Split Thread Legislation to restrict access to abortion and contraception

[AvalonXQ]

Zygotes are human; humans are ethically distinct from non-human animals.

A zygote is a living human organism. Which doesn't definitively answer the question of how to treat zygotes, but it does identify them as distinct from dogs and sperm.

 

[Dessi]

Zygotes are human; humans are ethically distinct from non-human animals.

What difference does it make to kill a living organism belonging to one taxonomic classification or another?

 

[Caper]

What difference does it make to kill a living organism belonging to one taxonomic classification or another?

Call me a monster but a bug isn't as important as a human being(abortion issue aside). It just isn't.

Obviously you have different morals and can defend them pretty well. But most people simply disagree with you. Though I love the fact you take an active interest in working for the rights of animals.

But the answer to your question is that humanity as rightfully decided human beings are generally of more value then animals.

 

[Caper]

So, just to make certain that I understand you.

• Sperm are living cells.
• Sperm are haploid and therefore do not meet one of the requirements for organisms.

Okay, so, would you agree that skin cells and neurons being diploid, reproducing cells and capable of metabolism meet the definition for living organisms?

I wouldn't go that far. But at some point in the development of a fetus, it deserves some kind of protection. Obviously it's a large grey area. I can't give you a date... and I can't speak to every scenario. But it seems very obvious to me life worthy of state protection begins before birth.

 

[jj]

No. Sperm cells are not distinct organisms and therefore not "alive", any more than skin cells or neurons are "alive".

Sorry, wrong, each cell is a distinct, individual organism, with a specific mission.

Not a terribly complex organism, just like a zygote, but an organism, and a distinct, individual organism.

 

[jj]

Zygotes are human; humans are ethically distinct from non-human animals.

A zygote is a living human organism. Which doesn't definitively answer the question of how to treat zygotes, but it does identify them as distinct from dogs and sperm.

Proof by assertion is not proof.

You have asserted a variety of claims here, please now supply the clear, irrefutable scientific evidence.

Religious evidence does not apply to legal discussions, read your constitution, please.

 

[Caper]

You have asserted a variety of claims here, please now supply the clear, irrefutable scientific evidence.

Isn't it in the end just an opinion? Whether you believe a single cell is a human being or not till an infant hits 10 months..... or maybe they're only human if they are a certain religion or skin color.... Isn't it in the end just an opinion of what should be defined as a human being?

 

[RandFan]

I wouldn't go that far. But at some point in the development of a fetus, it deserves some kind of protection. Obviously it's a large grey area. I can't give you a date... and I can't speak to every scenario. But it seems very obvious to me life worthy of state protection begins before birth.

Viability is a rational point IMO. It is very near the time a fetus can possibly appreciate pain and have some rudimentary self awareness. If a fetus is healthy and can be delivered alive without harm to the mother and it is viable then deliver it alive.

 

[RandFan]

Isn't it in the end just an opinion? Whether you believe a single cell is a human being or not till an infant hits 10 months..... or maybe they're only human if they are a certain religion or skin color.... Isn't it in the end just an opinion of what should be defined as a human being?

Is it a matter of opinion whether a watermelon is a human being? What is a human being? Are skin cells human beings? If it is unreasonable to say that a watermelon is a human being or that a skin cell is a human being then why is it reasonable to say that a zygote or blastocyst is a human being?

A human being ought to at the very least have function distinct from other living things that we do not consider human beings. I would suggest the bare minimum is self awareness. Otherwise your opinion is irrational as it would lead to inconsistent results and require lots of ad hoc special pleading to defend it.

 

[Dessi]

What difference does it make to kill a living organism belonging to one taxonomic classification or another?

Call me a monster but a bug isn't as important as a human being(abortion issue aside). It just isn't.

Do you think the difference in importance between bugs and human beings is due to them belonging to different taxonomic classifications?

But the answer to your question is that humanity as rightfully decided human beings are generally of more value then animals.

Why? What's the distinction between killing members of one taxonomic classification or the other?

