"Right Wing"

[jamil]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...9-daughters-open-heart-surgery-2-24-15-a.html

Thank you for posting that.

 

[MisterChester]

Science has a definition for biological life. It creates an objective line between life and not-life. Do you not know that definition, or do you willfully choose to ignore it?

I meant in the context of a fetus in the womb. There is a point where it's nothing more than a group of cells, which is by no means in my mind a person. Just because something has the potential to be something, it's not one until it is.

 

[chipbennett]

I meant in the context of a fetus in the womb. There is a point where it's nothing more than a group of cells, which is by no means in my mind a person. Just because something has the potential to be something, it's not one until it is.

Can we agree that the entity developing in the womb is, at all times after conception, a living human being? The matter of "personhood" is a separate question, and one of legal definition. Introducing the question of "personhood" brings its own plethora of opportunities for disagreement.

 

[MisterChester]

Can we agree that the entity developing in the womb is, at all times after conception, a living human being? The matter of "personhood" is a separate question, and one of legal definition. Introducing the question of "personhood" brings its own plethora of opportunities for disagreement.

At all times? Not really. I mean, if it's at a point where there's no brain, no heart, no lungs, no blood, what is it then? It's organized cells and tissues at best. There's no consciousness either. I would think once there's a consciousness, brain, heart, etc then it is a living thing.

 

[24Carat]

I have no fear of "right-wing" terrorists. There is no such thing! There are neo-nazi fascists (i.e. skin heads) which are a fringe group and there are Islamic terrorists. When was the last time you heard of a "Christian" terrorist? Or a CONSERVATIVE terrorist? Or even a Republican terrorist?

You forgot the Crusades !!!

 

[hornadylnl]

1.2 million abortions each year. Assuming Roe v. Wade were overturned. What now? Who's going to care for these kids? Clearly not all people who seek abortion have the ability or finances to raise a child.

 

[chipbennett]

At all times? Not really. I mean, if it's at a point where there's no brain, no heart, no lungs, no blood, what is it then? It's organized cells and tissues at best. There's no consciousness either. I would think once there's a consciousness, brain, heart, etc then it is a living thing.

You're unilaterally changing the biological definition of life. That's why I said that people who support abortion generally ignore or refute basic scientific fact.

 

[chipbennett]

1.2 million abortions each year. Assuming Roe v. Wade were overturned. What now? Who's going to care for these kids? Clearly not all people who seek abortion have the ability or finances to raise a child.

Then why only kill them before birth? Why not kill them after birth? Obviously, the economic burden argument is not sufficient grounds to justify murder.

 

[hornadylnl]

Then why only kill them before birth? Why not kill them after birth? Obviously, the economic burden argument is not sufficient grounds to justify murder.

I'm against abortion. I just don't think the current anti abortion crusade is accomplishing anything. I think only when people care about people as much after they're born as before they're born, you'll see a sea change in opinion.

 

[chipbennett]

You forgot the Crusades !!!

You mean, when the Moors (Muslim) invaded the Holy Land, Byzantine, and Europe, raping, killing, raiding, and pillaging wherever they went? Then the Europeans organized armies to drive the invaders back out? The wars that lasted 200 years, with a death toll less than half of the lives lost in the Holocaust? Those Crusades?

 

[MisterChester]

You're unilaterally changing the biological definition of life. That's why I said that people who support abortion generally ignore or refute basic scientific fact.

How so? Biologically it's just live tissue. Is it alive? Sure, like how a tree is alive. Is it a person? That's where the conflict is.

 

[chipbennett]

How so? Biologically it's just live tissue. Is it alive? Sure, like how a tree is alive.

Still untrue. It is not "live tissue." Again, you don't get to change biological definitions. By those definitions, it is at all times a living human being.

Is it a person? That's where the conflict is.

If not at conception, at what point do you believe that it becomes a human? Not a "person". A human.

 

[MisterChester]

Still untrue. It is not "live tissue." Again, you don't get to change biological definitions. By those definitions, it is at all times a living human being.



If not at conception, at what point do you believe that it becomes a human? Not a "person". A human.

I looked at a dictionary, and these two terms are essentially the same. Even on dictionary.com it is so. You speak of definitions an awful lot and cite nothing.

 

[jamil]

At all times? Not really. I mean, if it's at a point where there's no brain, no heart, no lungs, no blood, what is it then? It's organized cells and tissues at best. There's no consciousness either. I would think once there's a consciousness, brain, heart, etc then it is a living thing.

You're unilaterally changing the biological definition of life. That's why I said that people who support abortion generally ignore or refute basic scientific fact.

Still untrue. It is not "live tissue." Again, you don't get to change biological definitions. By those definitions, it is at all times a living human being.



If not at conception, at what point do you believe that it becomes a human? Not a "person". A human.

