When does life begin?

[reverse]

i am pro choice because it is what i believe is right. you dont choose your beliefs based on what will serve you best. you dont choose your beliefs at all.

 

ok that one.

 

I know you like a challenge so I will leave you with it and pick up later.

[Callipygous]

ok that one.

 

I know you like a challenge so I will leave you with it and pick up later.

 

 

i like it a hell of a lot better when people tell me what they are thinking instead of beating around the bush.

 

please dont tell me its because im pro "choice" and you cant "choose" your beliefs... thats just lame.

[reverse]

back agian.

No beating intended.

Had stuff to do that could wait no longer.

 

 

1:

One of the key arguments as to the distinction between humans and other creatures has been stated as the small window of choice between action and your choice of reaction.

 

Without that it is argued that we are little more than robots.

 

Not culpable, not punishable and not distinct.

 

in short, no ability to choose = no claim to humanity.

 

2:

From what I have studied, you are operating from a fairly high level of moral behaviour.

That is not so common ( if I’m to believe the texts )

You seem to have found yourself exactly the right position on the topic.

 

3:

Thanks for the chance to stretch my brain a bit.

I can’t believe the mods let us wander of topic for so long!

[Kygron]

what if your friend decided they didnt like the painting, threw it away and started from scratch? would you tell them no, make them finish it instead of starting the new one, and force them to hang it on one of their walls anyway?

 

This is an interesting metaphor, I'll give two different answers.

 

1 This doesn't apply. A woman doesn't make a child, a child makes itself inside a woman. Therefor whether or not she likes it, it WILL be finished (barring catastrophy).

 

2 Of course! Extend your thinking a bit and imagine that you're talking about a two-year-old. Then shudder at the alternative.

[Callipygous]

This is an interesting metaphor' date=' I'll give two different answers.

 

1 This doesn't apply. A woman doesn't make a child, a child makes itself inside a woman. Therefor whether or not she likes it, it WILL be finished (barring catastrophy).

 

2 Of course! Extend your thinking a bit and imagine that you're talking about a two-year-old. Then shudder at the alternative.[/quote']

 

i would argue that the woman has a fairly large role in the creation of the child, similar to the way a magician(clown? take your pick) has a large role in the creation of a balloon animal.

 

extend your thinking the other direction and imagine your talking about a sperm and an egg. who cares? i blow millions of the little bastards into the shower drain every day. (teenage boy, who woulda thunk?)

[Kraft]

Sorry for the lateness of this reply, school's got me stressing out.

 

The reason that the potential personhood argument fails is that a fundamental change occurs in development after which person is achieved. Take it like this, the fertilized ovum is a blueprint, the mother through her diet provides the raw materials and her uterus the environment for 'assembly' of the foetus. If the full child was a building, I don't consider the blueprints and empty lot a building, but when the structure of the building is set I would (i.e. personhood).

 

As for the potential to reoffend, that is used to keep them in jail, not to make the conviction. If you were to talk about potential to offend by itself, nearly everyone has potential for harm.

 

Physics - potential energy is different than the potential for energy, I don't see it as being comparable. For personhood a fundamental change is required that a shift from kinetic to potential energy doesn't equate to.

 

Definition of a person - ok, me. Well what makes me a person? I could say it is my genetic code, but then what of a person with down's or Turner's syndrome, they do not fit this definition, are they persons?

Biologically, I could go by physiology, but then what would happen if an amputation occurred or artificial replacement used.

I am left with the definition I earlier mentioned - a biological entity with the present capacity for sentience and volition. This is not exclusive to humans, while the data AFAIK is inconclusive so far it is possible that dolphins, octopi, etc., could be persons. In this definition sentience and volition are cited, from that the principle of autonomy is derived and the rest follows.

 

Respect for all life - I'm unsure how you can function at all if you hold this. That a plant, animal, bacterial are valued equally with your own life. You'll have to explain it further or your justification of your actions if you do hold this.

