Romney Picks Paul Ryan...

[crushing]

I am more interested in the "science" of this debate than the ethics and legality of abortion.

Legal personhood wasn't being argued. Whether or not the living, growing "thing" is a human is.

Our bodies are full of life that isn't exactly our own and can be distinguished from us by analyzing the genetic code. An appendix would share the same genetic code as its host, correct? Couldn't a simple DNA test of the fetus determine if it is indeed a separate organism or if it simply an appendix, fingernail, or tumor of the host?

Sure, normally humans breathe air, have two arms and two legs (featherless bipeds, if you will). But, there are exceptions. People may have more or less arms and legs, and there is the possibility of liquid breathing of oxygen rich fluids. Is a human suddenly not a human when breathing in this manner?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I am more interested in the "science" of this debate than the ethics and legality of abortion.

Legal personhood wasn't being argued. Whether or not the living, growing "thing" is a human is.

"A human" is synonymous with "a person", and is not something defined by science. Abortion is a legal/ethical/moral issue and arguements based on science are red herrings.

 

[crushing]

"A human" is synonymous with "a person", and is not something defined by science. Abortion is a legal/ethical/moral issue and arguements based on science are red herrings.

Like the terms 'speed' and 'velocity' they would appear to be synonymous, but they are not. Throughout history and for various reasons of the time based on race, sex, age, or by not owning property, humans (organisms of the genus Hominids) have been considered as chattel or property, which makes them something less than a person.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Like the terms 'speed' and 'velocity' they would appear to be synonymous, but they are not. Throughout history and for various reasons of the time based on race, sex, age, or by not owning property, humans (organisms of the genus Hominids) have been considered as chattel or property, which makes them something less than a person.

Unless you're endorsing that definition, I think your argument is spurious. However, even under that wierd definition, and regardless of how much hair splitting you wish to do, the terms are STILL only relevent to legal/moral/ethical positions. Not scientific.

 

[crushing]

Unless you're endorsing that definition, I think your argument is spurious. However, even under that wierd definition, and regardless of how much hair splitting you wish to do, the terms are STILL only relevent to legal/moral/ethical positions. Not scientific.

I have no say in how words have been defined, no matter how "wierd" you think their definitions may be. Words and their usage matter. I disagree that using words according to their accepted definitions is considered "splitting hairs." For example, some people claim that abortion is murder. My response is that murder is the illegal killing of a person. Abortion is legal and a fetus is not a person. Thus abortion is not murder. They also tell me I'm splitting hairs.

Anyway, science is the search for patterns and processes. Scientists define what is human based on patterns while laws define what is a person based on the rulemakers maintaining power or some other reasoning. Even corporations have been granted personhood through laws. It has been suggested that a fetus is not human. I'm simply asking if that claim can really be made and supported based on the available evidence.

 

[Steve]

I have no say in how words have been defined, no matter how "wierd" you think their definitions may be. Words and their usage matter. I disagree that using words according to their accepted definitions is considered "splitting hairs." For example, some people claim that abortion is murder. My response is that murder is the illegal killing of a person. Abortion is legal and a fetus is not a person. Thus abortion is not murder. They also tell me I'm splitting hairs.

Anyway, science is the search for patterns and processes. Scientists define what is human based on patterns while laws define what is a person based on the rulemakers maintaining power or some other reasoning. Even corporations have been granted personhood through laws. It has been suggested that a fetus is not human. I'm simply asking if that claim can really be made and supported based on the available evidence.

Fetus isn't human, or fetus isn't a person? I'm getting confused.

 

[Tgace]

Fetus isn't human, or fetus isn't a person? I'm getting confused.

Exactly....this is the "mental gymanstics" you have to become comfortable with regarding this issue. Which should be an ethical alarm bell in and of itself. Its all about making the act somehow ethically "right".

The plain fact that you have to now define killing a "person" to be wrong...but killling a "human" to be acceptable has eugonic undertones that I'm uncomfortable with.

I admit that I don't see the whole issue as black and white...medical necessity (mother may die if bought to term)...rape...incest..etc, are difficult issues that perhaps may justify the killing...depending on the age of the fetus. But having to split hairs to minimize the ethical implications of killing is a road to evil IMO.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

Exactly....this is the "mental gymanstics" you have to become comfortable with regarding this issue. Which should be an ethical alarm bell in and of itself. Its all about making the act somehow ethically "right".

The plain fact that you have to now define killing a "person" to be wrong...but killling a "human" to be acceptable has eugonic undertones that I'm uncomfortable with.

I admit that I don't see the whole issue as black and white...medical necessity (mother may die if bought to term)...rape...incest..etc, are difficult issues that perhaps may justify the killing...depending on the age of the fetus. But having to split hairs to minimize the ethical implications of killing is a road to evil IMO.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Or maybe I was pointing out that the entire issue is grounded in meaningless semantics that have more to do with catching the other in a rhetorical trap than listening to, understanding and respecting their position.

Nah...

FWIW, I agree completely with Dirty Dog. This is an emotional/moral/ethical question. It's not a scientific question. I respect that some of you have a different opinion than I do. But, that's what it is. It's an opinion. Your opinion is that life begins... here (wherever "here" happens to be).

