When does a Homo sapiens become a Homo sapiens?

[quilbilly]

How do you know there is such thing as a soul?

Personally I don't but I think CF rules have us respecting Christian beliefs here
I only know one place in the bible where it says we become a living soul

 

[Dave Ellis]

Personally I don't but I think CF rules have us respecting Christian beliefs here
I only know one place in the bible where it says we become a living soul

I'm not disrespecting Christian beliefs, I'm just asking they back them up As a non-believer, it would go a long way towards convincing me they are correct.

 

[quilbilly]

I'm not disrespecting Christian beliefs, I'm just asking they back them up As a non-believer, it would go a long way towards convincing me they are correct.

How about it? Any Believer out there willing to lay the smackdown on us?

 

[Belk]

I think the OP already conceded that they had a misunderstanding of the term being used. I think at this point you guys are safe as it looks like your just talking amongst yourselves.

 

[Tom White]

I think the OP already conceded that they had a misunderstanding of the term being used. I think at this point you guys are safe as it looks like your just talking amongst yourselves.

Yeah.

I assumed that "human" = "Homo sapiens", which is one definition but there are additional definitions I should have looked up first.

This argument comes down to the one you choose to use; I want Homo sapiens rights, others want thinking & reasoning human being rights.

So in the former sense, a "human" life does begin at conception, while in the latter it does not.

My bad everyone.

 

[Lethe]

Happens.

 

[yasic]

Tom White, I assume this means you don't wish to answer my question?

 

[Tom White]

Tom White, I assume this means you don't wish to answer my question?

Yeah OK. Your question:

"In virtually all cases, operations have been taken to remove this arm, which kills this unique human. Tell me, how do you justify killing these humans, or are you in favor of granting these arms full human rights?"​

Is one twin in this case complaining about the presence of the other parasitic twin's arms being attached to their body? If so, then that parasitic twin is aggressing against the other's property right - a human right. They should be separated with a minimal use of force. In this case, that is deadly force to one of the twins.

 

[Skaloop]

Yeah OK. Your question:

"In virtually all cases, operations have been taken to remove this arm, which kills this unique human. Tell me, how do you justify killing these humans, or are you in favor of granting these arms full human rights?"​

Is one twin in this case complaining about the presence of the other parasitic twin's arms being attached to their body? If so, then that parasitic twin is aggressing against the other's property right - a human right. They should be separated with a minimal use of force. In this case, that is deadly force to one of the twins.

And that's exactly what is happening with abortion.

 

[yasic]

Yeah OK. Your question:

"In virtually all cases, operations have been taken to remove this arm, which kills this unique human. Tell me, how do you justify killing these humans, or are you in favor of granting these arms full human rights?"​

Is one twin in this case complaining about the presence of the other parasitic twin's arms being attached to their body? If so, then that parasitic twin is aggressing against the other's property right - a human right. They should be separated with a minimal use of force. In this case, that is deadly force to one of the twins.

Thank you for your answer. As Skaloop mentioned above, what you describe is often the very way persons argue for abortion. How do you feel the two cases are differentiated?

Also just to be fair, in all documented cases of extra polymelial body parts, the procedure to remove them was done shortly after birth with no indication the child requested or desired the operation (in some cases the polimelial body-part was not actually harmful to the other child). Often the procedure is done at the request of the parents and not the child(ren?).

 

[Tom White]

And that's exactly what is happening with abortion.

Nope, because it is usually being carried out without consideration of minimal use of force. Despite the fact that the mother could wait, give birth and give the child up for adoption... an unnecessary lethal approach is taken instead.

For comparison, say a man was a trespasser on your property. Does that automatically justify deadly use of force to bring about his removal? No, a non-lethal approach is used if possible.

We treat criminals better than we do the unborn. Both are Homo sapiens, which for me matters.

 

[yasic]

Ok what about this option: The doctors can prepare a machine to provide a nutrient drip for the polymelial arm which would allow it to stay alive for a good number of years (A feat possible with today's technology). This would be less 'deadly force' than amputating that is regularly done. Should this be the preferred option?

 

[Belk]

Nope, because it is usually being carried out without consideration of minimal use of force. Despite the fact that the mother could wait, give birth and give the child up for adoption... an unnecessary lethal approach is taken instead.

For comparison, say a man was a trespasser on your property. Does that automatically justify deadly use of force to bring about his removal? No, a non-lethal approach is used if possible.

We treat criminals better than we do the unborn. Both are Homo sapiens, which for me matters.

I have not heard of a high rate of success for serving a fetus an eviction notice. If we were forced to wait nine months to get rid of a trespasser who was consuming our resources and then had to go to the hospital, pass a watermelon through our urethra, and then sign a bunch of legal documentation I'm thinking the incidence of deadly force would be quite a bit higher.

 

[Skaloop]

Nope, because it is usually being carried out without consideration of minimal use of force. Despite the fact that the mother could wait, give birth and give the child up for adoption... an unnecessary lethal approach is taken instead.

And the twin could wait until the arm dies on its own rather than take an unnecessary lethal approach.

For comparison, say a man was a trespasser on your property. Does that automatically justify deadly use of force to bring about his removal? No, a non-lethal approach is used if possible.

But in the case of abortion, there is no non-lethal way to remove the "trespasser" in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Tom White]

And the twin could wait until the arm dies on its own rather than take an unnecessary lethal approach.

Except you know that this is far less likely to happen; that arm is more likely than not going to stay as it is for the forseeable future, not drop off in less than a year.

 

[Tom White]

I have not heard of a high rate of success for serving a fetus an eviction notice.

Ha. Ha.

If we were forced to wait nine months to get rid of a trespasser who was consuming our resources and then had to go to the hospital, pass a watermelon through our urethra, and then sign a bunch of legal documentation I'm thinking the incidence of deadly force would be quite a bit higher.

Tough, you shouldn't just go and kill humans because they inconvenience and/or wrong you.

 

[Skaloop]

Except you know that this is far less likely to happen; that arm is more likely than not going to stay as it is for the forseeable future, not drop off in less than a year.

How long, then, is a reasonable amount of time that a "trespasser" can stay before deadly force is acceptable?

 

[Tom White]

How long, then, is a reasonable amount of time that a "trespasser" can stay before deadly force is acceptable?

Depends on the situation. Human gestation period doesn't normally last longer then 9 months does it? A definite end is in sight so she should wait that long (assuming things go smoothly; if the pregnancy is difficult and threatens her life, by all means kill the child.) As much as that may suck, at least no one is being unnecessarily killed.

 

[Belk]

Ha. Ha.

Sorry, my dry sense of humor gets the best of me sometimes.

Tough, you shouldn't just go and kill humans because they inconvenience and/or wrong you.

I agree. The issue here is that I do not see the fetus as being a person yet. It has no thoughts, feelings, or memory. Why should I elevate it over the bodily integrity of a woman who does not want it in her?

 

[Skaloop]

Depends on the situation. Human gestation period doesn't normally last longer then 9 months does it? A definite end is in sight so she should wait that long (assuming things go smoothly; if the pregnancy is difficult and threatens her life, by all means kill the child.) As much as that may suck, at least no one is being unnecessarily killed.

So you'd be cool with an unwanted person staying in your house for nine months?