 

Personal gain - I'm just stating what I believe to be right. I agree with Callipygous here. Honestly, emotionally I do not like the prospect of abortion, but that is separate from my values.

 

Message #228

1. Covered earlier in definition of personhood.

2. That's the post conventional stage of development link

 

Later.

[Kygron]

i would argue that the woman has a fairly large role in the creation of the child, similar to the way a magician(clown? take your pick) has a large role in the creation of a balloon animal.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but the way I heard it the child is essentially a parasite that the womb is designed not to rid itself of. The blood of the two is even filtered so that it doesn't intermingle! Yes the womb is a perfect enviorment, but it's like a jungle is the perfect enviorment for a (er... jungle creature), it can't live in the desert, but no one considers the jungle to have created it.

 

 

extend your thinking the other direction and imagine your talking about a sperm and an egg. who cares? i blow millions of the little bastards into the shower drain every day. (teenage boy, who woulda thunk?)

 

Well, yeah, but most members of this discussion have agreed NOT to consider anything before conception to be human. Your metaphore was about a possible human, I suggested you look at it from the point of view that it was human, now you've just extended it out of the realm of discussion. You're free to do that, but the way I see it you're just repeating the metaphore!

[reverse]

Have let this topic sit because I don’t want to upset anyone, but the following thoughts have come to mind .

 

The words pro life and pro choice are distorted.

They have already been fiddled with by the spin doctors.

(In order to attach other issues to the core simple scientific issue).

 

The words should be” pro abortion” and “against abortion”.

 

My thoughts then went on the inability to consider a small collection of cells to be a human being.

I thought that this was also why people could treat slaves so badly,

kill the other side in a war

and take their Jewish neighbours and put them in death camps.

 

Several different mechanisms of propaganda were used to convince the population that theses groups were not human beings and therefore could be treated cruelly.

 

Finally my mind settled on a saying from somewhere in the storm of words and images that are thrown at us by the media on a daily basis.

 

“who will speak for those without a voice”

[xom]

Its all very easy for men to take the moral high ground where such issues are concerned

[Callipygous]

Have let this topic sit because I don’t want to upset anyone, but the following thoughts have come to mind .

 

no offense, but i dispise that kind of logic. say what you think, not what will make people happy. especially since here you have nothing to lose.

 

The words should be” pro abortion” and “against abortion”.

 

the problem here is that no one is "pro abortion". there isnt anyone out there saying "yeah, lets kill the little bastards!" however there are people who say that a womans rights are more important than that blob of cells thats only been around for a month. saying "pro abortion" is like saying "anti life" thats not what it is. "pro choice" really is the best discription because its not that you WANT babies to be aborted, its that you think the mother should have the right to decide.

 

My thoughts then went on the inability to consider a small collection of cells to be a human being.

I thought that this was also why people could treat slaves so badly,

kill the other side in a war

and take their Jewish neighbours and put them in death camps.

 

i absolutely disagree. quite frankly im somewhat insulted, just because of this part: "kill the other side in a war". comparing what soldiers do for their country to the holocaust and slavery is pretty disgusting in my opinion. i can go into the details of exactly why if you want but i dont think its quite related to this thread.

 

Several different mechanisms of propaganda were used to convince the population that theses groups were not human beings and therefore could be treated cruelly.

 

i dont think its the same thing. once again, its not that the thing doesnt deserve to live, its that the mothers rights are more important at that stage.

[Callipygous]

Its all very easy for men to take the moral high ground where such issues are concerned

 

this made me laugh.

 

the entire discussion is about "what is the moral high ground in this situation?"

[reverse]

No offence taken.

 

I just don’t destroy things (including people’s view of the world ) unless I’m prepared to put in the hours of work to help them build a replacement.

 

A view of reality is a big project.

 

No offence intended,

I was pointing to the technique of dehumanization through propaganda.

(The old trick of redefining a quantity out of the rule so you can be free of the rule)

 

( check out some of the Nazi black and white Rat = Jew propaganda films from back then ).

