see after that is a doctors decision that claims possible loss of life to the mother or some major birth defect where the doctor & patient are in agreement.

 

[GenSeneca]

It is your opinion that biology determines individuality.

Sorry but its fact that biology determines whether or not you are an individual. If we all had the exact same DNA, we'd be clones, not individuals. We could still have individual personalities (social, philosophical and theological individuality) but biologically, we'd be identical.

The deceased have rights? What rights they have, we don't really know.

We don't know? Here's just one example:

Woman charged with corpse abuse
May 15, 2009 6:00 AM
SEABROOK — A local resident on bail for allegedly selling cocaine is facing charges claiming she moved a dead body from her bathroom floor to the stairwell of her apartment building.

Danielle Reader, 26, of 24 Batchelder Road, Building 118, Apt. C3, pleaded not guilty Wednesday in Hampton District Court to the misdemeanor charge of abuse of a corpse.

Corpses are protected by law, they retain some rights as individuals even after death.

That depends on your definition of alive.

That depends on the definition of "is".... We've been through this before already and you said you would leave the unprovable, philosophical and theological arguments at the door and focus solely on the scientifically provable aspects of the discussion... Can we do that now?

No, the beginning of a human body is created. The DNA is only a part of what we are as individual human beings.

DNA, without which you would not exist and could not grow. Without your DNA being different from everyone elses, you would not be an individual but a clone. You continally add this layer of spirituality... I think you do it because there is no answer to those unknown question and its comforting for you to think there are no answers to tough questions... you refuse to stay focused on what is known, and knowable, regarding these difficult topics.

It would seem to me that the atheist would be the one arguing that a human is simply a biological entity, and that, therefore, life begins at conception.

I don't call myself an Atheist but that is basically my position. However I don't believe we're "simply" biological entities but its only the biological aspects of our existance that can be scientifically quantified and empirically proven... We cannot quantify, much less prove with any level of certainty, the other aspects of being human, e.g. existence of the soul.

The spiritual, theological and social aspects are all subjective to the individual pondering them and have no definitive answers, its only those with faith who can look at the unprovable and claim that they know for sure.

If I had to guess based on our discussion, I'd say you were Agnostic... You refuse to deal in absolutes and like to stay safely in the gray areas saying that we'll never know because no one can answer the unanswerable questions you insist on adding to the answerable ones.

 

[GenSeneca]

That being the case... when a woman decides she needs an abortion all we're setting up is a big lying game if abortion is only valid under those circumstances.

I do understand that... That's why I don't say we need to ban abortion but look for other ways to eliminate the 95% who use it as birth control.

No... I think viability is the correct line to draw.

But that's not what you said before...

Anybody not just one sentenced person can care for children AFTER they are born and they do so without having to turn over custody of their own personal internal body parts.

For these important differences & reasons this decision is one that, not me, nor you, nor the government should make... it's up to the woman actually involved.

If you are drawing the line at "viability" then you are not leaving the decision 'up to the woman actually involved'... If you are drawing the line at "viability" then you are taking away the womans decision past the point of viability and, through the power of the state, forcing her to carry the child to term.

-----

You Progressives claim you don't want to ban guns, so you come up "common sense legislation" that severely limits legal owners, sellers and manufacturers... Perhaps we need to have the same type of "common sense legislation" to severely limit the practice of abortion: Jack up taxes on the patients and doctors, force them to get permits before they can have abortions, eliminate all subsidies and tax breaks to companies that perform abortions, regulate and restrict the production and sales of equipment used to perform abortion... There really is no limit to the creative statists ability to ban things without actually enacting a ban.

 

[Dr.Who]

If you are drawing the line at "viability" then you are not leaving the decision 'up to the woman actually involved'... If you are drawing the line at "viability" then you are taking away the womans decision past the point of viability and, through the power of the state, forcing her to carry the child to term.

So an argument based on viability isn't really pro-choice at all. All it really does is change the line at which the women loses her choice.

 

[GenSeneca]

So an argument based on viability isn't really pro-choice at all. All it really does is change the line at which the women loses her choice.

Precisely... When they accuse you of imposing your will on the woman, they are doing the exact same thing by moving the goal post by which its measured.