You can make up stuff if you want, but it is a fiction.
Laws are not based on fiction.
"Pro-Lifers are Hypocrites"
- Thread starter blackforest
- Start date
- Status
Laws are not based on fiction.
One has been provided.
You just refuse to accept the truth.
blackforest
Well-known member
I don’t know where to begin. You are welcome to start a spin-off thread addressing any Neanderthalic radioactive space aliens (or the species of your choice) seeking abortions. So far as I know, however, the only beings entering abortion clinics are human beings carrying and aborting human beings.
Yes, some philosophers and theologians may consider rationality a criteria. But I don’t use such criteria to determine who lives or who dies. That’s plain and simple bigotry.
Yes, some philosophers and theologians may consider rationality a criteria. But I don’t use such criteria to determine who lives or who dies. That’s plain and simple bigotry.
E
Economist
Guest
If you cannot present a clear definition for “human beings”, then there is no platform for a discussion.
There also does not appear to be room for discussion when one side fails to recognize the information given.
blackforest
Well-known member
A human being is a homo sapien.
E
Economist
Guest
I hope you are joking. First of all it is “sapiens”. But that is irrelevant. What makes someone a “human being”? Or which attributes are necessary to declare someone a “human being”? Please list all the relevant attributes (“substance”) and the “accidents” (according to the Thomist nomenclature). It is important to consider the building material, the organs, the and the complete being. Remember that many of our organs are replaceable either by artificial prostheses or transplants.
The question is not simple. A “sound byte” or a translation into another language is insufficient for a serious discussion. If you are interested, I am here.
blackforest
Well-known member
I’m not joking. That’s the definition.
I don’t believe in killing others just because someone decides that they don’t philosophically consider them a human being.
But to address your question about organs, yes, plenty of people are missing gall bladders, kidneys, and appendices or have transplanted organs. They are still human beings.
Our cells renew themselves 100% every seven years. In that sense, we’re physically not the same human beings that we were in 2012. But we’re still human beings.
I don’t believe in killing others just because someone decides that they don’t philosophically consider them a human being.
But to address your question about organs, yes, plenty of people are missing gall bladders, kidneys, and appendices or have transplanted organs. They are still human beings.
Our cells renew themselves 100% every seven years. In that sense, we’re physically not the same human beings that we were in 2012. But we’re still human beings.
Last edited:
E
Economist
Guest
Well, that is weird. When you declare the same word in a different language it suddenly and mysteriously becomes a “definition”? What about “homo erectus”? Home ludens? Homo piaticus? Homo eroticus? Homo punciensis? Homo tonaludatus? Homokos? What are those?
Since you did not give a definition of “human beings”, this is just another empty proposition. What about a missing brain?
As I said before, the question is not simple. By the way, the legal definition also does not equate a human being with a zygote or a blastocyst. Human beings are afforded certain rights, which are not given to a blastocyst. And rightfully so. Only a born human being can inherit, for example. One minute before it is born, it cannot inherit.
blackforest
Well-known member
This is rather hair splitting and red herring-ish.
What is a cat?
A tiger? A panther? My tabby curled up on my lap?
And what does this have to do in any way with whether or not I may kill my cat (heaven forbid!) and call it a “choice?”
Human beings completely missing a brain are dead. Unconscious human beings, as well as those with any other cerebral malfunction, are still human beings.
I don’t look to laws as a metric for human rights. Heaven knows, laws get that wrong all the time. Even if it isn’t feasible for an 8-week-old fetus to inherit, it doesn’t automatically follow that it’s ethically acceptable to kill him/her.
E
Economist
Guest
What you call hair-splitting is just striving for precision. And calling something a red herring is the indication that there is no rational answer.
Equally difficult questions. And equally nonexistent answers.
What else is there? If there are laws concerning anything, without an ironclad definition there cannot be a proper law. Potter Stewart stated succinctly when the definition of pornography came about.
Without a clear-cut definition there can be no law at all. It would degenerate into personal opinion. This is why there are no “pornography” laws.
But I am getting tired. If you cannot provide a clear-cut definition for a “human being”, then you have nothing valuable to say.
