Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Mango wrote:
Dogma,
If an unborn human being is not a human being in your book, then please define for me what a human being is.

A biologically autonomous, organic body possessing the human genetic code. So, basically, a human being that is not unborn. I thought the distinction would have been fairly obvious.

Your definition of a human being does not hold water. A newborn is completely helpless for the first year of it's life, and completely dependant upon another for survival until at least 7 or 8 years of age (and then only in relatively benign circumstances). Which means they are not autonomous. So by your definiton, it would be ok to kill a child until it was physically capable of being self sufficient.

definition of autonomous: existing and functioning as an independent organism.
definition of independent: 4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
5. not relying on another or others for aid or support

An embryo has a seperate, distinct, and complete genetic code. It is a distinct organism that if left to it's own devices, without taking specific actions to the contrary, will survive.

So the distinction is only obvious if you are intellectually disengenuous.

Mango wrote:

dogma wrote:

Mango wrote:
Dogma,
If an unborn human being is not a human being in your book, then please define for me what a human being is.

A biologically autonomous, organic body possessing the human genetic code. So, basically, a human being that is not unborn. I thought the distinction would have been fairly obvious.

Your definition of a human being does not hold water. A newborn is completely helpless for the first year of it's life, and completely dependant upon another for survival until at least 7 or 8 years of age (and then only in relatively benign circumstances). Which means they are not autonomous. So by your definiton, it would be ok to kill a child until it was physically capable of being self sufficient.

Just to make this clear, I am anti-abortion, however, from that definition (e.g. helpless, dependent upon another and take food from them before birth) wouldn't that make them a parasite?

I think a parasite traditionally feeds off of another species, doesn't it?

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think a parasite traditionally feeds off of another species, doesn't it?

Yeah, I think you're right, but the similarities are there. It's just kinda strange I think.

Well, the young of every organism requires the parent to provide it with resources, usually with no gain for the parent aside from the evolutionary benefit of producing offspring.

yani wrote:For me the death penalty is a barbaric reminant from a less enlightened society. It is my belife that everyone has a chance of redemption and can atone for what they have done.

By all means we are nowhere an enlightened society . and such leniency is what the true murderers are depending on ( sure how many can they kill before or if they are caught
ok it adds up to 300 year life sentence? that doesnt really help spell justice does it ) .

Therefore prevention IS*A*MUST the punishment must be so horrid that no one will ever consider murder an OPTION OR CHOICE.

yani wrote:For me the death penalty is a barbaric reminant from a less enlightened society. It is my belife that everyone has a chance of redemption and can atone for what they have done.

Problem is, how is the government supposed to judge whether or not someone has "atoned" for their mistakes? Some sort of soul camera?

Unless you mean atone on a personal level. While in jail, being fed bread and water, for the rest of your life. I could respect that wish, I suppose. Allow people to have a chance to prove something to themselves, even if they've gone beyond their chance to prove it to others?

A fetus is not a human being. It may become one, but it is not one. an Autonomous Organism is one that can survive on it's own. not necessarily in the long run, but if you take a baby and leave it somewhere for let's say, a couple hours. it's won't be happy but it's probably not going to die. therefor it is biologically viable. a fetus, on the other hand (for the most part of it's gestation period) is in no way biologically viable. you take it out of the womb, it dies pretty quick. The moment it becomes a human being is when it becomes biologically viable. Mistakes happen, sometimes girls/women get pregnant without intending to. Sure, they probably weren't being responsible, but sticking them with the pregnancy and raising a child because of a moment's mistake (in which they probably weren't in their right mind) is like punishing a theft as if it was murder. WAAAYYY overkill. Besides, if you force someone who isn't ready to have a kid have one, that kid isn't going to have a very good childhood.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

yani wrote:For me the death penalty is a barbaric reminant from a less enlightened society. It is my belife that everyone has a chance of redemption and can atone for what they have done.

Problem is, how is the government supposed to judge whether or not someone has "atoned" for their mistakes? Some sort of soul camera?

Didn't you know? Japan already has one.

