What should abortion laws be?

[JBeukema]

To your post (and as covered earlier), this all depends on when you define human existence to start.

The existence of a human being begins when egg and sperm fuze.

That's a scientific fact.

There is no room for debate on that any more than there's room for debate regarding Earth orbing Sol

To me human is in the mind, not the DNA so I do not care before the brain develops into an individual but after I do not believe in non life saving abortions.

The 'personhood' argument.

 

[FA_Q2]

To your post (and as covered earlier), this all depends on when you define human existence to start.

The existence of a human being begins when egg and sperm fuze.

That's a scientific fact.

There is no room for debate on that any more than there's room for debate regarding Earth orbing Sol

That depends on the definition. The second quote you cited is what I was getting at. I use the words 'human' and 'person' interchangeably. As that seems to add a little confusion I will continue with person from now on and recognize that technically a fetalized egg may be human, in practical terms I do not see it that way.

To me human is in the mind, not the DNA so I do not care before the brain develops into an individual but after I do not believe in non life saving abortions.

The 'personhood' argument.

Yes, the personhood argument. At this point in this thread I have not seen one good point to refute this position. After hundreds of posts by JD on the other side, here's to hoping you have something here

It is a balance between the rights of the mother, that of the unborn and that of personal responsibility. What differentiate man from all else, the personhood, is the mind and what gives rise to that is the brain. That is where I put my stock into stopping abortion.

They can be self-aware and some report dreaming. Also, we cannot know that they have no merely forgotten any self-generated images. So long as their brain functions continue, we can only err on the side of caution and assume that the mind to which those processes give rise continues to exit.

Connected to the above response in development of the brain. This is why I do not need definitive proof that the brain is working, just proof that there is electrical activity there on its own and science has provided that proof.

 

[JBeukema]

That depends on the definition

Human being = Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder what the people who are so focused on genetics would do when confronted with a hypothetical race of intelligent extraterrestrials or sentient machines.

Why does the DNA or lack thereof of the process determine the 'value' of the mind to which they give rise?

 

[FA_Q2]

That depends on the definition

Human being = Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder what the people who are so focused on genetics would do when confronted with a hypothetical race of intelligent extraterrestrials or sentient machines.

Why does the DNA or lack thereof of the process determine the 'value' of the mind to which they give rise?

did you fail to read the rest of my post on purpose. Please be through and not misrepresent people here.

 

[Bern80]

That depends on the definition

Human being = Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder what the people who are so focused on genetics would do when confronted with a hypothetical race of intelligent extraterrestrials or sentient machines.

Why does the DNA or lack thereof of the process determine the 'value' of the mind to which they give rise?

You're own link states in the first sentence of the second paragraph that humans have highly developed brains. The organ known as the brain doesn't even exist 'when sperm and egg fuze'.

 

[JBeukema]

You're own link states in the first sentence of the second paragraph that humans have highly developed brains.

Well, I guess that means you're not human

 

[Bern80]

You're own link states in the first sentence of the second paragraph that humans have highly developed brains.

Well, I guess that means you're not human

Typical cowardly response. You're the one with the contradiction on their hands. Not me.

 

[Seer Travis]

No you don't believe in truth. Much as you would like and organization of cells to be a human being, it is not. My belief is that happens at some point in the gestation process, but to call the intital combination and cell division of egg a sperm a human being is simply inaccurate. Abortion at that point simply isnt' killing a human being, which is why there is no standng to make a legal issue out of abortion at that point.

Of course I don't believe in Truth, I know Truth. Again we see refusal to accept simple Truth.

You are just simply claiming that a "group of cells" is not a human being, but you do not and cannot show how.

An adult human being could be called "just a bunch of cells" just as much as any child at any developmental stage.

Your argument that it is made of cells is moot because we could only expect a new life form to be made of cells.

 

[JBeukema]

The costs involved dont matter. This is an appeal to consequences fallacy in the making.

right...


So how many children should die because the resources needed to save them are squandered on a braindead patient?

Resources squandered on the braindead are resourced denied to patients who can be helped.

How long should we waste resources keeping the tissues of the braindead alive?