 

There is no intention here to surf a free emotional wave to a logical point of view.

[reverse]

Its all very easy for men to take the moral high ground where such issues are concerned

 

 

 

Do you mean that it's easy to talk the talk,

but to walk the walk is a different matter?

[Mokele]

I was pointing to the technique of dehumanization through propaganda.

 

Except you have a false premise: that the cells should even be considered human to begin with.

 

Now, maybe they are and maybe they aren't deserving of being called human. That's been a large part of this thread. But your statement treats this arguement as having been resolved in that manner, and is therefore based on a shaky foundation.

 

It's one thing to use propaganda to state that something which is obviously human is not, but it's entirely different where there is legitimate debate as to whether something is human or not. It's not using propaganda to blind people to an obvious truth, but rather trying to ferret out the highly non-obvious truth of a complex situation.

 

--------------

 

Of course, the funniest thing is that people seem to be under the delusions that a) morals exist as anything but social constructs and instincts and b) that killing is somehow "wrong".

 

If killing is wrong, I'd like to see you justify that chicken you ate a while back.

 

Death is part of nature, as much a part of life. Sure, it sucks, but that's life (at least the end of it).

 

Mokele

[reverse]

But missure giant Tokyo destroying monster,

 

 

At the time, white slave owners did not think as slaves as people,

 

And Crusaders thought of their victims as devils… spawn of Satan…and so on.

 

what is obvious to us now was not obvious to them at the time.

At the time it is never obvious.

If it was, the violence would not have happened.

 

wonder what the dna of those aborted babies would look like?

see this SFN link.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9484

[Mokele]

At the time it is never obvious.

If it was, the violence would not have happened

 

Bull****. People have been violent and terrible to each other numerous times without the need to dehumanize the intended victims. We're a violent species.

 

Furthermore, as I've noted, your point has no logical content (since it rests on a shaky assumption) and, worse, is counter-productive to discussion. Your point doesn't convey information, but merely seek to inflame one side and demonize the other by drawing parallels to "evil" occurences.

 

In fact, that means you yourself are guilty of a more minor version of the same thing.

 

It's an ad hominem, nothing more.

 

wonder what the dna of those aborted babies would look like?

 

Since when does DNA define personhood? The DNA of the eggs women lose every menstrual cycle looks like that too, as does the DNA of the trillions of sperm who die every time you whack off. The DNA of the hundreds of fertilized eggs that fail to implant looks like that.

 

A cancer has human DNA too, acts for it's own interests, and I significantly geneticly different from it's host. Does that mean tumors have a right to life?

 

"Potential" is not something to judge on. I have the potential to be a truly great biologist, up there with Gould and the like. I also have the potential to become a mass-murdering sociopath. And everything in between. Should I simultaneously be given the Nobel and put to death because of my potential?

 

And so, once again, we come back to the core question: How do we define what is a person? It's not as simple as the knee-jerk stormtroopers-for-jesus would have people believe.

 

Mokele

[Callipygous]

Of course' date=' the funniest thing is that people seem to be under the delusions that a) morals exist as anything but social constructs and instincts and b) that killing is somehow "wrong".

 

If killing is wrong, I'd like to see you justify that chicken you ate a while back.

 

Death is part of nature, as much a part of life. Sure, it sucks, but that's life (at least the end of it).[/quote']

 

a. the only other place they could possibly exist requires religion. so saying that those are the only places morals exist is saying a certain religious point of view is wrong, which isnt something we can really assume to support our own views. (if you know of somewhere else morals could exist, feel free to let me know)

 

b. killing IS wrong. but necessary. i justify killing the chicken because i needed to eat it to survive.

[reverse]

Bull****.

Mokele

 

 

You got me all wrong.

 

I'm not trying to make a point, just observing how there are forces at work in the media acting on the general public re this topic.

