O
o_mlly
Guest
Uh … consent? That would be what pro-fornicators are defending. Need a new thread.
So what is the difference between a potential and an actual human being?
- Status
E
EmmaSowl
Guest
That’s not an analogy. That’s a metaphor.
H
Hume
Guest
It’s a closely related corollary, so we can rap about it for a moment without straying from the central idea.
Sex and reproduction are very closely related, like me and my fraternal twin brother.
But also like me and my fraternal twin, they’re different. People have been engaging in sexual activity simply for pleasure since before religion existed. And it isn’t limited to humans. Our ape and monkey cousins will mount a female or two when they simply feel a bit stressed.
The consent to sex is not the consent to parenthood.
As a religious matter, if you’d like to think they are, then that’s just fine. Just keep your religious views out of my bedroom. One of the great benefits to a secular nation, right? Your religion stays out of mine, my religion stays out of yours.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
There never has been a time in human history that religion, properly defined as the search for meaning, did not exist.
I suppose the more one imitates monkeys the more one can feel like those beasts are their cousins, “monkey see, monkey do” kind of thing. But imitating the monkeys may make one feel related, but we’re not. We’re different in kind. New thread needed.
And your point adds what to this thread? In your bedroom, I don’t care what you do with your fraternal brother or your pet monkey. That’s also another thread.
The thread is about a healthy woman aborting a healthy child. Got anything to add?
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
I bet you wouldn’t be saying that if I was coughing within 2 metres of you.
H
Hume
Guest
When it effects other people without their consent, it’s a different deal.
The idea that a fetus is a duly entitled person in the same way as the adult woman carrying it is a religious notion. We know this because miscarriages and stillbirths typically aren’t reported to a coroner. If there’s no birth certificate, you’ve no need of a death certificate.
The deaths of these “people” aren’t investigated because they’re not really people.
The idea that a fetus is a duly entitled person in the same way as the adult woman carrying it is a religious notion. We know this because miscarriages and stillbirths typically aren’t reported to a coroner. If there’s no birth certificate, you’ve no need of a death certificate.
The deaths of these “people” aren’t investigated because they’re not really people.
R
Rau
Guest
I believe you are addressing status under law (“legal notions”). What you termed a religious notion is I think really a biological reality.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
Black people were legally only 3/5 of a person at one point. In Germany Jews were subhuman.
Do you want to revise your original statement or do you see no problem with the above?
H
Hume
Guest
Right. The civil law in a secular nation.Hume:
I believe you are addressing status under law.
When someone tries to base it on a narrow religion (there by forcing folks under a religious view), it’s time for Jefferson’s alters of freedom to be wetted with another sacrifice.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
The religion of biology?
H
Hume
Guest
According to biology, the fetus requires the biological systems of the mother. The umbilicus facilitating this contains both their DNA.
Science can’t help you in a philosophical debate. That horse has been whipped to death.
Science can’t help you in a philosophical debate. That horse has been whipped to death.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
From which you conclude what? The unborn needs the help of another to continue to grow and survive?
H
Hume
Guest
bodily. The fetus uses momma’s lungs, heart, stomach, kidneys, liver.Hume:
From which you conclude what? The unborn needs the help of another to continue to grow and survive?
It has separate DNA on it’s side of the umbilicus, but it’s not a separate person.
It isn’t a person yet at all. It’s a fetus. A proto-person.
R
Rau
Guest
Is that a legal notion of person?
M
MamaJewel
Guest
How can she transmit her wishes without being to able to think or communicate?
By “being human”. She is a member of the human race.
Medicine and law understand the importance of being a member of the human race and “being human”. Most of us appreciate the gift of life, enjoy aiding our fellow humans, and aspire to leave some type of legacy, even if it is in the form of an organ or tissue donation that can save or improve the lives of other human beings.
Medicine, and law, with the advancement of technology, have made such selfless donations possible. People also collectively make financial contributions to help offset costs associated with organ donations, marrow donations, blood donations, etc. As human beings, we also participate in research studies in hopes of improving or saving the lives of others. People care.
In American society, a potential donor can state their wishes directly through signing on as an organ donor via their driver’s license. Also, wishes can be stated in Advanced Directives or Living Wills.
When an individual hasn’t or cannot directly express their wishes as an organ donor, we allow the next of kin or an assigned health care agent (can be a person given medical power of attorney by a donor or it can be an individual assigned by the court) to make such decisions on behalf of a potential donor.
It makes perfect sense.
Really.
Please cite a credible source that supports your position since I have already linked several credible scientific or medical sources.
At this point, I see your position as an opinion, not a fact. Please enlighten me with a credible source that supports a dog or statue receiving legal status as a “person”.
F
Freddy
Guest
I’m just going to jump in here again to point out what I thought was obvious but which seems to need reiterating.
We are all offering our opinions on this matter. Apart from some technical details about dna or the mechanics of pregnancy, we are all prefacing our posts with an implied ‘In my personal opinion…’.
So if someone says you can’t have an abortion at all because we have a human being/person right from the moment of conception then stating that it is a human being/person is a personal opinion. As is stating that is not (as opposed to human).
So this is not like a thread on evolution for example where evidence can be tabled to prove a point. This is first and foremost and always will be a matter of opinion. So the best anyone can hope for is for the opposing side to understand one’s view. No minds are going to be changed.But if we can get to a point where we can each say: ‘I understand what you’re saying but I disagree with it’ then that’s the best we can hope for.
Well, the best we can hope for is to agree on a means to reduce the number of abortions. I did suggest some on another thread some time back but there was no positive response. I think most were afraid that any attempt to reduce abortions would be seen as an implied agreement to allow some abortions. It was all or nothing I’m afraid.
R
Rau
Guest
Biology and reason conclude our offspring are human beings. The law in some jurisdictions simply declares it’s not unlawful to kill certain human beings. There’s no need to pretend there are no facts, only opinions.
H
Hume
Guest
Well, Oxford gives;
“The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.”
“A particular system of faith and worship.”
In recorded history, Hinduism is easily and incontestably the oldest religion.
The oldest known burials (evidence for religious views) are 100,000 years old. Our species is roughly 300,000 years old, for comparison. The oldest anthropomorphized figurines are just under 40,000 years old.
“Sex for fun” predates religion by at least 200,000 years in homosapiens. In other species, maybe as much as 20 million years (the rise of apes). Maybe more.
You share 98.8% of your genes with chimps and bonobos. With other members of our species you share 99.9%.
So pretty similar.
It’s a very widely shared rebuke of the notion that my bedroom activities are subject to your personal beliefs. If I don’t think my wife and I are consenting to a baby when we do the horizontal boogie, you’ve no dominion to say otherwise.
No woman has ever aborted a child. Only fetuses can be aborted, unlike children.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
I think you know what I am talking about using human being/person in this contect. I understand what you mean. And I don’t agree with it.Freddy:
Biology and reason conclude our offspring are human beings.
There’s not much further either of us can go from that point. I’ve repeated myself endlessly. Maybe that’s what you can do now. Keep saying the same thing in different ways if you want. But I already know what you mean.
Is there anything that you can add that hasn’t been said up to now?
H
Hume
Guest
Joe Rogan had a great comparative tool for it. It went something like this;
“Ok, so we’re fundamentally ‘different’ from monkeys? We’re 99% the same, so you’re saying we’re completely different on the basis of 1%. So if I took a sandwich filled with [feces] and then added enough ham that the sandwich was 1% ham, you’d call that a ‘ham sandwich’?”
Both funny and a good point.
Last edited:
- Status