That is a very ignorant and immature answer, because :
1. Tries to suggest that peoples views on morality/ethics/agree action should effect the argument. What people think about what to do in a situation does not matter because they could be wrong.

Yet here you are telling people what to do in the situation

2. Commits a circular justification fallacy by presuming that it would be a waste of time to keep the braindead alive.

Give one good reason to keep the bodily tissues alive.

You are presuming that consciousness does not matter

You're retarded. The very point is that the mind ceases to exist in the braindead.

3. a brain-dead body is not a womb-trapped child. The major difference being that if it cannot live again it is futile, and if it can then one should try.

The organism is alive- it is merely braindead, showing no signs of brain activity (or of higher brain function, given a more liberal application of the term)

4. A braindead person was not necessarily rendered braindead by a deliberate act that could be avoided.

Nor is a foetus lacking brain function as the result of an action- it merely has not developed to the point where the brain has formed and become active, giving rise to a conscious mind. It is to the Person as the Commodore 64 is to any sentient machine that might someday exist.

Wrong. This are cases where insufficient drugs were used, or it was a different type of procedure and thus a WEAKER type of drug was used.

And that somehow disproves my assertion that it's possible for a patient to be conscious during an operation?

Are you fucking retarded?

That, however, does not matter. The point was that you falsely justify what a human being is (position A) by argument of consciousness (B). You in effect claim that a human being an only be such if it is conscious and self-aware.

I never said that. A human being is a human being by nature of virtue of being an organism that is genetically human. By definition. I was addressing the existence of the mind, of the person, of that which actually matters.

You say A only if B. But I can say that B can be absent from a case where we are dealing with a human being. It does not matter how many cases there are or if every case is the same.

I don't care if it's genetically human. That means nothing at all. There is no fundamental difference between a sentient human, a sentient machine, a surviving Neanderthal, and a sentient extraterrestial intelligence. In all cases, we are dealing with a sentient intelligence that exists (to the best of our knowledge) outside of ourselves. The nature of the physical processes that give rise to that sentience are irrelevant.

Let Me show you your logic :

A (human being instead of just a body) requires B (consciousness)

Fetus not have B. Therefore, fetus cannot be A (human being).

I never said that. I was the one who pointed out that they're biologically human by definition, you twit.

So you beg the question : Why does consciousness matter? (Obviously you are just claiming it does because it suits your conclusion.)

Why do I treat my neighbor differently than a rock? Because my neighbor is a sentient and intelligent being. both are made from atoms - in turn, both are nothing more, physically, than concentrated energy. When a man's head is blown off, what changes? Prior to the termination of his heartbeat, his mind ceases to exist along with the brain that gives rise to it. He ceased to exist as a sentient and intelligent entity. His body is nothing more than tissue - like my own body, it is merely a support system for the brain, which gives rise our existence as sentient intelligences. Harm to his body is objectionable because of the harm it causes him, not because of the damage it might cause to the tissue. That it why we do not punish those who cut apart or burn dead bodies - there is no mind, no person, to be harmed by the act. The respect we show for the dead corpse is primarily for those who knew the person as well as a result of our own instinctual reaction to death.

Also, we cannot know that they have no merely forgotten any self-generated images. So long as their brain functions continue, we can only err on the side of caution and assume that the mind to which those processes give rise continues to exit.

You claim to presume. But the same can be said of the "soul" and religious arguments, and thus if you need to presume why don't you just presume that they could right.

You've evidence for those soul? Wouldn't the soul just move on anyway? Are you now attacking me for my declaring that we should protect living persons even while they are under anesthesia? Do you even know what you're babbling about, or are you meerely looking to argue about something?

So : Your tactic is to stubbornly deny that humans can be unconscious in their life times.

Do cite where I said that.

 

[Bern80]

That is an appeal to authority fallacy (dictionary). Just because human being is DEFINED that way, only means that the individual who wrote the dictionary believed that. He was wrong. There are objective and concrete standards to what a human life form is, and the womb-trapped child, baby, and adult meet those standards.

For a philospher you are not the greatest at observing proper context. Which makes the folowing drivel largely irrelevant.