S
Sbee0
Guest
Also, absolutely nobody enters an abortion clinic looking for an abortion of a single celled zygote. I’d say just as many know conception has happened at that moment.Economist:
A zygote is a single-celled organism. By the time implantation is about to occur, the cells have already divided, resulting in a multicellular organism.
If you want to get super technical and impress your friends, at this point the developmental phase of the new human being is called morula. The blastocyst does the actual implanting, if not blocked off by artificial hormones or natural causes. Embryo is the umbrella term for any developmental phase between conception and eight weeks, so that could apply here, as well.
Remember that these terms - zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult - all refer to developmental phases of a human being.
Wrestling over this is beyond the abortion debate imo. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life, just like murder. Fact, not opinion.
I have watched this line happen in too many different threads to believe it now.
This precision you claim to be after is really an attempt to obfuscate.
blackforest
Well-known member
If there’s no clear-cut answer, is it OK if I strangle my kitty? (Of course not! But it does take your “logic” to its natural conclusion).
Well, abortion is now mostly against the law in Alabama. And where you believe the law is a metric for what is right, you must be A-OK with Alabama’s abortion law.
Science has already been clear. If you don’t accept science, there’s not much more to discuss.
E
Economist
Guest
If that is what you want, I don’t care. Of course when I think of the 100 million songbirds killed by cats - every year(!), then I have no problem with thinning out the cat population. Humanely, of course.
Mostly… and it is contended. And just because something is in the law, people can try to change it… just like you do. You have no respect for Roe v. Wade, I have no respect for Alabama. But if that attempt will be successful, then abortion will be a “murder” in THAT particular state.
Which branch of science? And which part of philosophy? Because the natural sciences do not deal with philosophical questions.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Evidence? Seems unlikely. Poor people can’t buy stuff, including health services priced for profit. US health spending per capita is huge. Health outcomes generally no better, often worse that countries like the UK with limited profit-driven health services.
blackforest
Well-known member
I can’t believe I need to clarify this, but it’s against the law to strangle my cat. That’s one time when the law lines right up with morality.
Two other factoids: First, I have an indoor cat and second, killing off cats actually contributed to the spread of the Black Plague.
So we agree that the law isn’t a metric for morality, then? That people can find laws unjust and try to change them? Good. We may proceed.
Embryology.
I already explained my philosophy against discrimination and bigotry, specifically in the form of ableism as it applies to justifying abortions. I am opposed to any attempts to apply philosophies that justify killing biological human beings based on their abilities, location, or phases of development.
Last edited:
E
Economist
Guest
Of course we agree. I merely mentioned it to show that not even the law agrees with the idea that a zygote, blastocyst, fetus are given certain “rights” which are immediately available after the first breath. That is the point when this new being gains biologically independent existence, when if does not rely on the bodily resources of someone else. That is the moment when the symbiotic relationship ends, and the independent existence begins.
Many times someone tries to assert that the newborn still needs care. Of course it is true, but this care can be given by anyone, and t does not require to give up one’s bodily integrity.
Embryology is just a subset of biology. And biology is not an exact science, it is merely descriptive, not constructive. And the word philosophy is not what you say. It starts with “metaphysics”, and metaphysics deals with definitions, like “what is a human being”, or what differentiates a human being from other types of existence"? Without such a definition there can be no discussion. And I am serious. The ball is in your court, and if you are not willing to tackle this question, I will politely say good bye to you.
So you claim.
Yet you also wish to lay claim to philosophy based definitions for words.
You want to avoid exact science when it does not suit you, and embrace an inexact when it does.
Sounds like you cannot argue the facts with truth and are instead trying to obfuscate the issue.
We are talking about human life. From the moment of conception, it exists and should be treated with the same care that we would any other human from any other stage of life.
Thus far, your only real argument is a very weak obfuscation of what a human life is. The definition has been plainly given. Yet you continue to try to obfuscate.
Perhaps you are fooling yourself. But you would be the only one convinced by your argument. No one else here is buying.
blackforest
Well-known member
A human being is a separate organism with human DNA. If you do not accept science, we cannot proceed. I do not believe in killing those who don’t meet your personal criteria of “philosophical” or “metaphysical” human beings. I agree with @vz71 that your obfuscation is deliberate.
I told you MY definition of human being. Now it’s your turn to tell me yours.
I told you MY definition of human being. Now it’s your turn to tell me yours.
- Status