Abortion

[coffee4u]

I've already explained several times why you're wrong.

And again, there is no God in your bio either, so anything you say is merely your opinion.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But you are infringing on a person's right, the baby's rights to its life.

A fetus isn't a person. It has no rights. That's the point. How is a entity that has no consciousness a person?

 

[coffee4u]

A fetus isn't a person. It has no rights. That's the point. How is a entity that has no consciousness a person?

Which is back to the original argument. We say it is a person and that the unborn should have the same rights as anybody else.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Which is back to the original argument. We say it is a person and that the unborn should have the same rights as anybody else.

And I say my religious freedom entitles me to dismiss your religious position.

 

[NxNW]

And again, there is no God in your bio either, so anything you say is merely your opinion.

I was discussing fact, not opinion. You're welcome to refute my argument anytime.

 

[NxNW]

We say it is a person and that the unborn should have the same rights as anybody else.

Nobody else has the right to attach itself to another person without permission.

 

[Silmarien]

I've already made that claim and defended it. When do the lives of identical twins and triplets begin? It can't be at conception, because human beings are distinct and quantifiable. At conception, you can't differentiate between a zygote that will result in one birth vs twins vs triplets. The lack of quantifiability at conception means means you don't have human being(s) at that moment.

Once you establish that much, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. The best place to draw the line for me is when you have uniquely-human brain activity, which is around 5 months. Note that muscular electrical activity (which starts earlier) does not count.

My concern with this is what it might mean for medical ethics when dealing with people who are in a persistent vegetative state. Does their brain dysfunction make them sub-human? Is it moral to harvest their organs to save the lives of people who are considered more human?

I'm on neither side (morally opposed, legally nuanced), but I'm troubled by the push to dehumanize the unborn. If there's a point aside from conception (or the splitting of a fertilized egg) at which one can become a person, then is there also a point aside from death at which one can cease to be a person? One would also have to address the issue of whether genetic experimentation on pre-humans who will one day become humans is permissible.

 

[NxNW]

My concern with this is what it might mean for medical ethics when dealing with people who are in a persistent vegetative state. Does their brain dysfunction make them sub-human?

Of course not; they've been born.

 

[Silmarien]

Of course not; they've been born.

I don't see why birth would be a magical moment at which one's humanity or lack thereof is suddenly no longer subject to change.

You might have missed my edit, but there's also the issue of genetic experimentation on the pre-human. Is that non-consensual human experimentation or is it something different?

 

[Schlauch Mann]

I've already made that claim and defended it. When do the lives of identical twins and triplets begin? It can't be at conception, because human beings are distinct and quantifiable. At conception, you can't differentiate between a zygote that will result in one birth vs twins vs triplets. The lack of quantifiability at conception means means you don't have human being(s) at that moment.

"We can't tell how many human beings there are; therefore, it's zero."

Lmao, sure, makes perfect sense.

 

[NxNW]

I don't see why birth would be a magical moment at which one's humanity or lack thereof is suddenly no longer subject to change.

It's in the Constitution that one gains citizenship at birth. There is no such thing as an unborn American. Birth is a pretty obvious dividing line, plus it's a few months after advanced brain function starts to happen, so it's safe to say one is a human being after one is born.

You might have missed my edit, but there's also the issue of genetic experimentation on the pre-human. Is that non-consensual human experimentation or is it something different?

I'm not an expert on that subject, so I'll pass.

 

[NxNW]

"We can't tell how many human beings there are; therefore, it's zero."

Lmao, sure, makes perfect sense.

Actually it does. If you had humans, you could count them.

 

[coffee4u]

And I say my religious freedom entitles me to dismiss your religious position.

And the pro-life people who are not religous?

Secular pro-life
https://www.secularprolife.org/
here is what they say on their about page
"SPL seeks to increase the inclusiveness of the overall pro-life movement by creating space for pro-life atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other secularists."

 

[coffee4u]

It's in the Constitution that one gains citizenship at birth. There is no such thing as an unborn American. Birth is a pretty obvious dividing line, plus it's a few months after advanced brain function starts to happen, so it's safe to say one is a human being after one is born.

I'm not an expert on that subject, so I'll pass.

We are not all Americans.

 

[NxNW]

We are not all American's.

I don't speak for other countries' legislation. And also, that apostrophe is painful.

 

[Silmarien]

It's in the Constitution that one gains citizenship at birth. There is no such thing as an unborn American. Birth is a pretty obvious dividing line, plus it's a few months after advanced brain function starts to happen, so it's safe to say one is a human being after one is born.

Personhood and citizenship are not synonymous. Mexicans are not American citizens, but they are still human beings.

Beyond that, there's no logical connection between brain function and birth. If sufficient brain function is what makes someone human, then the key there is brain function, not birth. If the brain function is at some point not sufficient after birth, then you don't have a human anymore.

I'm not an expert on that subject, so I'll pass.

It's a pretty important subject, given the long, ugly history we have of trying to define who is and isn't properly human. I think it's better by far to focus on the autonomy issue than taking a page out of the dehumanization playbook.

 

[coffee4u]

I don't speak for other countries' legislation. And also, that apostrophe is painful.

I will give you the the point on the apostrophe.

 

[coffee4u]

Nobody else has the right to attach itself to another person without permission.

But didn't you say the fertilized egg wasn't a person? If it's not a person yet in your view, it isn't a 'nobody' who can violate someone else's rights. either.

 

[Schlauch Mann]

Actually it does. If you had humans, you could count them.

Let's seal a bunch of people in a room with no windows. You can't see into the room. Since you have no way of counting them, must be ok, then, to blow up the room. Hey, can't count them, blow that sucker! Can't be any people in there since we can't count them.

Awesome argument there!

 

[NxNW]

But didn't you say the fertilized egg wasn't a person? If it's not a person yet in your view, it isn't a 'nobody' who can violate someone else's rights. either.

It sounds like we're in agreement.