On topic. It doesn't really matter if you can atone for what you've done, what's done is done, and there's nothing you can do to change that, no matter how bad you feel about it.
The guy that stole millions from a whole bunch of people a while back, I can't remember his name, but the victims wanted him to have a tv in his cell playing videos of how he ruined all these families and stuff. But no matter what he did, should he have 24/7 tv viewings of sad people for the rest of his life, or save the taxpayers the hassel and just kill him? What I'm saying is, it doesn't matter how bad you feel, the government shouldn't have to pay to keep you alive after a mass murder or whatever, its just a burden on the overly burdened taxpayers.

@spartanghost
Lance Armstrong's mother was 17 when she had him, and he turned out great. Should she of not had him then?

mcfly wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

yani wrote:For me the death penalty is a barbaric reminant from a less enlightened society. It is my belife that everyone has a chance of redemption and can atone for what they have done.

Problem is, how is the government supposed to judge whether or not someone has "atoned" for their mistakes? Some sort of soul camera?

Didn't you know? Japan already has one.

On topic. It doesn't really matter if you can atone for what you've done, what's done is done, and there's nothing you can do to change that, no matter how bad you feel about it.
The guy that stole millions from a whole bunch of people a while back, I can't remember his name, but the victims wanted him to have a tv in his cell playing videos of how he ruined all these families and stuff. But no matter what he did, should he have 24/7 tv viewings of sad people for the rest of his life, or save the taxpayers the hassel and just kill him? What I'm saying is, it doesn't matter how bad you feel, the government shouldn't have to pay to keep you alive after a mass murder or whatever, its just a burden on the overly burdened taxpayers.

@spartanghost
Lance Armstrong's mother was 17 when she had him, and he turned out great. Should she of not had him then?

Oh no that's not quite what I meant. I mean if someone gets pregnant and isn't ready/it was a big mistake, they should ahve the choice to terminate. I'm not saying abourt all teenage pregnancies, i just think the choice should be there. Sure the child could turn out to be the next Lance Armstrong, but if the unprepared parent does a crappy job they could end up as the next charles manson just as easily. Obviously some teenage parents do a great job and the kids turn out great and they go on to lead fulfilling, productive lives. Hey! Thats's great! Kudos to them. They took what I see as a risk and it paid off great! But historically having a child before you're out of high school/ready for it tends to have rather detrimental effects to both parent and child. Ironically I had almost this exact same conversation with someone who's mother was 17 when she had her about 25 hours ago lol.

Mango wrote:
Your definition of a human being does not hold water. A newborn is completely helpless for the first year of it's life, and completely dependant upon another for survival until at least 7 or 8 years of age (and then only in relatively benign circumstances). Which means they are not autonomous. So by your definiton, it would be ok to kill a child until it was physically capable of being self sufficient.

Hence the word 'biologically' ahead of autonomous. A newborn is biologically autonomous because it can breath, process nutrients, and go about the fundamental processes of life without assistance. Note that this definition would be inclusive of the later fetal stages during which premature birth is viable.

Also, in no way is a child fully dependent upon its parents until 7 or 8 years of age. It is unlikely such a child would survive, but it is not impossible. Children are capable of elementary self-sufficiency once they can walk with reasonable stability.

Mango wrote:
definition of autonomous: existing and functioning as an independent organism.

Autonomous does not necessarily include 'functioning' in its definition. Many sources close the matter at existence. Merriam-Webster's, for example.

Mango wrote:
definition of independent: 4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
5. not relying on another or others for aid or support

4 is consistent with my use of the word, and 5 does not relate at all because no organism depends on others for aid or support in the maintenance of its status as a organism. If it did, it would not be an organism at all as an organism is intrinsically self-contained.

Mango wrote:
An embryo has a seperate, distinct, and complete genetic code. It is a distinct organism that if left to it's own devices, without taking specific actions to the contrary, will survive.

Not precisely. Many embryos (between 1/4 and 1/3) fail in miscarriage without any notably discreet action being taken.

This is where the use of the word autonomous comes into play. If an embryo is miscarried it will die. There is no way, currently, to preserve it. Regardless of its status as a genetically distinct collection of cells it is not a human being.

mcfly wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think a parasite traditionally feeds off of another species, doesn't it?

Yeah, I think you're right, but the similarities are there. It's just kinda strange I think.