"Living", "Person", "Human". Whatever. I think you both agree that what's growing inside the womb is alive. It is a distinct life. So the disagreement still revolves around when killing it becomes murder. You say at the point of conception, before it develops a brain, heart, consciousness. MC has said it's not until after birth, even though a brain, heart, lungs, consciousness has already developed.

With you it's a question of humanity; at what point is it a human? With MC it's a question of personhood; when is it a person? What middle ground can be reached without a fundamental change in thinking?

What I find disturbing about the whole discussion at the national level is how each side projects monsterhood on the other. Pro choice. Pro life. The worlds could not be further apart.

 

[chipbennett]

I looked at a dictionary, and these two terms are essentially the same. Even on dictionary.com it is so. You speak of definitions an awful lot and cite nothing.

I listed the biological criteria for life, above. Here they are again:

Something is living if it undergoes self-directed growth/reproduction, has the ability to sustain existence (metabolism), can respond to stimuli, and adaptation.

They're really not controversial or difficult:

Life - definition from Biology-Online.org

And if you want some even more in-depth reading:

life | biology | Encyclopedia Britannica

Human skin is living human tissue, but skin is not a human being. A kidney is living human tissue, but a kidney is not a human being. An embryo is a human being.

 

[chipbennett]

"Living", "Person", "Human". Whatever. I think you both agree that what's growing inside the womb is alive. It is a distinct life. So the disagreement still revolves around when killing it becomes murder. You say at the point of conception, before it develops a brain, heart, consciousness. MC has said it's not until after birth, even though a brain, heart, lungs, consciousness has already developed.

With you it's a question of humanity; at what point is it a human? With MC it's a question of personhood; when is it a person? What middle ground can be reached without a fundamental change in thinking?

You've identified a very critical difference - in fact, you've identified the issue at the heart of the matter: what is a person?

Do humans have the capability to define what constitutes a person, and at what point a human being goes from being a non-person to being a person? The law makes that distinction the act of birth, but we know that, from a scientific perspective, the act of birth ls largely arbitrary. Even the law now recognizes our scientific understanding somewhat, with late-term abortion now being illegal.

I would be willing to have a sincere discussion regarding personhood, but I have yet to find someone who supports abortion who is willing to be honest in stating that the developing entity in the womb is a human being from the moment of conception, but that their justification for abortion is that a living human being is killed prior to imputation of "personhood", and is therefore morally acceptable.

My position is that we cannot even suitably define "personhood" - much less, define the developmental point at which a human being is imputed with "personhood" - and therefore, morally, we should err on the side of the innocent life that gets no say in the ending of that life.

History is not kind to the arbitrary assignment of "personhood" to human beings by other human beings. Most (if not all) attempts to do so have been used to justify denying rights to those to whom the assignment of "personhood" was denied.

 

[jamil]

I looked at a dictionary, and these two terms are essentially the same. Even on dictionary.com it is so. You speak of definitions an awful lot and cite nothing.

There is colloquial meaning beyond dictionary definitions, and I think you know what he means.

Before there's conception, there is a human egg and human sperm. The product of conception is the beginning of a human life. I would hope that both agree with that. CB asserts that at this point it is murder to kill it. You assert differently, and rather than taking what you said about after birth, I'll accept what you said later, the thought you conveyed that it becomes a person when the physical attributes produces consciousness.

Given this disagreement, isn't it reasonable to draw either conclusion? Doesn't it make this just a matter of belief? Reasonable people can believe either way. Your side should stop pretending that pro-lifers are kooks and that you (rhetorically you) are fighting some noble battle for women's rights, while the evil anti-choicers all plot to blow up abortion clinics. That's not intellectually honest.

But they should also give you the same benefit of that doubt. It is just as reasonable to believe that life begins with consciousness, and because of that, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not immoral to end it prior to that.

 

[chipbennett]

But they should also give you the same benefit of that doubt. It is just as reasonable to believe that life begins with consciousness, and because of that, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not immoral to end it prior to that.

Heck, let's start there: when does a human being become conscious?

 

[MisterChester]

There is colloquial meaning beyond dictionary definitions, and I think you know what he means.

Before there's conception, there is a human egg and human sperm. The product of conception is the beginning of a human life. I would hope that both agree with that. CB asserts that at this point it is murder to kill it. You assert differently, and rather than taking what you said about after birth, I'll accept what you said later, the thought you conveyed that it becomes a person when the physical attributes produces consciousness.

Given this disagreement, isn't it reasonable to draw either conclusion? Doesn't it make this just a matter of belief? Reasonable people can believe either way. Your side should stop pretending that pro-lifers are kooks and that you (rhetorically you) are fighting some noble battle for women's rights, while the evil anti-choicers all plot to blow up abortion clinics. That's not intellectually honest.

But they should also give you the same benefit of that doubt. It is just as reasonable to believe that life begins with consciousness, and because of that, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not immoral to end it prior to that.

You summed it up quite nicely. In the end it's all about belief.

 

[hornadylnl]

Does society have a responsibility to end abortion?