 

[Bern80]

Context does not change a fallacy into a point. You cannot legitimately disregard My posts by just irrationally calling them drivel.

I most certainly can. Your post has nothing to do with what I said. You took a response of mine to someone else and presumed a lot about my position. My response was to Eukema who seems to have a contradiction on his hands, which he can either clarify or not. My opinion or beliefs were no where to be found in that post, so how you can attack them in the rest of the post is beyond me.

That is what I meant when I said you need to re-examine the context of the conversation. If you did, you would see that my statements were simply stating what what was in Eukema's link and simple bilogical facts. How could read that and not only extrapolate my beliefs, but attack them out of that just shows that you are not the oh wise one you think you are.

 

[JBeukema]

J Beukema: I never said that. A human being is a human being by nature of virtue of being an organism that is genetically human.

J Beukema: I don't care if it's genetically human. That means nothing at all.

So you do and you don't, then JBeukema? Who is the retard now?

---------
For more information on My posts, visit TM8k where you can access in-depth information on these issues I discuss here.

reading comprehension fail


where did I ever say I cared about genetics?

 

[JBeukema]

Human's aren't defined as intelligent. Humans are defined as a particular species, as determined by genetics.

Intelligence is not a necessary condition for classification as a human being. Such is simply a biological classification of the organism as a member of a particular species.

Claiming that humans [believe themselves to] have great intelligence is an observation about them [by themselves].

 

[JBeukema]

You are a coward and refuse to answer the question,

Give one good reason to keep the bodily tissues alive.

I never mentioned them, you did to duck the Q. The Q was why should consciousness matter? YOU CANT ANSWER IT.

What is the difference between a living an and a dead man? What changes the moment your head is blown off with a .50 cal?

Arguing that a system might potentially give rise to a mind is foolish. By that reasoning, the internet should be a protected entity as the system could give rise to a conscious mind as it develops. You're just trying to use a variant of the 'potential life' bullshit that requires every carbon atom be treated as a human being.

No, I am a philosopher and have a high IQ, and am very wise

You dont get it. You just claim it matter. Prove it matters. I say it does not matter. I showed why, because a human being who cannot be murdered can be unconscious/unaware.

You're asking me to prove your assertions and claiming to be intelligent?

No, because that sentience is a PRODUCT OF THE PHYSICAL BRAIN and thus a product of genetics, biological structures etc. Else, you have to concede the soul and supernatural causes and that will INCLUDE the womb-trapped child.

You're still babbling about the 'soul'?

Why does sentience matter? Prove it. Then show Me why the patient's loss of consciousness does not render him non-human-being. If it is not the physical bodies genetics, as you say above, then WHAT do you suggest makes sentience?

l

You can't even keep track of the discussion.

Why would one case of lack of consciousness matter (fetus) and another case of lack of consciousness (patient unconcious) not?

You've evidence that the patient ceases to exist as you claim?

Why would that decide if you are a human being or not?

What are you babbling about? Whether something is human is determined by its DNA. Are you really so dense as to not grasp that?

lol

Further, if consciousness matters, and is made up of only energy/matter particles

Who claimed that? You seem to be having your own discussion all by your lonesome

, then there is no supernatural forces

non sequitur, o' wise philosopher lol

 

[Bern80]

Human's aren't defined as intelligent. Humans are defined as a particular species, as determined by genetics.

Intelligence is not a necessary condition for classification as a human being. Such is simply a biological classification of the organism as a member of a particular species.

Claiming that humans [believe themselves to] have great intelligence is an observation about them [by themselves].

I guess my point here was the link you were using as evidence states that a characteristic of humans is a highly developed brain. I was just seeking clarification as to why your posting as evidence something that seems to contradict what you are saying above. Me thinks I am missing something.

I think there may be a lot of assumptions flying around that are causing the confusion. My position in a nutshell.

Abortion shoud be illegal after a certain stage in the pregnency because at some point in the pregnancy that organization of cells becomes a human being. We have laws against killing innocent, birthed humans beings and I just don't see that there is enough of a difference between them and unborn child at a certain point in the pregnancy that justifies abortion short of maybe the mother's life being at stake. NOW if you don't agree feel free to argue away.