 

[geezer]

I admit that I don't see the whole issue as black and white...

I'm glad to hear you say that. I've met a lot of people who only view the world that way. We come into being fully human, that is sentient and empathetic beings, in stages, and we often leave the world the same way. An embryo is a cluster of cells with a distinct genetic make-up and the potential to become a human being. It is not, in itself, a human being yet. A fetus is more developed and more human. We all agree that an infant is fully human, but not yet sufficiently developed to be accorded the same rights and priviledges as an adult.

Reaching the end of life, often we lose our sentience in similar stages. And, although biologically human, a brain-dead accident victim in a coma may legally be allowed to die. Kind of like aborting an embryo that doesn't even have brain cells yet. It may be an unfortunate choice, but it isn't murder.

 

[Tgace]

Or maybe I was pointing out that the entire issue is grounded in meaningless semantics that have more to do with catching the other in a rhetorical trap than listening to, understanding and respecting their position.

Nah...

FWIW, I agree completely with Dirty Dog. This is an emotional/moral/ethical question. It's not a scientific question. I respect that some of you have a different opinion than I do. But, that's what it is. It's an opinion. Your opinion is that life begins... here (wherever "here" happens to be).

When something with its own unique human genetic makeup comes into existence it's life has begun. While its volume of cells may develop from no different than a ball of 10-100 to something that reacts on its own to stimuli...its obviously life. The real issue is your opinion on when that life has enough value worth protection from death.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[crushing]

Sorry I wasted our time. I didn't realize it was a game.

 

[Steve]

When something with its own unique human genetic makeup comes into existence it's life has begun. While its volume of cells may develop from no different than a ball of 10-100 to something that reacts on its own to stimuli...its obviously life. The real issue is your opinion on when that life has enough value worth protection from death.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I can accept that you and I have different opinions on this. Your opinion is no more or less legitimate than mine and you're entitled to it. That doesn't make you "right." I'm pretty sure that you are convinced I am clearly and obviously wrong, and that it seems so obvious to you it's a wonder I don't just "get it." But understand that's exactly how it looks from my side, too. I get your point and just quite simply disagree with you.

 

[Steve]

Sorry I wasted our time. I didn't realize it was a game.

Didn't waste my time, and I apologize if my response came off as flippant. Seriously, that wasn't my intent. I guess I was trying to suggest that we could have entire threads about each of the emotionally and intellectually charged words used in this thread. One thread could be, "What does me mean to be human?" Another could be, "What does it mean to be a person?" And a third could be, "When does life begin?"

This doesn't even get into the use of other high charged words like murder and killing.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Anyway, science is the search for patterns and processes. Scientists define what is human based on patterns while laws define what is a person based on the rulemakers maintaining power or some other reasoning. Even corporations have been granted personhood through laws. It has been suggested that a fetus is not human. I'm simply asking if that claim can really be made and supported based on the available evidence.

Science certainly can and does define what is human. It does not, and cannot, define what is A human. As I keep saying, this issue is not a scientific matter. Attempts to make it so are futile. Even foolish.

 

[shesulsa]

The thing is if all the life that isn't terminated right now is forced into birth, with the Forced Birth platform's other policies, there will be no public funds to feed, educate nor care for these unwanted. THIS is not humanITARIAN. It is just not right. If every single one of these unwanted/unplanned conceptions could be cared and accounted for right now - today - the welfare issue would not exist. The entitlements issue would not exist. What do you do with a baby? You throw money at it. Sorry - but it takes more than love to raise a child. This goes completely against the grain of the Forced Birth agenda.

I don't see anyone disputing this.

 

[ballen0351]

So maybe people should take some responsibility and not get pregnant in the first place. Oh but we can't actually hold people accountable what am I thinking. We can't actually expect people to use there brains and say well I can't really afford a kid and don't really want one guess I better take precautions or if I don't have any guess I better do something other then intercourse.
But its easier to just act like dogs and then kill the baby then actually worry about acting like an adult.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dirty Dog]

So maybe people should take some responsibility and not get pregnant in the first place. Oh but we can't actually hold people accountable what am I thinking. We can't actually expect people to use there brains and say well I can't really afford a kid and don't really want one guess I better take precautions or if I don't have any guess I better do something other then intercourse.
But its easier to just act like dogs and then kill the baby then actually worry about acting like an adult.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Could you please enlighten me as to the specific nature of the infallable contraceptive you've discovered? OB/GYN isn't my field, but I'm not aware of any.

 

[ballen0351]

Could you please enlighten me as to the specific nature of the infallable contraceptive you've discovered? OB/GYN isn't my field, but I'm not aware of any.

Sure its called if your so broke you cant afford a baby if one fails then you dont have sex. Its called taking responsibility and knowing what you can and cant do. Its called being an adult.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Sure its called if your so broke you cant afford a baby if one fails then you dont have sex. Its called taking responsibility and knowing what you can and cant do. Its called being an adult.

Why is it that the ERWFLF are always anti-sex?

 

[ballen0351]

why is it that the erwflf are always anti-sex?

erwflf?