 

[Caper]

Is it a matter of opinion whether a watermelon is a human being?

That may be stretching it. But I can't argue with someone who says a single cell is a human being... Just like a I can't argue someone who says a 2 year old is not a human being. I can argue their definition is ridiculous..... But in the end of the day.... Thats their belief....It's how they define it. I can't prove they are wrong.

 

[Caper]

Do you think the difference in importance between bugs and human beings is due to them belonging to different taxonomic classifications?

Well you are over complicating things a bit.... But I guess so.

Btw..... I have this image of my mind of you going on a hunting trip with Ted Nugent for a reality tv segment that has me cracking up.

 

[Caper]

A human being ought to at the very least have function distinct from other living things that we do not consider human beings. I would suggest the bare minimum is self awareness. Otherwise your opinion is irrational as it would lead to inconsistent results and require lots of ad hoc special pleading to defend it.

I don't mind that definition. But even self awareness provides for a pretty large grey area IMO.

 

[RandFan]

That may be stretching it. But I can't argue with someone who says a single cell is a human being... Just like a I can't argue someone who says a 2 year old is not a human being. I can argue their definition is ridiculous..... But in the end of the day.... Thats their belief....It's how they define it. I can't prove they are wrong.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly or how it advances the discussion. I really don't mean to be rude and I apologize if you take offense but why are you here at JREF? What you just said about what people believe is true for every debate here on JREF. At the end of the day you can't prove anything to anyone.

Social progress is the result of persuasion and appeals to reason. It's a slow process. Almost imperceptible. I came here a deist, dualist, anti-gay conservative. Change took years. If you adopt the position that at the end of the day it's pointless then why waste your time?

 

[RandFan]

I don't mind that definition. But even self awareness provides for a pretty large grey area IMO.

But that is really beside the point. It is the only internally consistent metric. It doesn't matter how much grey area there is. A delineation must be made or you must either be willing to enact laws to protect sperm and ovum or be willing to allow people to kill babies. So, your job is to come up with something that will allow for you to make decisions and be internally consistent that doesn't lead to absurdity, ad hoc rationalization and special pleading. There is only one metric for that.

 

[Caper]

Social progress is the result of persuasion and appeals to reason. It's a slow process. Almost imperceptible. I came here a deist, dualist, anti-gay conservative. Change took years. If you adopt the position that at the end of the day it's pointless then why waste your time?

Love the process.... Love the argument.


The fact is a lot of debates are like... What's your favorite sports team.... There really isn't a wrong answer.

And I never said it was pointless... It's not.

 

[Caper]

But that is really beside the point. It is the only internally consistent metric. It doesn't matter how much grey area there is. A delineation must be made or you must either be willing to enact laws to protect sperm and ovum or be willing to allow people to kill babies. So, your job is to come up with something that will allow for you to make decisions and be internally consistent that doesn't lead to absurdity, ad hoc rationalization and special pleading. There is only one metric for that.

20 weeks then.... In a normal healthy pregnancy and not talking about all the other what's and buts ( which of course you would have to consider making actual law, but I don't feel like writing 3 pages here). I can see myself moving 2 weeks either way. But that seems to be, after reading all I could is where i have about always been.

 

[Caper]

I came here a deist, dualist, anti-gay conservative. Change took years. If you adopt the position that at the end of the day it's pointless then why waste your time?

As an aside... It would be pretty funny if in 10 years you went back to a deist, dualist antigay conservative again.

Actually, I think you'll end up in a south American jungle somewhere helping to foment revolution.

 

[RandFan]

Love the process.... Love the argument.


The fact is a lot of debates are like... What's your favorite sports team.... There really isn't a wrong answer.

And I never said it was pointless... It's not.

Okay then. Fair enough.

 

[RandFan]

As an aside... It would be pretty funny if in 10 years you went back to a deist, dualist antigay conservative again.

Actually, I think you'll end up in a south American jungle somewhere helping to foment revolution.

I'm starting to think you are psychic.

This is the movie we watched at my house last night.