 

[JBeukema]

Saying that humans have highly developed brains is puffery. It's a casual observation/claim. It is not a part of the biological definition homo sapien sapien. It's like claiming that any given compute model is fast. Any given computer might be broken and not work at all or might have half of it l2 cache shot and barely function, but it's still the same model of computer because it's defined by its components, not by its performance, just as humans are defined as such by their genetic makeup, not by their stage of development or mental acuity.

I sent frazzled to wiki because I was afraid I'd confuse him if I sent him to anything more academic.

 

[Bern80]

I doubt anyone could be as profoundly retarded as JB seems to be. He is a TROLL. Simple as that. See how many laughing faces he did....to bury that small post I did where he totally contradicted himself yet again. He takes a few words out of a sentence and then complains that it does not make sense. etc. He does not answer if you have a point, he just becomes abusive or silly.

He just tries to waste peoples time. Do not argue with the troll.

In reference to this you mean?

No, I am a philosopher and have a high IQ, and am very wise

Actually I had a similar reaction. It's hilarious watching people be so full of themselves sometimes.

 

[Gunny]

Firstly, the idea of a "poll" on any issue is entirely irrational and insane.

The number of citizen-slaves that believe in or support any issue in no way suggests legitimacy (or lack thereof) in said issue.

Now, firstly we must look at what abortion entails, and why it is not only legal, but societally sponsored.

What is abortion claimed to be?
A medical procedure that aborts the would-be human child before it becomes a new human life. It is claimed that this procedure does not constitute murder and it is a benevolent procedure that shows what a modern and decent society we live in.

Is there any Truth in these claim? No! This explanation does not fir the known facts of abortion.

Here is the Forbidden Truth, which I will impeccably argue and prove is correct :
**

Approx. two days after the successful combining of the egg and sperm, a new life form of the same species as the biological creators attaches itself to the wall of the womb, and begins to grow. Even at this point it is a scientific fact that it is alive. In the case of humans, we now have a entirely new and unique human life form.

"Abortion" is the societally sponsored and malevolent mass-murder of helpless and innocent children by society. All a single abortion entails is the murder of a human being. The label "abortion" should not even exist. The Truth-based and legitimate term would be "murder". Every single abortion constitutes the murder of a new human being.

Abortion is sponsored and promoted by society and societal leaders for the primary reason that they know that most citizen-slaves are filled with immense but suppressed, denied and deep-seated sadistic impulses, rage and frustration because of their life experiences living in a human society.

They know that now and again these things boil to the surface, and can cause harm to their society via damage to infrastructure, murders, serious assaults etc. Adult citizen-slaves need outlets for their anger and frustrations.

Men have things like boxing, wars and hunting. Although females are involved in these activities, men are much greater represented and promoted in these activities. So it was decided that females needed and exclusive outlet. Since the family unit structure, marriage, "couple" and sacred mommy delusional institutions were already in place, societal leaders simple tacked on another new form of child abuse : A mother could legally murder her womb-trapped child. Societal leaders know that it is easier to make new lie-based policies based on the already popular lies-based policies, dogmas, institutions etc.

That said, some individual females actually believe in these lies, and do not consciously realize that they have murdered a human child.

So, that is the Forbidden Truth on abortion.
**

This is utterly insane and immoral on a societal level. It is the genocide of children.

All the scientific and philosophical arguments prove that abortion in a murder act. I know all the arguments, and all the tricks. I am ready to argue the Truth as above.

-----
For more information on My posts, visit My website at TM8k

Bye. When you want to follow the rules, maybe you can come back.

 

[JakeStarkey]

]Bye. When you want to follow the rules, maybe you can come back.
[/B][/COLOR]

No, you have deleted My CP options, and now you have modified that above post. I never posted that material from My website. You (or one of your cronies) must have modified that post in order to generate an excuse to ban Me. I already know you have accessed My account here without informing Me or seeking permission from Me.

You are the ultimate supreme inferior.

=========
For more information, visit Forbidden Truth Media

Seer, you are a loony, period.