 

sure we are a physical species, but also a disorganised bunch of yahoos.

you need to galvanise a large groups to do stuff like wars and cultural cleansing.

that's where propaganda comes in.

 

ps Bull**** is a highly developed skill.

it’s not the same as deception.

[reverse]

Bull****.

Bullfrog?.

Bullwhip?

Bullhorn?

Mokele

 

Hey Mokele,

I was thinking the other day…..

when the genetic material from the two parents first combine in the egg…

 

That very first moment of ( what I define as) life.

 

Now there must be something else strange happening just before that first interlacing of the two halves of data.

 

There must be some random shuffling to create a truly unique pattern.

 

Because if there wasn’t all brothers and sisters from the same parents should be exact clones.

 

What is that mechanism, do you know?

[Kraft]

Meiosis in the production of the gametes themselves causes variation. With cross-over and independant assortment in meiosis the DNA of the egg or sperm is never quite identical.

[reverse]

Are you saying that each sperm carries slightly different genetic instructions?

[Callipygous]

Are you saying that each sperm carries slightly different genetic instructions?

 

yes. its been a while since biology, but i believe it has to do with the strand of DNA splitting and then which half actually goes and pairs with the egg. someone more grounded in this wanna clarify?

[adhocboy]

I'm sorry, I missed the point. Why is killing wrong, again? (I know about the 10 commandments thing, but that is a convenant between man and god, not a moral law.)

[Kraft]

http://www.johnkyrk.com/meiosis.html It has an animation of the process. During the first round of meiosis, the homologous chromosomes form tetrads, and in this they can exchange genetic matierial leading to recombinant chromosomes and variation. Also, when aligning on the metaphase plane the side which the maternal vs. paternal chromosome go on is random. So, with 23 chromosomes there are 2^23 possible arrangements. You get 4 different sperm in the end.

 

In egg formation only 1 gamete is procuded in the end rather than 4, but it is very similar.

[Callipygous]

I'm sorry, I missed the point. Why is killing wrong, again? (I know about the 10 commandments thing, but that is a convenant between man and god, not a moral law.)

 

 

i dont really give a da.. about the ten commandments. part of understanding what im saying probably requires you to know something about my beliefs. im an athiest, i believe there is no god and that people invented him to explain things they didnt have the science to understand. the bible was written by people who were far ahead of there time and thought that the world would be a better place for everyone and that they and everyone else would prosper if people followed a certain code of moral conduct. ie everyone is happier and more productive if they arent getting robbed and raped and murdered.

 

so they wrote this code of conduct that they believed would make the world an easier place for everyone if only they could get people to follow it. but how do you get someone to obey? people act based on there own best interest, most people at that time arent highminded enough to understand their actual reason for following this code of conduct and people will simply pretend to go along with it and then abuse the system by not following it them selves because they think everyone else will obey and so there will be no return fire. so how to convince people to do this?

 

they attached personal benefit to following their rules. "if you dont do what this book says to the best of your ability each and every day then the supreme ruler of the universe (who, by the way, is the one telling us all of this) will banish you to a fiery pit for all of eternity where your existence will be nothing but suffering and torture for ever and ever and ever amen." now people will do what they say because there is a punishment associated with not believing.

 

on to my next point: the average person is a dunderhead. they decided that, yes, there are people that are not productive members of society and are probably detrimental to overall progress. however, leaving that judgement to the average, emotionally charged, self interest driven, shmuck is not going to work very well. people are going to get mad at the productive members of society and kill off some people we could actually use. so well tell them that they have no right to take lives, but well enstate a person (a judge) to determine which people are a detriment to society. hell be impartial and he will try to make the correct decisions about who is best for societal progress because doing so will be in his best interest (because well pay him for it).

 

so, in summary, killing is wrong because you are a dunderhead who doesnt have the perspective, motivation, or liscence, to decide whether killing that person is right or not. such decisions are left to specific people because it is not something people as a whole should tamper with. you harm society as a whole and thus you harm yourself. its wrong.