A
Abrosz
Guest
I guess, you are unable to parse those words. And you keep sidestepping the question: “How do you define a human being?” Until you answer this question, I am done with you.
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
Parse? There’s nothing to be parsed. No matter how you rearrange it, the sentence says the same thing. Baby = parasite. To wit:
You back peddle poorly, friend.
A
Abrosz
Guest
Better learn proper spelling. Peddle and paddle are not the same. But then again, what can one expect from someone who does not understand “parsing”?
One more time: What is your definition of a “human being”?
O
o_mlly
Guest
You’re right on the trivial point. I’ll have to pitch my urban dictionary.
But on the salient point, you’re wrong.
E
Ender
Guest
Pick whichever you want, the objection is the same. If a human entity becomes a human being when it achieves sapience then some unborn children are in fact - children - because they are sapient when they are aborted. In fact those abortions are merely more gruesome forms of infanticide. Your position requires you to either accept the elective destruction of people, or deny that sapience is all that significant.
E
Ender
Guest
No, the proper term is back-peddle, not back-paddle.Abrosz:
You’re right on the trivial point. I’ll have to pitch my urban dictionary.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Good thing garbage pickup isn’t until Friday. I’ll retrieve my urban dictionary.
A
Abrosz
Guest
As long as you cannot define “human being” and are unable to realize the difference between DNA, zygote, blastocyst, tissue, embryo, fetus, and newborn there is no reason for wasting my time on you. If you don’t understand the significance of a sufficiently developed brain and its product - the mind, it is futile to try to have a conversation.
Certainly you look like o_mlly, who is unable to provide a coherent definition of a “human being” either. Maybe you two can talk to each other. I am definitely not interested. I am only interested in rational conversations.
E
Ender
Guest
What I have been doing is addressing your definition. Whether I have my own definition is irrelevant to whether yours is valid. I have raised issues with your definition, issues you have not only failed to refute but have so far failed to even address.
Attacking my definition (or lack thereof) is not a defense of your own. In fact everyone recognizes the differences in those terms you listed, just as they recognize the difference between infant, toddler, child, teen, and adult. That there are differences along the line of development is unremarkable. You have chosen sapience as the dividing line between human life form and human being. I have pointed out the problem with that (arbitrary) choice. Why haven’t you responded to that objection?
A
Abrosz
Guest
Since you don’t understand the difference between quantitative and qualitative changes, you don’t qualify as a rational conversation partner.
No, you did not. If you wish to share your definition of a “human being”, I will read it. If you don’t, I don’t care.
Last edited:
A
Abrosz
Guest
I guess I have to admit my ignorance and accept defeat. Brain? Mind? What kind of nonsensical categories are these? Aristotle already “discovered” that the brain is simply the organ to cool the blood! And then I and actual physicians, neuroscientists and other ignoramuses try to refer to millions of experiments, which all - MISTAKENLY, but uniformly - try to argue about the role of the mind as the deciding factor of what makes a human - a human. Shame on us!
Hopefully you and the others on your side will accept my heartfelt apologies for disturbing your superior knowledge. I only have one humble request: “Spare me of your superior knowledge!”
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Well, given that I’m not a rational conversation partner it is surprising you’re having such a difficult time responding to my comments. I should think it would simple for one such as you to rebut my observation; why then are insults your only responses?
Then I’ll try again with yes or no questions.Ender:
No, you did not.
- Is sapience conferred by birth?
- Is a 6 month preemie sapient?
- If it is not sapient should it be legitimate to kill it even though it has been born?
- If it is sapient at 6 months, then is not an 8 month fetus also sapient?
- Since the 8 month fetus is unborn should it be legitimate to kill it even though it is sapient?
Last edited:
A
Abrosz
Guest
I already apologized. What else do you want? A repeated apology? Here it is:
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
For those who say, a woman should have all rights over her body.
If a woman came to the surgeon and asked for a perfectly healthy kidney to be removed, or a lung, would the surgeon comply?
Would it be fair to expect her health insurance to foot the bill?
If a woman came to the surgeon and asked for a perfectly healthy kidney to be removed, or a lung, would the surgeon comply?
Would it be fair to expect her health insurance to foot the bill?
Last edited:
A
Abrosz
Guest
Only a drooling idiot would have such a request - unless there is a VERY compelling reason. Such a compelling reason might be to save someone else’s life via a transplant. Even in that case the answer is still not simple - and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Moreover, your hypothetical question has nothing to do with the definition of a “human being”. I don’t think that there will be an answer forthcoming.
No one has attempted to answer about the substantial differences between: “DNA, zygote, blastocyst, tissue, organ, embryo, fetus, and newborn”. And, of course the role of the brain and the mind. Is the role of the brain still what Aristotle surmised: “the cooling of the blood?”
O
o_mlly
Guest
In mutual respect, I accept your defeat. Go in peace.
E
Ender
Guest
I would like answers to my questions. Those are pretty straightforward yes or no queries. They aren’t trick questions, but they do expose the difficulties with your position, which would explain your unwillingness to answer them.
E
EmmaSowl
Guest
Who decides the best interpretation when experts disagree?
In other words, science is not infallible.
Is the fact that the body continues to live proof that the brain is still working?
You brought up women having the life sucked out of them, but when I ask for clarification, you dismiss the argument?
Where did you learn this? I searched and couldn’t find an answer.
Tell me what I didn’t answer and I will answer it.
Why do you object to clarifying questions so much that you ignore them?
A
Abrosz
Guest
Of course not. No one said otherwise.
The activity of the brain is multi-fold. Soon after the higher level (grey cells) of the brain ceases to work, the lower levels (white cells) cease to work, too, and then death will follow. The hair and the nails still grow for a while.
But this whole discussion went to “hell in a hand basket”.
My summary is simple. Abortion will be with us, until technology will enable us to have sex without conception.
E
EmmaSowl
Guest
Please explain why you think that.
- Status