Any mammalian embryo is a parasite in the sense that it drains the mother of resources in order to feed its own growth. The embryo has a separate genetic code and there are sometimes pernicious interactions of immune response between the embryo and mother.

dogma wrote:

Mango wrote:
Your definition of a human being does not hold water. A newborn is completely helpless for the first year of it's life, and completely dependant upon another for survival until at least 7 or 8 years of age (and then only in relatively benign circumstances). Which means they are not autonomous. So by your definiton, it would be ok to kill a child until it was physically capable of being self sufficient.

Hence the word 'biologically' ahead of autonomous. A newborn is biologically autonomous because it can breath, process nutrients, and go about the fundamental processes of life without assistance. Note that this definition would be inclusive of the later fetal stages during which premature birth is viable.

Also, in no way is a child fully dependent upon its parents until 7 or 8 years of age. It is unlikely such a child would survive, but it is not impossible. Children are capable of elementary self-sufficiency once they can walk with reasonable stability.

Mango wrote:
definition of autonomous: existing and functioning as an independent organism.

Autonomous does not necessarily include 'functioning' in its definition. Many sources close the matter at existence. Merriam-Webster's, for example.

Mango wrote:
definition of independent: 4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
5. not relying on another or others for aid or support

4 is consistent with my use of the word, and 5 does not relate at all because no organism depends on others for aid or support in the maintenance of its status as a organism. If it did, it would not be an organism at all as an organism is intrinsically self-contained.

Mango wrote:
An embryo has a seperate, distinct, and complete genetic code. It is a distinct organism that if left to it's own devices, without taking specific actions to the contrary, will survive.

Not precisely. Many embryos (between 1/4 and 1/3) fail in miscarriage without any notably discreet action being taken.

This is where the use of the word autonomous comes into play. If an embryo is miscarried it will die. There is no way, currently, to preserve it. Regardless of its status as a genetically distinct collection of cells it is not a human being.

Your first point, so now you are saying that a person that has to use a dialysis machine is not a human being. Or has to use any mechanical device to breath, proces nutrients etc. Basically, anyone that has a surgery, until they heal completely, is not a human being. A newborn is completely unable to care for itself. A 3 year old child might be able to feed itself, or drink unassissted. however a three year old has no idea how to provide the food in the first place. So again, is dependent upon another for survival. Also, apparently walking is a precondition for being a human being by your definition. Since you clearly state that once a child is able to walk it becomes self sufficient. Are amputees and parapalegics now no longer human beings? (I know that the walking part is not what you meant, but I was using that point to illustrate how arbitrary your definition is or can become)

As for miscarriage, that is not the same as deliberately killing something. If a person dies from a heart attack, society doesn't generally put anyone on trial for murder. If someone shoots a person in the heart, society does try them for murder. "natural causes" compared to "murder."

An embryo is an immature human being. It is undergoing cell division, cell differentiation, it has it's own distinct biological boundary, either a cell membrane, or later skin. It is capable or becoming capable of respiration, either through absorbing the oxygen fed to it, or later unassisted. If removed from the womb, yes it will die. But the key is how it is removed. If the woman's body spontaneously removes it, that is "natural". If someone shoves a needle into it first, that is unnatural. if someone takes hormones for the express purpose of "spontaneously" aborting the fetus, that is deliberate.

If abortion is not killing something, then why have an abortion? If it is not really a living being, and is instead a choice, then no actions would be needed to terminate its existence. When a choice is made to terminate somethings life, you are killing something. What exactly are you killing if not an immature human being?

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think a parasite traditionally feeds off of another species, doesn't it?

Stay up for a month, and yea the little buggers are cute but you'll be tyhinking PARASITE!!! about three in the morning. Later they will draw smiley faces and give them to you and give you a hug. You will keep these because even later they revert to OBNOXIOUS parasites (aka teenagers). Its the cycle of life.

I would have said psychological development and cognitive capability is important in the definition of human being.

Of course this leads us to difficult ground when we look at cases of people with severe cognitive disfunction. A person who has a serious brain injury is still considered a human being until they are shown to be brain dead.

Now thats a slippery slope KK. You're basically saying children are not human beings, as they are not cognitively developed. Yikes!

No, I'm saying that cognitive development is taken into account in the definition of human. We don't call dogs humans. Lots of people want to grant human rights to dolphins and chimpanzees.

There was an amusing Philip K Dick story in which abortion was legal up to the age of 12, because that is when the ability to understand algebra develops. Obviously it was a satire along the lines of Jonathan Swift's 'modest proposal'.

Kilkrazy wrote:No, I'm saying that cognitive development is taken into account in the definition of human. We don't call dogs humans. Lots of people want to grant human rights to dolphins and chimpanzees.

There was an amusing Philip K Dick story in which abortion was legal up to the age of 12, because that is when the ability to understand algebra develops. Obviously it was a satire along the lines of Jonathan Swift's 'modest proposal'.

Obviously Phillip K Dick never had a teenager. That abortion age would have gone up to the point the door hits their butts on the way out the house.

Teenagers-why amnesia is under rated.

If we are to argue about the definition of human as a means of condemning abortion as a form of murder, it is clearly necessary to define the starting point of when a foetus becomes human.

Kilkrazy wrote:If we are to argue about the definition of human as a means of condemning abortion as a form of murder, it is clearly necessary to define the starting point of when a foetus becomes human.

And that's the problem that both sides of the argument runs into. No one can define it so everyone is happy. Christians believe that it is human instantly, and evolutions depend upon other factors, like what you're saying. Nobody's ever going to figure out the exact moment when a child is human.

Ay and there's the rub matey! Argghh

Has International Speak Like A Pirate Day come around early this year?

Argh you know it arghhh...

mcfly wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If we are to argue about the definition of human as a means of condemning abortion as a form of murder, it is clearly necessary to define the starting point of when a foetus becomes human.

And that's the problem that both sides of the argument runs into. No one can define it so everyone is happy. Christians believe that it is human instantly, and evolutions depend upon other factors, like what you're saying. Nobody's ever going to figure out the exact moment when a child is human.

In my view the argument is pointless.

Clearly people who agree with abortion do not view a foetus as human or they would agree it was murder.

Lots of people do agree with abortion , or at least they accept that abortion of unwanted foetuses is an unfortunate, undesireable but necessary thing. The purpose of legalized abortion is to set sensible limits and protections on what otherwise happens illegally.

In the UK, the legality of abortion is set according to the age of the foetus compared to normal term of pregancy. It's 24 weeks except in special circumstances. That's about the time that a foetus can have a good chance of survival if born prematurely and given modern life support.

The number of abortions that take place outside the limit is very small and depends on medical agreement for them to take place.

Hey KillKrazy, off topic here, but what time is it there?

Ratbarf wrote:

As for Capital Punishment, yes it should be done. The whole point of a justice system is to take the meeting out of revenge away from the hands of people who might do something extreme, but to fairly discover the crime that was committed and meet out a punishment that is equal to the crime committed. If you killed my cat, I should be able to seek restitution in the form of something that is of equal value (taking in emotional value as well) and either take it from you or destroy it. If you take the life of someone, the state/their family should be allowed to take yours. Personnally I think that once guilt has been ascertained in a murder or rape case, sentencing should belong to the victim/the victims kin.

Ahh, so two wrongs do make a right.

mcfly wrote:Hey KillKrazy, off topic here, but what time is it there?

Right now it is 3:47 in the afternoon.

Greebynog wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:

As for Capital Punishment, yes it should be done. The whole point of a justice system is to take the meeting out of revenge away from the hands of people who might do something extreme, but to fairly discover the crime that was committed and meet out a punishment that is equal to the crime committed. If you killed my cat, I should be able to seek restitution in the form of something that is of equal value (taking in emotional value as well) and either take it from you or destroy it. If you take the life of someone, the state/their family should be allowed to take yours. Personnally I think that once guilt has been ascertained in a murder or rape case, sentencing should belong to the victim/the victims kin.

Ahh, so two wrongs do make a right.

Not quite.
You kill someone = Wrong
Society kills You =/= Wrong

The Death Penalty is Society protecting itself from those that would harm it.

The Death Penalty and Abortion in the same thread! Someone needs to bring up Gun Control, and that'd be the triangle for American politics.

Too late! I already said that hahahhah I win! What do I get?